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.
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.
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.
"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...
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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
You misread the GP. In that hypothetical scenario, the defendant is the government.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.