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."
(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 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.
-- H.L.Mencken.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Murder is unconstitutional... Doesn't mean you can use a confession made under torture to convict.
I HATE this expression. Having documents rejected because you used a blue pen instead of a black pen is a technicality. In this case, and nearly every case where you see this phrase - substitute police and/or prosecutors breaking the law. That's what this is. It is definitely NOT a technicality.
Youssef and Hussein were undercover FBI agents."
So these agents, paid with my tax dollars, recruited, trained, encouraged, and entrapped a teenager in a make believe crime when he would have otherwise been studying for his midterms. It is so wonderful to see how my government is keeping me safe.
there wouldn't be so many terrorists if our governors behaved in a decent manner, and applied a rule of law to all actions, domestic and international.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
The bomb was fake, so obviously he didn't attempt to kill Americans.
Right, but he thought it was real. And that's what the law considers. In fact, you can go to prison for selling fake weed or pills, even if you know they're fake.
If I read the case right it appears that the the FBI pretty much pushed him into doing this (which never should have happened) but his intent was clearly there, despite being egged on by the very people who are supposed to be preventing this shit.
The FBI seems to have manufactured a criminal act=, and whether he would have done this on his own without them seems dubious at best. But he went along with it, and that's what the court is focusing on.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
So these agents, paid with my tax dollars, recruited, trained, encouraged, and entrapped a teenager in a make believe crime when he would have otherwise been studying for his midterms. It is so wonderful to see how my government is keeping me safe.
Yep, the very people that are supposed to be preventing this shit are actually the ones promoting it and facilitating it. The FBI agents should be on trial, in my opinion. This guy was a nobody who was essentially encouraged by the FBI into committing a criminal act.
If that's not entrapment, I'm not sure what is. It's certainly facilitating what the target thinks is a criminal act, even if it was all staged.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Is it breaking the law to not detonate a bomb that doesn't exist?
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.
But the real nugget is that the FBI manufactured and facilitated this whole thing from start to finish in order to be able to claim they caught a "terrorist". That's what this is really all about- upping their stats.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
And there's evidence that Omar Mateem, the Pulse mass-murderer, was being cultivated for a similar operation. He was reported repeatedly for his violent and radical views, and the FBI let him off after a little chat. He just surprised them by going queer hunting instead of waiting for the target and timetable they were preparing for him.
But by THEM taking him and training him it wasn't possible for other terrorists to train him.
Same logic as me taking a bomb on every plane ride. There has never been a plane with two bombs and I know I won't explode mine, so the flight is safe.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So these agents, paid with my tax dollars, recruited, trained, encouraged, and entrapped a teenager in a make believe crime when he would have otherwise been studying for his midterms.
I doubt he would have been studying for his midterms. He would have just looked for another source of a way to attach infidels.
Based on what evidence you assert that assumption? This could have potentially been your standard angry young person that had trained professionals manipulating him and pushing him. I have always found the American acceptance of entrapment to be perplexing.
Yes, you are correct about the legal definition of entrapment, but it's still ridiculous. The Milgram experiment showed that under the right circumstances you can manipulate 2/3 of people into killing somebody!
In other words, the FBI can pick somebody at random and probably figure out how to get that person to commit a Federal crime. It is not beneficial to society to have an arm of the government whose job it is to randomly choose people for imprisonment.
The fact that this sort of behavior is not only legal but commonplace is shameful.
dom