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
This crap is never going to stop as long as the evil Rethuglicans are in power.
How are we, the U.S., different from East Germany?
I come here for the love
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.
Must be tough looking at innovation everywhere and not seeing anything exciting come to the court room since the tape recorder. :/
Was that
A> warrantless wiretapping was only being done when it involved one foreign contact on the other end.
B> such wiretapping couldn't be used as evidence in any trial anyway.
Essentially a splitting of hairs but the US citizen be brought up on charges.
This is now turned on its ear - the Obama Administration is saying they can gather evidence on you WITHOUT permission (IE Illegally!) and they can charge you with a crime so long as they inform the accused they gathered such information... Illegally...
WTF has this country come too?!
A lot of times you don't use information you have because it would reveal your methods and sources. But now that a lot of NSA methods and sources are known, they can use the information out in the open like this. Assuming the court accepts it as admissible under rules of evidence.
We are the 198 proof..
There's an on-the-record public interview with Scalia from which the parent took their claim. You could, y'know, fact-check what people say before mocking them.
He's a representative sample of what the U.S. government has become, and that's by no means limited to either component party of the Ruling Class.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
... hang high during a policy shift.
And the home, of the alleged.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
It's sad to see the US turning into a police state. Or perhaps it's too late, that's been done, and they're just dotting the I's and crossing the T's.
If this evidence is deemed acceptable, you can expect the scope of the surveillance to expand dramatically as there is suddenly a reason for tapping the people in-country: prosecution. You can expect widespread surveillance to capture gang bangers, drug dealers, and probably even the guy next door who works "under the table" to avoid paying the IRS.
Modern technology gives the government powers far over and above anything that has ever been available before when it comes to monitoring the population. And not merely monitoring, but controlling. Unlike with television, the "message" you get on the internet can be customized and tailored based on where and how you're surfing from. Newspaper sites have already been doing this for years, tailogring the news based on which nation someone is surfing from.
I must admit I would never have predicted the abuses that I'm seeing happen. There was so much hope for the benefits of the internet when it was starting that no one ever really discussed the potential for abuse. Worse, you can't even try to stop the abuse because if you implement the end-to-end encryption that can prevent it, the government comes down on the companies involved to force them to stop. You're not allowed to maintain your privacy through a service like LavaBit in this new surveillance society.
There was a Sylvester Stallone movie years ago that porttrayed an idyllic society above ground where it was illegal to even swear, and where in-room monitors spat out tickets for such offenses automatically.
Is that where our world is headed? Towards a stale and staid managed society where any crime is a major shock because the people have stopped even thinking about performing criminal acts because they expect to be caught immediately if they try? It sounds like a lifestyle of fear and repression far beyond anything even the Nazis or East Germany ever dreamed of.
I'd say that it all starts with this case, but we all know that's not true. It started years ago, when the surveillance began. This case is merely a continuation of the world government's mission to enslave humanity.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
... 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 !
Please, stop regarding the Constitution (of any country) as some sacred document. In every country, including obviously despotic states where the judicial system is staffed by the reigning dictator's stooges, the Constitution is simply what the supreme court of the land says it is. So effectively the Supreme Court IS the constitution. Sure there are violent and non-violent ways to fix the problem, throwing out the government or the simpler political expedient of impeaching and throwing out the recalcitrant justices.
Speaking of sacred texts, even the Bible, Koran, etc are subject to interpretation by whoever preacher/guru/imam you want to listen to. So even those documents are by no means clear as to what they mean.
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.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the SCOTUS judges are absolutely immune from uproar. The only thing that can affect them is bribes, favors and power distributed sub rosa among them, their families, and their co-conspirators (here, I'm giving them credit for the intelligence they claim, in that I do not believe for a moment that they know not what they do.)
To put it another way, nothing they do WRT liberty will affect their income, social standing, property ownership, freedom, or cocktail party invitation stream.
The problem is the constitution is toothless: There is no penalty or other mechanism for punishing those who violate what is supposedly the highest laws in the land.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Wireless wiretaps started around 10 years ago and now your lovely government starts using them as as Kafka style "evidence". Who needs this pesky "proper" evidence after all. Two years ago Obama, (in typical, cowardly way - on New Year Eve), signed NDAA that contains sections 1021 and 1022 that allow government thugs to jail citizens at whim and keep locked them indefinitely in military facilities without evidence and without access to court. Who needs this pesky judge after all. Guess when (NOT 'if') your ruling class will start using it in large scale against citizens they don't like. Countdown has started, folks.
It is rare for the Federal Government to invite a test case over a practice that is clearly unconstitutional.
If we accept the premise that the Federal Government does not take on a "test case" unless it knows it is going to win, we can conclude quite reasonably that not only has the SCOTUS majority opinion already been written, but also that this is going to be the final nail in the coffin for the 4th Amendment.
to create a "6 degrees" map of every US citizen to someone like OBL, or some other foreign target. By doing so they can justify continued eavesdropping on communications of US citizens by claiming their surveillance is targeting this foreign person, and look- "this us citizen is only 3 or 4 people away from the target! Looks like a possible connection there- we better keep listening!:"
I'll bet it isn't hard to link even the most tea-bagged, gun toting, bible thumping, hillbilly in 'merica to OBL if you have all the "metadata".
The car is going over the edge of the cliff and the American people are in it. These maneuvers have nothing to do with crime, terrorism, or anything else. The system is evolving to protect itself against the eventuality that the people will rise against it with force of arms. And there is a good chance that will happen when people realize they have been betrayed.
The wiretapping, the saturation of police forces with ex-military shooters, the warrant-less seizures. Its all pretty simple: they are broke and they are laying the groundwork to maintain control as the car plummets towards wherever its going to end up.
These guys are not stupid and they will do whatever they can to scare/cow/kill the public into toeing the new line. They are probably doing it "for our own good" to keep the patriots from deserting en-masse or turning against them.
Its as simple as that.
The "global village" is also smaller than before. You don't need to live next to somebody in order to learn about them, their quality of life, or their values etc.
That said, many people just read Fox News and prefer to ignore that there is any world outside their local city/state, let alone country/continent.
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.
* I heard this a respond with: state secrets, secret evidence, and secret courts. Even without the previous being common, there's always the increasing use of an "anonymous tip" provided by some mysterious outside entity (couldn't be from an illegal wiretap, no siree)