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."
"The US is using its national intelligence agencies to obtain intelligence on terrorists trying to kill people".
Mostly BULLSHIT.
"The intelligence agencies themselves don't have police powers".
Fully BULLSHIT.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has both an intelligence function and police powers. Their primary purpose is to "secure the nation from the many threats it faces". You can be arrested and imprisoned for such things as whistle-blowing, opposing the status quo, being an unapproved immigrant, trying to enter or leave the country without permission (could get you shot on the spot), and many other possible infractions. No gap between them but the propaganda gap.
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
What really matters is how and why the average person does not wake up and realize that the America they were taught to believe in does not exist, and how their own philosophical, intellectual, moral, and character flaws prevented them from seeing this at the very beginning. There is indeed something wrong with a person who argues passionately about minutia like sports and television shows while their nation is decaying. None of that could be an accident.
A religious bigwig recently came back from Europe and commented that it is a "spiritual desert".
The problem with the average American you describe is that s/he is the product of a philosophical desert. People here literally don't know how to think, instead worshipping spirits, technology, sports, sex, money, consumerism; The consummate 'mainstream' American leading the Good Life is a confluence of all of these. I personally know people who have recoiled with revulsion when I casually described pure scientific research as an occupation (e.g. "scientists" are thought of as ensconced within for-profit corporations trying to discover things that are either convenient and/or lethal); both times there was no larger political, religious or other context to the discussion apart from talking about some of the people we know. The first time I chalked it up as a fluke misunderstanding; the second person I knew had understood and it frightened me to my core.
This country now produces strident anti-intellectuals: People who worship technology and "science" for its pure power and ability to effect a result. In some ways they're as alienated as can be from The Enlightenment that ostensibly produced our Constitution. Polls show they--most Americans--love the surveillance state.
Philosophical discussion is regarded as unforgivably weird and threatening here, even among people holding four-year degrees. If you lose the ability to probe concepts in general, you lose the ability to effectively probe/question authority (though making an ineffective, self-immolating show of it never goes out of style).