Slashdot Mirror
Terrorism Case Challenges FISA Spying (buzzfeed.com)
An anonymous reader writes: As we've come to terms with revelations of U.S. surveillance over the past couple years, we've started to see lawsuits spring up challenging the constitutionality of the spying. Unfortunately, it's slow; one of the difficulties is that it's hard to gain standing in court if you haven't been demonstrably harmed. A case before the 9th Circuit Appeals Court is now testing the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act in a big way, and whatever the outcome, it's likely to head to the Supreme Court. The case itself is long and complicated; it centers on a teenager who joined a plot to detonate a huge bomb in Portland, Oregon in 2010, but his co-conspirators turned out to be undercover FBI agents.
The case history is worth a read, and raises questions about entrapment and impressionable kids. However, the issue now being argued in court is simpler: the defendant was a U.S. citizen, and the FBI used FISA powers to access his communications without a warrant. Crucially, they failed to notify the defendant of this before trial — something they're legally required to do. This gives him and his lawyers standing to challenge the constitutionality of the law in the first place. It's a difficult puzzle, with no clear answer, but oral arguments could begin as soon as January for one of the most significant cases yet to challenge the U.S. government's surveillance of its own citizens.
The case history is worth a read, and raises questions about entrapment and impressionable kids. However, the issue now being argued in court is simpler: the defendant was a U.S. citizen, and the FBI used FISA powers to access his communications without a warrant. Crucially, they failed to notify the defendant of this before trial — something they're legally required to do. This gives him and his lawyers standing to challenge the constitutionality of the law in the first place. It's a difficult puzzle, with no clear answer, but oral arguments could begin as soon as January for one of the most significant cases yet to challenge the U.S. government's surveillance of its own citizens.
"As we've come to terms"
Who the fuck are you to think you speak for anyone other than yourself?
The only ones able to stand up in court for our constitutional rights as Americans... are the terrorists. What a fucked-up world we live in.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
storm troopers.... was ibm keeping count of the bodies whilst the bush bankers made war? was our media honest with us then? ask ed snowden continues here on /.... blaming ed snowden for terror is so scripted massacre media uncaring hogwash... truth+ mercy=justice,, motive = results without fail & despite promises we repeat ourselves ... repeatedly https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozgJiJ5tCe4
Let's all get stupid.
Because terrorist and molester.
They see a technicality that can be exploited and they're exploiting it. Right or wrong, noble or unpatriotic; these concepts are not relevant at all to the lawyers.
Regardless of the outcome of this, a likely result is a legislative change to prevent future use of the exploit.
As for the article, it's a very long read but what it seems to come down to is he was convicted for pushing the button when told that pushing the button would harm people. Which is reminiscent of a psychological experiment I once read about and I'm pretty sure that most people in that would push the button.
Spy secrets are not secret to God.
If you can't yet grasp the Truth, grasp the truth about liars.
eg. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120102/
When you watch it, consider Angela Merkel and pals with regard to "refugees" and the EU immigration problems.
Who is the problem. No question mark because it is not a question.
We should also ban cars. Cars are used by criminals and terrorists for transportation, bombing, and drive-by shooting purposes.
They are also used by pedophiles to quickly kidnap children and transport them, as well as survey elementary schools and playgrounds.
The risks of terrorists and pedophiles having their disgusting practices enabled by cars far outweigh the rights of the majority of society that doesn't constitute terrorists and pedophiles. If that isn't possible, then every car in existence should be outfitted with mandatory sensors, and people fitted with chips, that give off an alarm every time a person over 18 is near a playground or school, and their IDs should be put into a potential sex offender list for preventive purposes.
If possible, there should also be a program of using the cameras in public areas to snap pictures of any and all individuals making eye contact with children that are not their own, and their identities put into a potential sex offender registry that should be made public, so as to minimize risks of pedophiles acting before they do so.
There should also be a program of pigeon extermination. Pigeons and birds are easily trained animals, and can carry messages and communications outside of the reach of our intelligence agencies and military, which poses a danger to society by enabling terrorists to communicate in a manner even more secure than using encrypted messaging via Internet.
"Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperilled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means—to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal—would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face." http://www.fjc.gov/history/hom...
never ending wmd on credit genocidal holycost never ends? phewww
He means the vast majority of voters are too stupid to care let alone know... except people who watch John Oliver 8-) https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Especially in the light of the recent bombings in Paris it's tempting to react emotionally, but I think I'll stand with "rather let ten guilty people go than one innocent one be jailed".
I prefer a justice system rooted in the principles of democracy and due process rather than allowing tools that smell more like the stuff out of the cold war KGBs arsenal. I prefer my law enforcement with oversight and someone to watch the watchers. Yes, that means that this time we'll probably have to let one of the bad guys go.
But at least this means that the chance that the state turns into the bad guy at one time is lower. And that threat is far, far worse than all the terrorists on the planet could be combined.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
but I think I'll stand with "rather let ten guilty people go than one innocent one be jailed".
A very noble, yet ultimately futile, gesture. The days when a judge rules in favor of a defendant because the Authorities did not follow proper procedure are long gone. The proof of that are all of the "feel good" "think of the children" Laws that do nothing to address the issue at hand, but rather infringe on the Rights of all Law-abiding Americans.
I predict this Judge will uphold the conviction citing some obscure document, or even just because the kid is a "Bad Guy", and effectively validating the FBI's clear violation of the kid's Rights, and, by extension, the Rights of ALL Americans.
unspoken,, unthinkable...? yet another dumb question for ed snowden here on /...
I fail to see the point of this article, if there is one. If a substantial part of the evidence was obtained illegally without a warrant or other grave procedural mistakes were made, then the case needs to be dismissed. If the mistakes are less grave, then only part of the evidence might have to be dismissed and the case can go on. This holds for suspected murderers, horse thieves and terrorists alike. It's called "due process".
Where's the "difficult puzzle"?
After the Church Committee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... the US had some very clear, simple, easy, not new domestic legal standards about what could and could not be done to US citizens.
All the past illegality surrounding domestic dragnet warrantless spying on US citizens was to stop. The abuses of law presented in both open and closed settings needed to stop.
If a US citizen, get a rubber stamped, covers everything, open 24/7, easy to submit paperwork for warrant and its all 100% good every case.
Thats what the Church Committee requested after all its findings in the 1970's, just return to the US Constitution and everything the US gov wants to do domestically is 100% legal again.
The "clear answer" is just get a warrant, like in any case over the decades then legal teams have much less standing to challenge before any US court.
The other plus of having a real warrant is that the conviction is sound, no methods get mentioned in public. An attempted appeal might not even get started and be denied.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
As sad as it is to say it, I really hope they actually manage to get the Terrorist off on this.
It honestly feels like they were trying for this just to have the most slanted test bed case to set a precedence in the direction they want it to go.
And if our choice is to let a single terrorist free or have a horrible precedence set on a horrible law that can negatively impact, ruin or even kill thousands or even millions. It is in our best interests as a people and a nation that this worthless turd go free.
As the saying goes,
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."
Right now, we have a crisis in the Middle East. Tens of thousands of refugees from Syria are trying to enter the United States. Among them are likely a few members of ISIL who are coming here to attack us. We don't need them here, but there is no good way of vetting the refugees. ISIL has also been very effective at recruiting people from western nations including France, the UK, and the US. We need a way to find out who among the refugees entering the country are terrorists and who currently in the US is being recruited to join ISIL. The enhanced surveillance that the FISA court has authorized the NSA to conduct is the best way to identify these terrorists before they attack us. We don't need a repeat of the Paris attacks or 9/11, and the surveillance is the single best tool to prevent those things from happening again. Why are you guys so obsessed with making America less safe and making it easier for terrorists to operate?
The FBI clearly failed to comply with even the cursory procedural requirements imposed on their nigh-unlimited power; and this is a 'difficult puzzle'?
How low can you go? I realize that terrorists are super scary and stuff; but if you can't comply with the onerous burdens of the FISA court, the one with 24/7 top-secret-clearance judges on call; and 'retroactive warrants', and similar user-friendly features; what exactly can you be trusted with? They wouldn't let someone that sloppy and/or dishonest operate a cash register.
This case doesn't even have a "We need to strike a balance between security and civil liberties, guys!" angle: the FBI got everything they could possibly want; and just couldn't be bothered to follow the rules of evidence during the trial. It may well be that kiddo is a real hard case(or will be before this is over); but it would appear to be the FBI that needs some housecleaning.
So basically they manufactured an enemy to justify a budget. Without the FBI creating the terrorist plot to rope this boy into, there was no plot, he was just a hot head without means or opportunity. So the terrorist plotters here are the FBI!
I remember DeLorean, where they roped him into a drug deal, and it was entrapment. They leveraged his desire to pay back creditors into a crime to prosecute.
Now we have Paris, where these were known targets, yet somehow unwatched and managed to get explosives and automatic weapons, and somehow this went all unnoticed (perhaps too much time looking at celebrity dick pics, or spying on politicians, journalists and campaigners, or perhaps something more sinister).
So these went from hot-heads to terrorists, how did they get the bombs? The CIA? How do we rule that out if the cases are done in secret? If you're saying the FBI can manufacture a terrorist plot to get *potential* terrorists, then when one of these plots goes too far, how are the FBI not the major terrorist plotter!! And how would we know? They'd slap the FISA secrecy all over it, and pretend it was a real plot.
Actually, the USA was founded by religious nutjobs. Or rather, in a little less loaded words, people who felt their religion was important enough to leave their home and go where they needn't accept whatever imaginary buddy their lord wanted them to pray to. The rest pretty much follows this.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
No, Australia was founded by criminals. The USA was founded by people sick of being persecuted for their religious beliefs - who then turned around and persecuted people for their religious beliefs once they got some power.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
We don't need them. All we need are Draw the Prophet competitions. These draw the extremists out very effectively and are fast and cheap while also available to the mainstream. They are also transparent while highlighting the difference between extremist ideologies and free speech, as well as the value of that free speech. Meanwhile, the intelligence community breaks their oaths to the constitution, is not transparent in any way, is ineffective, costs too much, breaks our judicial system, and essentially creates their own criminals to prosecute instead of finding and shutting down real criminals.
Reacting emotionally is what people in power count on. Something bad happens (or threatens to happen) and those in power are all too eager to "help protect us" by increasing their powers. After all, when the threat passes, they'll give up the powers, right? Of course, they'll keep manufacturing threats if real ones don't exist or make minor threats seem like major ones. Anything to keep their powers for a little longer. And if they have their powers long enough, it will seem only natural for them to have these powers and nobody will resist. In fact, if they need a little more power to deal with this new threat, that's not a problem, right?
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
And yeah Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia
That's the myth, but the Puritans were persecuting people for their religious beliefs long before they were essentially exiled from England. Their beef from the beginning was that the Church of England was too tolerant of other religions, specifically Catholicism.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
The days when a judge rules in favor of a defendant because the Authorities did not follow proper procedure are long gone.
The hell they are. Try brining a case against NSA. The authorities will not follow proper procedure and the judge will rule in favor of the defendant.
> rather let ten guilty people go than one innocent one be jailed
Those ten guilty then go on to murder ten times 10 people.
So? Jailing an innocent implies that the guilty will go free then too.
The rule to rather let a criminal go free than let an innocent be punished is not only there to make sure that falsely accused people aren't punished but also to make sure that the investigation proceeds until the right guy is found.
If someone murdered ten people and you can prove 9 then you are letting the one who murdered the last one free if you blame it on the first guy.
No, Australia was founded by criminals. The USA was founded by people sick of being persecuted for their religious beliefs - who then turned around and persecuted people for their religious beliefs once they got some power.
Well, Georgia (of the US) was founded as a sort of prototype for Australia as a dumping ground for the "poor subjects" of the UK which included a few criminals. Maryland was also another big destination for exiled criminals.
And the degree of persecution depended on the state. Massachusetts was the most notorious, though there was religious persecution of one sort or another in the early decades of most of the original colonies. Pennsylvania and Rhode Island on the other hand were very liberal with explicit laws against religious persecution.
Wasn't America founded largely by Freemasons?
Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
I know it's good to have this in court and all, but it would be a lot better if the defendant in the case weren't a terrorist.
Television broadcasts armed violence (crime) and outside of wedlock sexuality (sin) all day and night as the american role model.
Really? Sex outside of marriage is nothing to be concerned about, unless you decide to not educate people about it. And there is no such thing as sin. If there is an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent god, everything that goes on in the Universe must be just fine with him.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
The Highest law in the lad requires them to name the places to be searched and the items to be seized. Not what WAS searched or seized. The warrant must be established beforehand
When two laws come into conflict, the higher law prevails, and the highest law is the U.S. Constitution and only a Constitutional Amendment can change that.
The one problem with their world view (which you describe so nicely) is that *eventually* the excesses become to much. People do not truly become inured, but they do want to live their own quiet lives and are willing to put up with a lot in the hopes of maintaining the illusion. But there is a limit, and when that is reached you have a very rough time. Like the French Revolution.
The end result of the turmoil may not be a better life for the average person and it may not wrest power from all of the incumbents -- but that is not something on which they can count. Regrettably, for many who are in power they do not acknowledge this inevitability and the closer things approach such a turning point the more they grasp for additional power in the belief that they can secure themselves from repercussion.
Here's hoping that the tide turns before things get to a point of blood and death. Its not pleasant for anyone to live in such turbulent times.
The only ones able to stand up in court for our constitutional rights as Americans... are the terrorists. What a fucked-up world we live in.
Not really. You have to show standing. If you can prove you've been harmed by the violation of your rights in some way other than being arrested, you can sue.
Whites are systematically raping and killing our beautiful black babies all over the world, and you guys are worried about this bulshit? Truly trifling. Seriously you liberals need to start framing all stories in the context of how it affects the African American community and their struggles against the oppressive white male hegemony. Especial emphasis should be given to the plights of transgendered female African Americans. If you can show how the African American community will be especially hard hit by Albanogenic climate change. (that is climate change caused by whites) you will get bonus points.
If you do not follow these simple rules you are in danger of being labeled a conservative, or even worse someone will call you white. I know you are better that that. You have no business talking if you can not include African Americans in your conversation.
-Regards -Hillary.
Wow, you're one pissed off White guy. What's the matter? Did someone threaten your position in society?
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Bull. A vast majority go in favor of the government.
And this is where you start seeing things like calling people terrorists or traitors for exposing the problems in the system. Because people who speak out against those in power might hinder those in power from getting more power. They might even cause those in power to have LESS power. Obviously (to those in power) this cannot be allowed so laws are crafted to criminalize this. It might start slowly with armed resistance (something which is already illegal for much better reasons than "we need it to be so to maintain our power") and then slowly expands into "talked about our programs which we wanted to keep secret." If those in power had their wildest dreams come true, merely expressing disagreement with those in power would be illegal.
NOTE: This doesn't just apply to government officials. The same could be said of companies who attain great power in their markets. For example, Cable ISPs (who have monopoly powers in most markets in the US) using every trick they can to prevent online streaming from causing too much cord cutting. In the case of companies, you just add another layer where the "in power" company uses lobbyists (and other methods) in order to make sure laws are written in their favor.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
You misread the GP. In that hypothetical scenario, the defendant is the government.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
We can channel our anger into substitutes much better than we can channel our need to do something between our thighs into other parts of our life. Which is why those chapters of the bible demanding female virginity (also, because pregnancy) are impractical. The original bible was forgiving of prostitutes, meaning pre-marital sex wasn't a big deal and many chapters of the bible happily ignore pre-marital sex and even incest.
Why should the American role-model be full of your religion? The USA is a closet theocracy and militant empire, bleating about the evils of an open theocracy and militant empire, ISIS. Now ISIS has other problems but failing to treat it as a government, which it is, means the only solution allowed is 'war on terror' instead of DMZs and containment. As Paris has proved twice this year, self-righteous warfare isn't working.
The usual argument to this is an all-powerful being created the universe so his pets could choose to admire his beneficence or not. But the presence of hell, means freedom of worship is just a long game to punish those realizing the all-powerful being has 'left the building'. We see this dogma in the television show 'Supernatural'.
Well, if you consider the revolution rather than settling, then you're right.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
In the past the US has been restrained by the Supreme Court in situations in which war is not declared. So far we have no declaration of war in regard to the terrorists. We have another term called a police action. Both the Korean War as well as Vietnam were police actions and not wars as such. President Truman tried to take over the steel industry in order to well supply our troops in Korea. The court disallowed that takeover less than 24 hours after Truman announced it. If we had had a declaration of war against N.Korea the decision would probably have been to allow take over by executive action.
It's often said that "Hard cases make bad laws", but our narrow rules pertaining to standing to challenge an unconstitutional law make sure that only hard cases will be heard. Evidence obtained from illegally intercepting communications under FISA won't be used against the average Joe or even against the low level criminal (we have Parallel Construction for that. In the end, the truly bad laws can only be challenged by the most despised people - terrorists, crime lords, drug kingpins, etc. When that happens the judge will be thinking two things - 1. I can't let this scumbag get off on a technicality and 2. If I follow the constitution and this guy walks then I'll never be appointed to a higher court or find a job in the private sector if I ever decide to leave the bench.
The narrow rules on standing present a structural obstacle to challenging bad laws and all three branches of the government like it that way.
When will you guys come to terms with the reality that this wi not be overturned by the supreme court
Thus we also get ethical arguments that it is better to let 10 guilty men go free than to convict 1 innocent man and so on.
That's not what the ethical issue is about. The issue is "Who Watches The Watchmen?" This issue has been an identified at least since the Roman Empire.
The problem of how to effectively enforce the law on the enforcers of the law is a very difficult one. Militaries and police forces are made up of humans, with human failings. On one hand, they may break the law when convenient. On the other they tend to identify as "us" - the enforcers - vs. "them" - the citizens. One of their number who tries to bring another in for lawbreaking becomes ostracised, as every other rank-and-file officer worries that he's next. Setting up separate departments to police the police just moves the problem one step back.
The solution found by the US courts is the doctrine of the "fruit of the poisoned tree": If the police, prosecutor, etc. break the law in their efforts to apprehend, search for evidence, and/or prosecute their case, everything resulting from that lawbreaking is thrown out. That usually breaks the case beyond redemption and the accused goes free. So lawbreaking by cops and prosecutors is deterred - not by punshment, but by it being counter-productive.
Yes, that means, when the police and/or prosecutors start breaking the law, lots of really bad guys go free (along with any falsely-accused good guys who were illegally processed). But a corrupt criminal justice system is SO MUCH WORSE than ANY number of other sorts of bad guys that it's a good trade.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The problem of how to effectively enforce the law on the enforcers of the law is a very difficult one.
That's certainly a valid concern, though I think it's a separate one to the reasons lawyers are normally ethically bound to represent any client to the best of their ability in an adversarial system.
The us-and-them culture you refer to also seems to be particularly strong in the US, and it appears from the outside to be a serious and growing problem, though that could just be bias in which news makes it to my part of the world. If you asked most police officers here in the UK, I think you would find that community relations are valued at all ranks, and there is a great deal of genuine concern within the police service itself about political meddling and orders from on high that can and in some cases do jeopardize those community relations, particularly following a series of high-profile screw-ups on that score in recent years.
But a corrupt criminal justice system is SO MUCH WORSE than ANY number of other sorts of bad guys that it's a good trade.
Yes. The fruit of the poisoned tree argument is another of those greater-good principles I was talking about.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.