Terrorism Case Challenges FISA Spying (buzzfeed.com) 108
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, you don't seem to be *doing* anything about it, it's safe to conclude that you've come to terms with it - unless being passive aggressive is "doing something" and I'm missing something? If you're not doing anything about it then, well, it seems you have come to terms with it. Sad, really. Run for office - even if it's just a small and local office at the start. Get out and petition your neighbors. Preaching to the choir and ranting on a site full of like-minded people implies that you've accepted that
What a World (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
It has always been that way. Anyone claiming rights beyond what the government allows have been labeled a criminal.
As long as you don't want to go beyond the limits the government sets there is no need for you to contest those limits.
Next time the government says that someone is a criminal, remember that it doesn't necessarily mean that it has anything to do with what is moral.
Re:What a World (Score:5, Informative)
Since when has that ever not been the case?
Seriously when? the only way to legally challenge a bad law is by being the victim of it being used against you.
Do you not know how this country works? It is why we have innocent until proven guilty so we can challenge bad laws.
Re: What a World (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, don't vote Republican either they started a great deal of this mess and a great deal of Obama's crap comes from continuing Bush's shit. A lot consider him Bush 3.0 on economic issues.
And as for the last election, Obama didn't win because he was liked. He won because he was against Mitt Romney and as bad as you think Obama is, he was still better than what he ran against. During that election, I really didn't see anyone who voted for Obama but I met plenty who voted AGAINST ROMNEY.
Just like the coming election, the next batch of republicans tend to be batshit crazies or full on sellouts. And while I personally hate Hillary and hope for Bernie to win, Hillary would still have a very real chance of winning put against the current batch of republicans because as sad as her history, track record and honesty is, she still has them beat, even as a sellout herself.
FYI, I am not a liberal, I am a moderate.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And as for the last election, Obama didn't win because he was liked. He won because he was against Mitt Romney and as bad as you think Obama is, he was still better than what he ran against. During that election, I really didn't see anyone who voted for Obama but I met plenty who voted AGAINST ROMNEY.
I get the impression that a lot of people, on both sides of the aisle, do this. People vote Democrat to keep the evil Republicans out and other people vote Republican to keep the squishy liberal Democrats out. Nobody is actually voting for the person, just against the other one in a two-party system. Is it any wonder we end up with people we don't like, regardless of our political affiliation? And is it any wonder neither the Republicans nor Democrats want to see a third party come to the fore?
Re: (Score:2)
Realistically, the Democrat or Republican is almost always going to win, so it makes sense to vote for the lesser of two evils if that's what you've got. If a third party came to the fore, it would replace either Democrats or Republicans before too long, and we'd be back to the two-party system.
If you really don't like your choices at the voting booth, and want to do something about it, you need to get involved in the party political process, so you have some influence on who is the Democrat or who is t
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What a World (Score:5, Informative)
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
Re: What a World (Score:1)
He is an American citizen on American soil. He has rights.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure you have either, because if you had you would see that the violation of law is only one of the required qualifiers. In other words, the first hurdle to be passed is that a criminal act must be committed. Then, *in addition* to that it must also have other characteristics. But let's not mince words and instead quote:
`(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--
`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
`(B) appear to be intended--
`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.
Re: (Score:1)
The (un)patriot act cannot subvert inalienable rights. Even if you allow yourself to believe it.
Not really (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
And, once you file suit, you can use legal motions to attempt to find if you've been harmed. It's a neat little Catch-22.
It's the lawyers, not the convict (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:It's the lawyers, not the convict (Score:4, Informative)
Re:It's the lawyers, not the convict (Score:4, Insightful)
Right or wrong, noble or unpatriotic; these concepts are not relevant at all to the lawyers.
They are not relevant to ANY lawyer.
Part of being a lawyer is knowing going into it that you WILL have to essentially do something 'wrong' during your career. It is by design and part of the system on purpose, to protect the defendants and complainants. You can't abandon a case when you find out the defendant is guilty as sin because it makes it obvious that the defendant is guilty and taints their case either way. As a lawyer you must work to find the best outcome for your client regardless of your personal opinion because ... you can't do anything to hurt them (unless you want your career to end and be disbarred for life) which abandoning them would taint the court/jury opinion and thats unfair because your opinion could in fact also be incorrect. Its a tricky mess from the start that requires our lawyers to be scumbags.
It is something lawyers MUST accept from the get-go.
This is also how you know every lawyer you meet is a scum bag who has no moral fortitude, it is required as a function of the job that they be willing to sell their souls.
Fortunately the kind of people who become lawyers really have no moral fortitude anyway and are in fact sell-outs to begin with ... and unfortunately we have a lot of those kinds of people ... who when then elect to run the government ... which then make more laws to require more lawyers and ... welcome to one of the reasons America is so fucked up and FISA not only was contemplated but actually exists ...
Re:It's the lawyers, not the convict (Score:4, Interesting)
One point: it is not "wrong" for a lawyer to defend his client to the best of his ability, and do his best to get an acquittal, EVEN IF THE CLIENT IS GUILTY.
The criminal defense lawyer's purpose in life is to ensure that the government plays by the rules. Period. So anything he does to that end is, by definition, "right".
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it is.
Re: (Score:2)
No. The supposition is that if the prosecution can prove the defendant's guilt beyond all reasonable doubt in a fair trial then the verdict will be guilty.
Actual guilt is irrelevant, or you lack a justice system.
Re:It's the lawyers, not the convict (Score:4, Insightful)
A lot of the basic principles of how our legal systems work are based on greater-good arguments like this. The ethical requirement for a lawyer to represent their client faithfully and to the best of their ability is probably necessary for an adversarial court system to function effectively, for example.
The trouble with greater-good arguments is that someone usually winds up the unlucky one, and if we're talking about legal/government issues, the consequences for the unlucky one can be severe. Whether your the hostage whose ransom wasn't paid, or the innocent who was mistaken for a terrorist by armed police, or the victim in court who has to relive a horrific assault from the witness box under cross-examination by the defence, or the wrongly convicted "murderer" sent to jail for life, it wasn't your fault that you got screwed by the system, but you still got screwed all the same.
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 great if you're the innocent who got the benefit of the doubt, but not so great if you're the next victim of the 10 guilty ones who also got the benefit of the doubt. There are no easy answers to these issues. For some, there are probably no perfect answers at all.
Actually, it's because corrupt government is worse (Score:2)
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 t
Re: (Score:2)
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 co
Re: (Score:2)
One point: it is not "wrong" for a lawyer to defend his client to the best of his ability, and do his best to get an acquittal, EVEN IF THE CLIENT IS GUILTY.
Not for all values of "guilty". It is not ethical, and in fact against both the rules and the law for a lawyer to lie on his clients behalf. So if the lawyer knows that his client is "guilty" (a client can't by definition be guilty, since the court hasn't ruled on the matter yet), through e.g. a private confession, but the client then instructs his lawyer to act as if that wasn't true, then the lawyer must recuse himself.
As the information exchanged between the attorney and client is privileged, he can't te
Re:It's the lawyers, not the convict (Score:5, Insightful)
Fortunately the kind of people who become lawyers really have no moral fortitude anyway and are in fact sell-outs to begin with ... and unfortunately we have a lot of those kinds of people ... who when then elect to run the government ... which then make more laws to require more lawyers and ... welcome to one of the reasons America is so fucked up and FISA not only was contemplated but actually exists ...
Seems to me putting a lawyer in a position where s/he can make laws is a conflict of interest.
Though every time I post this it gets argued and modded down.
Re: (Score:2)
> Seems to me putting a lawyer in a position where s/he can make laws is a conflict of interest.
Setting precedent with this sort of case is a once-in-a-lifetime dream for many lawyers. And "precedent" is a critical part of modern court proceedings: so it's critical.
Not enough (Score:1)
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
Justice Brandeis on why govt must obey the law (Score:3, Insightful)
I honestly havea hard time deciding where to stand (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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'
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
You misread the GP. In that hypothetical scenario, the defendant is the government.
Entrapment is entrapment (Score:1)
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 autom
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 incumbent
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you consider the revolution rather than settling, then you're right.
Re:I honestly havea hard time deciding where to st (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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" [yale.edu] 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 explic
Re: (Score:1)
> 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
So the first guy with a pointy stick is our new warlord?
All laws are ultimately enforced with deadly violence. We keep forgetting that fact.
What's the problem? (Score:3)
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"?
Re: (Score:3)
Where's the "difficult puzzle"?
The "difficult puzzle" is that due process is a drag to the government and they want a legal precedent to continue to ignore the constitution, badly.
Re:What's the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean by "caught"? It makes sense to stop criminal proceedings, but we really don't want to start convicting people for crimes they didn't have a chance to commit.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the whole case is pointless. It simply makes no sense to convict anyone for something they didn't do. There was no crime, there was no possibility of crime happening.
that doesn't make sense. Just because a crime didn't happen doesn't mean a crime wouldn't have happened. By that logic every crime stopped prematurely lacks the fruit for conviction because it didn't happen
It only proves that he could trigger the detonation of a bomb to kill people if manipulated by someone. But being such a person is clearly not a crime. Maybe this could be a reason for supervision and psychological support, but 30 years in prison is ridiculous.
This is the core of the argument. That anyone could be manipulated into pushing the button. But was he going to push the button or was he manipulated into it. That's the difference between a criminal who was stopped before he did something horrific and a guy who got caught up. The courts have thus far dec
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Surely there's space in the world for a conspiracy type charge?
He was plotting to set off a bomb. He tried to set off a bomb. You're suggesting that shouldn't be illegal?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He was plotting.
I stated it, and you claiming there was no plot doesn't change his behaviour, his intent and the illegal nature of plotting to commit murder through use of an accelerated reaction.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But was he going to push the button or was he manipulated into it.
If the button had set off a bomb, that had killed people, would the manipulation defense have any standing?
FISA was crafted to fix this (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Law Enforcement Agencies: But getting a warrant is HAAAARD! It takes time! And it's so limiting versus just doing whatever we want to do! If you don't let us just do whatever we want to whomever we want, the terrorists win!!!!!
(Sadly, this is pretty much law enforcement agencies' actual argument.)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
I'm going to assume this is a sincere question and not just a troll. The two main answers would be because there is precious little evidence that routine mass surveillance does in fact make anyone safer, and because that form of surveillance may have additional much less desirable consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that the NSA FISA stuff wouldn't have stopped 9/11. The CIA was already monitoring the communications of those terrorists. When the terrorists crossed the border into the USA they were supposed to inform and possibly hand the case over to the FBI. Instead the CIA decided they wanted to glory hog and didn't tell the FBI anything, despite some of their own agents actually pushing to turn it over. Basically at least one person, if not more, in management at the CIA shares just as much blame for 9/11 as
So, let me get this straight... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Using a salt lick isn't sporting.
It's Been Here Before (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Korea was a UN military operation. It happens that the commanders, and most of the troops and ships, were from the US, but that didn't make it a US affair.
It did convince the Soviet Union that leaving the Security Council in a huff was a bad idea.
Hard cases make bad laws (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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?