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."
The bomb was fake, so obviously he didn't attempt to kill Americans.
- These characters were randomly selected.
(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.
Yup.
"The bomb Mohamud had tried to detonate was fake. The test explosion was staged. There was no secret council of militant leaders seeking a gifted Somali-American teenager to wage jihad. Youssef and Hussein were undercover FBI agents."
https://www.buzzfeed.com/nicol...
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=-
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 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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
If that's not entrapment, I'm not sure what is.
You're not sure what entrapment is, then.
Entrapment is when the government agents make you commit a crime that you weren't otherwise willing to do. For example, if they threaten you or your family, that's entrapment. If they make you believe that what you're doing isn't actually a crime, that's entrapment. If they manipulate circumstances to where you believe you have absolutely no choice but to commit the crime, that's entrapment.
What is not entrapment is asking "Hey, are you willing to commit a crime?". It is also not entrapment to hand you the tools to commit the crime, and it's also not entrapment to drive you to a location for the crime, hand you the tools, and pay you a lot of money to commit the crime. Those things are not entrapment (though their legality may depend on having proper authorizations and approvals in place). You still have the option to avoid all criminal culpability by not doing the crime (though even if it turns out the tools they gave you were fake, what matters is that you thought they were real). If someone offers to help you and/or pay you to commit a crime, you can walk right down to the local police department and tell them all about it.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Based on what evidence you assert that assumption?
That's based on the fact that he willingly went along with the first guys to offer support.
It's not entrapment. It's a sting. There are very important differences, and you'll find the situation to be much less perplexing once you understand those differences.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
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
I am sort of in agreement with what you say, but you are phrasing things so incorrectly, you're still distorting the meaning of entrapment.
Entrapment is when the government agents make you commit a crime that you weren't otherwise willing to do.
This is wrong. Obviously, if gov't agents "make" you commit a crime, that's entrapment. But the lack of overt coercion does not mean the agents have a clean indictment. The standard is, "you would not have committed the crime without the active inducement by law enforcement to commit the crime".
Ifs not entrapment to merely ask, "Hey, are you willing to commit a crime?". But once law enforcement goes beyond that point they risk sabotaging the legal case. If they "hand you tools" which would otherwise be beyond the ability or inclination of the perpetrator to make/acquire, that's still entrapment. Also, if they paid you "a lot" of money, which they knew you needed for medical treatment of a loved one, that would be considered "entrapment", because those agents, knowing how desperate the target was, induced the target to commit a crime society would normally believe they would not do. If the crime was murder, it would not be considered entrapment, because no normal citizen would consider committing murder for money. If the crime was fraud, that's a lot easier to argue entrapment, if the perpetrator was "induced" to do something they normally would not do.
Speaking out of this context, I really don't appreciate the legal argument these defense lawyers are trying to make. The argument, as far as I can tell, is not entrapment. They are arguing that the evidence collected via FISA wiretaps should be inadmissible, because the defendant has American citizenship but the person he was talking to was not a citizen, thus the conversation required a warrant to be admissible. Given how the SCotUS has gone roughshod on standards, allowing evidence even when it originated from an "accidentally" improper manner, the defense team will probably lose, and set precedent to further erode the legal rights of American citizens.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
What about the case when the government spends a year getting you into the state of mind where you say "yes"?
There is a difference between what is legally entrapment and what people think should be entrapment. This falls into the latter category.
I think that the purpose of these operations is to make the real terrorists afraid of any communication, not knowing if they are communicating with a real jihadist, or an agent of the FBI. It sucks to be the poor person who is used by the FBI as their communications disruption tool.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
If there's evidence, present it.
...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.
Well the guy did attempt to murder people, so it's hard not to convict him for it. On the other hand for every terrorist there are 1000 times more people who play around with the idea but are never going to act on it unless someone else really takes him by the hand and guides him through it. So the attempt would not have happened unless it was for the FBI. That is why a terrorism expert like Marc Sageman in his studies doesn't even use the people the FBI turns up with. The FBI is only helping themselves with these cases, not reducing terrorism.
The question is, why is this a common practice in the US?
Do they need more people in prison for slave work?
Do they get a bonus for case numbers?
Do they think catching a few unstable people benefits the society?
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
Pepsikid, in cases like this, Google serves up gold and shit pretty well mixed together. If you struck gold, be generous and share it. Spare our hands (and minds) sorting through shit.
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.