Slashdot Mirror
US Terrorist Conviction Appealed Over Use of NSA Data (independent.co.uk)
The Independent newspaper reports that the warrantless NSA surveillance programs revealed by Edward Snowden are facing a constitutional challenge in court for the first time:
Lawyers for Mohamed Mohamud have argued that surveillance evidence used to convict the Somali-American man, found guilty of plotting to bomb a Christmas tree-lighting ceremony, was gathered in a manner that was unconstitutional. The lawyers laid out their arguments on Wednesday before a panel of judges of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Portland, close to the plaza where Mohamud tried detonating a fake bomb that was part of an undercover operation...
Stephen Sady, Mohamud's lawyer, urged the court to grant his client a new trial on the grounds that the evidence used against Mohamud should never have been permitted in the courtroom. Mr Sady told the judges that using surveillance information on foreigners, which does not require a warrant, to spy on any Americans they communicate with was "an incredible diminution of the privacy rights of all Americans⦠That is a step that should never be taken."
Last year saw a record number of wiretaps authorized by state and federal judges -- 4,148, more than twice as many as the 1,773 that took place in 2005 -- and not a single request was rejected. (More than 95% were for cellphones, and 81% for narcotics investigations.) But The Independent notes that U.S. law enforcement officials have admitted they also "incidentally" collect information about Americans without a warrant, and then sometimes later use that information in criminal investigations. In Mohamud's case, which dates back to 2010, "There's no doubt he tried to explode a car bomb in America," writes Slashdot reader Bruce66423, arguing that this case "elegantly demonstrates the issue of how far legal rights should overwhelm common sense."
Stephen Sady, Mohamud's lawyer, urged the court to grant his client a new trial on the grounds that the evidence used against Mohamud should never have been permitted in the courtroom. Mr Sady told the judges that using surveillance information on foreigners, which does not require a warrant, to spy on any Americans they communicate with was "an incredible diminution of the privacy rights of all Americans⦠That is a step that should never be taken."
Last year saw a record number of wiretaps authorized by state and federal judges -- 4,148, more than twice as many as the 1,773 that took place in 2005 -- and not a single request was rejected. (More than 95% were for cellphones, and 81% for narcotics investigations.) But The Independent notes that U.S. law enforcement officials have admitted they also "incidentally" collect information about Americans without a warrant, and then sometimes later use that information in criminal investigations. In Mohamud's case, which dates back to 2010, "There's no doubt he tried to explode a car bomb in America," writes Slashdot reader Bruce66423, arguing that this case "elegantly demonstrates the issue of how far legal rights should overwhelm common sense."
Yes, let's let a guy off who clearly attempted to kill Americans as a terrorist off because of a technicality. That'll send a message to the terrorists!
I feel sorry for that guy's lawyer. He must get a lot of hate mail, defending the war on christmas and all...
(More than 95% were for cellphones, and 81% for narcotics investigations.)
This is the real news here. The vast sweeping surveillance powers that the government granted itself for "national security" reasons, and that they double pinky swore would only ever be used for terrorism investigations, are now routinely being used for drug cases and other things that have ZERO to do with national security. It's not like this wasn't predicted. The surveillance needs to stop.
The article states the evidence was "gathered in a manner that was unconstitutional." I hate to state the obvious, but isn't trying to blow people up unconstitutional??? ..or something???
I find myself rooting for the terrorist to win, and I'm ok with that.
And I am NOT ok with that.
This signature is false.
Freedom for "criminals" is just collateral damage from abusing the law. That's just too fucking bad. Maybe, if they would stick to prosecuting terrorists instead of chasing drugs and gambling, we could say, *carry on*.
On the other hand, the other AC's point of charging the officers for violating the constitution instead of letting the guilty go is right on!
Can we get Stephen Sady thrown in jail for aiding and abetting a known terrorist?
I mean yeah we have evidence that shouldn't have been entered, but it none the less points to a guilty verdict of someone planning to commit a terrorist act. It's one thing if the guy admitted guilt under the duress of torture which we know leads to false convictions, but it sounds as though he's trying to get his conviction over turned on a technicality.
I hope he wins and walks free.
I then hope the lawyer becomes the next victim of his terrorist attack.
No - trying to blow people up is not unconstitutional.
No - murder is not unconstitutional.
Most of the constitution deals specifically with the form our government takes, such as the three branches of our government.
Generally, when most people talk about unconstitutional, they are talking about our constitutional rights, such as the freedom of speech.
What the constitution does does is establish the process by which federal, state and local governments can enact legislation that makes things like 'trying to blow people up' and 'murder' illegal, not unconstitutional.
This is a good thing because by and large the constitution does not lay out any penalties for violating constitutional rights. Ask yourself, what is the penalty for the government violating your right to free speech?
So if you 'try to blow people up,' that is illegal. In order to punish someone for that crime, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed the crime pursuant to the constitutional rights of the accused, such as trial by jury and due process.
If the government violates the constitutional rights of the accused, then evidence can be tossed and convictions can be overturned.
I was under the mistaken impression that law enforcement facilitating or creating criminal activities was in fact illegal and could get people off of all sorts of charges if it was brought up publicly in court.
I am pretty sure a number of cop dramas from the 80s and 90s focused on exactly this scenario and usually had the bad guy getting off, sometimes being an actual innocent, and other times being a real criminal who the justice system failed to convict due to their own shortcomings (which had to be remedied and potentially had fatal consequences before finally allowing them to net the bad guy, alive or dead, based on HARD evidence of a crime. You know,, the kind law enforcement is SUPPOSED TO HAVE or the perp walks?)
Law Enforcement in America is fast approaching the level of third world nations with cops letting people off for sufficient bribes. The only difference is rather than paying the guy on the street you usually do it through donations somewhere further up the chain and it's known you're a 'VIP' when you do something wrong.
But a teenager being coerced by cops to commit a crime sounds analagious to the Columbine shooters getting their equipment from the FBI so they were instead shooting blanks with fake bombs, then getting arrested and tried for shooting up their school, even though the FBI facilitated and incited it (Mind you it was actually one of their girlfriends who did so. I would love to know what was going through her head. I mean if you were a GF/BF wouldn't you be trying to KEEP your BF/GF from doing that sort of shit, so you could have a nice and happy life together?) Plenty of teenagers are angry and want to change the world through violence, seeing it as the fastest way to evoke change. That doesn't mean they will do it if given a glimmer that the world isn't as bad as it seems. And given the changes in modern American society I can certainly understand how more of them are feeling that way.
Entrapment last I saw was a valid defense, explicitly to keep law enforcement from taking unconstitutional actions like this in order to create crime.
So maybe next time the US Congress and Senate openly pass surveillance laws witch have gone through constitutional scrutiny by the leading scholars, experts and public discussions to avoid undermining police work and the rights of citizens? No? Really?
It's quite simple: If they upheld the law they swore to uphold, they would not be stuck with bogus evidence now.
There is by no means any shortage of very valid evidence they could get. It does take a little more work, though, they tried to pull a fast one, hoping that the towelhead can't afford a lawyer who could bail him and they lost. Sucks, but that's the logical consequence if you try to fudge.
The police has an incredible arsenal of very legal and very effective ways to gather evidence and even get a lot of leeway when it comes to luring potential criminals out of hiding. The line is drawn where they actually ENCOURAGE it. For good reason.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
This guy was never really a threat. Some undercover agents started asking around who wanted to plant a bomb. This genius said ok and the FBI made a fake bomb and let him press the button. He never would have done this by himself. Sure he deserved to be locked up but this was hardly some mastermind they captured.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
It's all about intent as far as the court is concerned. It's illegal to sell fake weed or crack, even if you know it's fake.
So if I'm not selling drugs, but I *believe* that's what I'm doing, I can be put in jail.
If I put classified information on an unsecured server, but I don't *believe* that I'm doing anything wrong, I won't be charged.
And here I was, thinking that evidence of a crime is what you went to jail for.
Silly me...
...what matters is you thought they were real
This type of tactic has been used countless times by law enforcement to a successful prosecution. However, entrapment is not as clear-cut as you make it out to be. It's really up to the court and jury to decide if the defendant was entrapped. There is an "objective test" which basically asks if anyone in the same circumstances would have done the same thing. Most states however employ a "subjective test" to help determine if entrapment had actually occurred.
Legal or not, it's still very murky water, because the tools were not, in fact, real; and no one was harmed. I can't help but wonder if not for the involvement of the FBI, would this person have ever committed a crime? I can't help but wonder if the person even did commit a crime! Does thinking that you are committing a crime, actually mean that you are committing a crime? Doesn't that make it a...thought crime?
Me: I thought I was doing 75 mph in a 65 mph zone.
Officer: No, the radar says you were going 65, I just pulled you over as a friendly warning that your taillight is out and you need to replace it.
Me: Yes, but I thought I was going 75. So, am I guilty of speeding?
There's a lengthy article here that outlines the "aggressive policing" used to fill prisons, and much of the history in and out of the courtroom, including SCOTUS, surrounding such actions.
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
Mohamud tried detonating a fake bomb that was part of an undercover operation...
The only way he tried to detonate a fake was if the government set him up. In other words the government lied to him.
Last year saw a record number of wiretaps authorized by state and federal judges -- 4,148, more than twice as many as the 1,773 that took place in 2005 -- and not a single request was rejected. (More than 95% were for cellphones, and 81% for narcotics investigations.) But The Independent notes that U.S. law enforcement officials have admitted they also "incidentally" collect information about Americans without a warrant, and then sometimes later use that
To even request a wiretap is rare. They track and monitor and store records 24/7. Do you think they are playing video pinball on all of those taxpayer funded data centers? Eric Schmidt works for Pentagon and Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook passes out your data like candy to any government agency that asks (with a gun).
So, first off - I think this guy is clearly guilty. That being said, any evidence that isn't gathered properly should never be allowed in the courtroom. Given that it's the 9th Circuit though - and the shitty rulings they've been making for a long time now - I doubt they'll do the right thing.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.