Slashdot Mirror
Federal Prosecutors, In a Policy Shift, Cite Warrantless Wiretaps As Evidence
schwit1 sends this quote from the NY Times "The Justice Department for the first time has notified a criminal defendant that evidence being used against him came from a warrantless wiretap, a move that is expected to set up a Supreme Court test of whether such eavesdropping is constitutional. The government's notice allows the defendant's lawyer to ask a court to suppress the evidence by arguing that it derived from unconstitutional surveillance, setting in motion judicial review of the eavesdropping. ... The practice contradicted what [Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr.] had told the Supreme Court last year in a case challenging the law, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. Legalizing a form of the Bush administration’s program of warrantless surveillance, the law authorized the government to wiretap Americans’ e-mails and phone calls without an individual court order and on domestic soil so long as the surveillance is “targeted” at a foreigner abroad. A group of plaintiffs led by Amnesty International had challenged the law as unconstitutional. But Mr. Verrilli last year urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the case because those plaintiffs could not prove that they had been wiretapped. In making that argument, he said a defendant who faced evidence derived from the law would have proper legal standing and would be notified, so dismissing the lawsuit by Amnesty International would not close the door to judicial review of the 2008 law. The court accepted that logic, voting 5-to-4 to dismiss the case."
There have been a lot of firsts for Eric Holder's corrupt and diseased justice department.
an ill wind that blows no good
Having lived in East Germany, I can tell you. East Germans didn't pretend they were free.
This is NOT a test of whether a warrantless wiretap is constitutional. It is a test of whether the Supreme Court is willing to blatantly disregard the fourth amendment AGAIN.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Like it or not, the Patriot Act effectively suspended the Constitution. Under the Patriot Act the government basically does as it pleases and they don't even have to tell anybody what they do. It is only because of Edward snowden that we even know about any of this. Will the supremes uphold the constitution? I doubt it. The Global War On Terror isn't over until politicians declare it over. Get some new politicians, and we'll see then.
The US can kill an American and his teenage son, yet no one can challenge the action because they were not directly affected. If all the relatives are taken out in one action, then the US is free and clear.
We can't just protest to have unconstitutional laws removed, we have to prove they were used on us. Simply keep quiet about parallel construction and you're good to go. If the defendant says "yes they did" and the US says "no we didn't", then the constitutionality of the law makes no difference, the US is free and clear.
This thing about not challenging a law because it doesn't affect you is bullshit.
If a law is unconstitutional, then it should be possible to challenge the law on its face.
"expanded it 100-fold."
How can you possibly know that? The Bush administration was arguably the most secretive administration ever. The fact that the Obama administration has let slip 100 times more than the Bush admin did, does not indicate that Obama is more prying than Bush. It MAY only mean that Obama/Biden is more inept than Bush/Cheney. That, plus there are more whistle blowers.
Maybe that was arguable a few years ago.
It isn't any more.
Obama's administration has made a mockery of FOIA requests, turned the IRS into a politcal attack dog going after political enemies, has had it's Attorney General held in contempt of Congress for failing to turn over documents, and hounds whistleblowes to the ends of the Earth.
Contrast all that to how the Bush administration treated Michael Scheuer and Joe Wilson when they leaked classified data critical of Bush during elections.
And I'd venture to say the way Obama fumbled events in Syria is pretty good evidence that's Obama is WAAAAY more inept than Bush.
I can see it now, gun nuts getting blown to bits by missiles and bombs they never even saw coming before firing a single shot.
Get over yourselves, you aren't protecting us from anything.
... there is NOTHING FREE !!!
I am speaking on experience.
I am an American, a naturalized American citizen.
I came from China.
I, and many others, risking our lives and swam to Hong Kong back in the 1970's. They were shooting at us, back then.
We risked our lives not because we were poor (and we were) but because there was NO FREEDOM for the people.
Everything that we did - who your friends were, where you been to, what you did, why you did what you did, everything - was under the watchful eyes of the BIG BROTHER.
I went to the United States precisely because, back then, the United States of America was the only country that could guarantee my freedom, because, back then, the government of the United States of America still had respect for The Constitution.
I became an American citizen precisely because I found the freedom that I had longed for.
That was back then.
Not now.
Nowadays, the so-called "freedom" has all but evaporated.
When the prosecutors (or rather, persecutors ) can charge people with warrantless wiretaps , what is the difference between the United States of America and the former East Germany under Stasi or China under CCP ?
Back when I became a naturalized citizen of the United States of America, my new government was still operating under the Constitution of the United States.
No more.
Under the Obama administration, I am sorry to say, the Constitution of the United States has become as valuable as soiled disposable diaper.
As an American, I am sad.
As one who was from an oppressed state, risking live in order to gain freedom, I am HORRIFIED.
I am watching THE COUNTRY THAT I ADOPTED turning into just like the one I ran away from.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
This has been true since the country was formed. Why is it only in the last 30 years that S.W.A.T. has been used at the drop of a hat and average police regularly go out with military-level gear?
No, we shouldn't. Armed yes, militarized no. The militarization is due largely to the drug war and departments dumping money into shit they don't need to and assuming a stance of force over communication with the citizens of whatever city they feel like pointing guns at.
I know it's very fashionable to compare US to the communist countries, which most of you haven't lived in, and aren't even old enough to have seen on TV. I did - and let me just say it's nothing alike.
Still, perhaps it's worth reading the "FA" to understand exactly what it means?
tl;dr; version - some US prosecutors have been using evidence so derived in criminal cases without notifying defendants. Sometime during this summer someone higher up in Justice Department became aware of this (I'll take this claim at face value for now) and after some discussion (and presumably some opposition from those prosecutors who found the practice very convenient) it was decided that hiding the warrantless wiretaps from defendants is not acceptable (based on the way the law is interpreted).
Based on that, find 3 differences between US and East Germany. I'll take a stab at it:
1. There is a discussion in the prosecutorial branch wrt. legality of application of such law, and the outcome of that discussion is factual information provided to defendants, that may aid in their defense.
2. The court will take this in consideration, and we will see this debated, probably at every level of judiciary all the way to Supreme Court.
3. We are reading about all of this in the major media news outlet.
Do you need me to tell you which of these items did not apply to the "Soviet Russia"? You, people, have no f-ing idea and your childish fits undermine legitimate efforts to create more transparent government and more just society.