Slashdot Mirror
DOJ: Defendant Has No Standing To Oppose Use of Phone Records
An anonymous reader writes with news of a man caught by the NSA dragnet for donating a small sum of money to an organization that the federal government considered terrorist in nature. The man is having problems mounting an appeal. From the article: "Seven months after his conviction, Basaaly Moalin's defense attorney moved for a new trial, arguing that evidence collected about him under the government's recently disclosed dragnet telephone surveillance program violated his constitutional and statutory rights. ... The government's response (PDF), filed on September 30th, is a heavily redacted opposition arguing that when law enforcement can monitor one person's information without a warrant, it can monitor everyone's information, 'regardless of the collection's expanse.' Notably, the government is also arguing that no one other than the company that provided the information — including the defendant in this case — has the right to challenge this disclosure in court."
This goes far beyond the third party doctrine, effectively prosecuting someone and depriving them of the ability to defend themselves by declaring that they have no standing to refute the evidence used against them.
Actually, it's both. From the article:
So not only didn't they collect evidence wrongfully, but the evidence they collected showed that he was innocent and they hid this from the defense. This isn't just slippery slope, this is greasing the slope and then shoving the American people down it!
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Or a different Supreme Court?
It's the one that ruled that government has the right to tax people to pay for something it was already paying for. Namely, hospital visits that the patient is unable to pay for. You know, since we won't allow the hospitals to refuse treatment to people who are unable to pay.
I know you're upset at no longer getting a free ride, but please, give it a rest.
What exactly in my post is "trolling"?
Moderators often confuse "I don't agree with you" with "Trolling".
They either haven't read or don't agree with the Slashdot moderation guide:
http://slashdot.org/moderation.shtml
Concentrate more on promoting than on demoting. The real goal here is to find the juicy good stuff and let others read it. Do not promote personal agendas. Do not let your opinions factor in. Try to be impartial about this. Simply disagreeing with a comment is not a valid reason to mark it down. Likewise, agreeing with a comment is not a valid reason to mark it up. The goal here is to share ideas. To sift through the haystack and find needles. And to keep the children who like to spam Slashdot in check.
Well, we now know that the NSA has been secretly and illegally handing off intelligence to other agencies (SOD, DEA, IRS, etc.) for years, telling them to cover it up for court cases via a process called "parallel construction". So it would be completely within their established modus operandi.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
It's not sanctimony to be upset about it
It's sanctimonious and hypocritical to pretend it's a matter of great concern, when you've spent decades ignoring the deaths of millions. It fits a political agenda, because it suits the US to declare the perpetrators terrorists. Many times that many people were tortured, killed and dismembered every single day of the Congo Wars.
Gen. Michael Hayden refused to answer question about spying on political enemies at National Press Club. At a public appearance, Bush's pointman in the Office of National Intelligence was asked if the NSA was wiretapping Bush's political enemies. When Hayden dodged the question, the questioner repeated, "No, I asked, are you targeting us and people who politically oppose the Bush government, the Bush administration? Not a fishing net, but are you targeting specifically political opponents of the Bush administration?" Hayden looked at the questioner, and after a silence called on a different questioner. (Hayden National Press Club remarks, 1/23/06)
---
Landay: "...the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution specifies that you must have probable cause to violate an American's right against unreasonable searches and seizures..."
Gen. Hayden: "No, actually - the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure."
Landay: "But the --"
Gen. Hayden: "That's what it says."
Landay: "The legal measure is probable cause, it says."
Gen. Hayden: "The Amendment says: unreasonable search and seizure."
Landay: "But does it not say 'probable cause'?"
Gen. Hayden [exasperated, scowling]: "No! The Amendment says unreasonable search and seizure."
Landay: "The legal standard is probable cause, General -- "
Gen. Hayden [indignant]: "Just to be very clear ... mmkay... and believe me, if there's any Amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it's the Fourth. Alright? And it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment. The constitutional standard is 'reasonable'" ( h/t Dale)
-- Knight-Ridder's Jonathan Landay questioned Gen. Michael Hayden at the National Press Club in January.
>> from my archive.
and the amendment in question.
---
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
---
" Statutes authorizing unreasonable searches were the core concern of the framers of the 4th Amendment."
"It is a measure of the framers' fear that a passing majority might find it expedient to compromise 4th Amendment values that these values were embodied in the Constitution itself."
--- Justice Sandra Day O'Conner, the first woman on the Supreme Court of the United States of America. 1981-2005 (resigned)
---
*"Cogito Ergo Liberalis"*
Legally, there are categories of searches that don't require a warrant.
The plain language 'Secure against ... unreasonable searches ... no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause' is that a reasonable search requires a warrant. Period. There is not an exception in the Constitution anywhere. They've been invented by people who find the protections embodied in the Constitution inconvenient.
The framers of the Constitution were not distant figures we don't know much about. We have the minutes of the meeting and letters they wrote arguing over the wording of the Constitution. In this case, they thought that saying that (paraphrasing) "any power the federal government wishes that isn't listed here they cannot have" was quite clear and that those who choose to ignore that will do so no matter what words they write. They wrote that it's our duty to stop those people. Some of the other rights are there specifically to empower us to do so. (now discuss why -those- are under attack too)