US Terrorist Conviction Appealed Over Use of NSA Data (independent.co.uk) 101
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."
Re:technicality (Score:5, Informative)
The bomb was fake, so obviously he didn't attempt to kill Americans.
Re:technicality (Score:5, Informative)
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... [buzzfeed.com]
Re:technicality (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:technicality (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
If there's evidence, present it.
Re: (Score:1)
Poor starving troll!
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
No, mang. The rule is, you don't make people Google for you. And if you're my friend, I want your detailed report of evidence in that respect. Bye.
Re:technicality (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, you are correct about the legal definition of entrapment, but it's still ridiculous. The Milgram experiment [wikipedia.org] 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 lega
Re:technicality (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re: (Score:1)
Well, the CEOs running the private prisons across the USA will always make room for another inmate, as long as you include a regular monthly check with him.
Hookers and blow ain't cheap.
Re: (Score:2)
The question is, why is this a common practice in the US?
Because it is easier to scare people into telling politicians that they want their rights taken away than it is to argue why they should be taken away.
Do they need more people in prison for slave work?
Always. A slave workforce competes with the civilian workforce and drives down wage costs. An all round win win for those with the capital.
Do they get a bonus for case numbers?
Probably.
Do they think catching a few unstable people benefits the society?
No, but they are certainly easier to manipulate than sane normal people who would say "I'm not doing that, are you fucking crazy"
Re:technicality (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Look, a new member of the no-nothing party.
Re: (Score:3)
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 int
Re: (Score:2)
What about the case when the government spends a year getting you into the state of mind where you say "yes"?
That is called brainwashing, and makes the gov't agent(s) partly guilty of the crime.
Not exactly (Score:4, Interesting)
...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 [cbsnews.com] 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Thought crime? Interesting.
At the very least, I would expect conspiracy.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
According to what I've read, that could indeed meet the definition of entrapment. It goes beyond mere "facilitation", and I suspect if those circumstances were part of your case you might very well get it thrown out.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Right.... that's not entrapment, that is conspiracy.
If a person offers you to do any of those 3 things after you come to agreement to commit a crime, their action is a furtherance of the crime, then that person is an accessory and conspirator to the crime, and just as guilty as you.....
Re: (Score:3)
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 wit
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re:technicality (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
the difference is that the psychological influence is more subtle in a sting - but it's still possible that the guy would never have done anything without FBI prodding.
The FBI didn't prod. He proposed, and they answered.
Re: (Score:2)
He proposed what where to whom
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I understand the difference; they already had him on numerous charges without playing the entire episode out to the point of placing a fake bomb. Yes sure, they offered multiple alternatives, prayer, made him aware there will be children and women present, no one is saying this terrorist aint a stinking pile of shit, but the FBI had him when they did the "practice run".
While technically waiting to make the arrest with the fake car bomb is not exactly entrapment, the sting operation could have concluded with
Re: (Score:2)
I understand the difference; they already had him on numerous charges without playing the entire episode out to the point of placing a fake bomb.
Maybe, and maybe not... either way, if they let him just continue, the prosecution's case is that much more complete.
Yes sure, they offered multiple alternatives, prayer, made him aware there will be children and women present, no one is saying this terrorist aint a stinking pile of shit, but the FBI had him when they did the "practice run".
And at all those points, he could have said "no", and walked away... That'd be the law-abiding thing to do, and would be the easy way out of the sting.
While technically waiting to make the arrest with the fake car bomb is not exactly entrapment, the sting operation could have concluded with the detonation or even construction of the "test" bomb.
It depends on the particulars, but probably not, actually. In several states, building bombs is perfectly legal. Setting them off is also perfectly legal. In fact, I have done so personally in the past. Usually (and in my case) what would be il
Re: (Score:2)
I have always found the American acceptance of entrapment to be perplexing.
We have very specifically crafted rules around what makes up entrapment, and what makes a sting. The FBI is very careful to follow these rules, because they don't want all of their hard work to get thrown up. Plus, I suspect, that they would rather be spending their effort on someone wanting to commit the crimes, not someone who isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
I have always found the American acceptance of entrapment to be perplexing.
We have very specifically crafted rules around what makes up entrapment, and what makes a sting. The FBI is very careful to follow these rules, because they don't want all of their hard work to get thrown up. Plus, I suspect, that they would rather be spending their effort on someone wanting to commit the crimes, not someone who isn't.
One area of entrapment probably was met: This terrorist POS had limited ability to construct, plan and carry out such attack. One could argue that the FBI agents were able to provide the support (albeit in a very limited sting operation sort of way, i.e. the POS taking the lead) to push him along to carry out his plans.
1) The idea for the crime must have originated from the government agents and not from the accused person.
2) Government agents persuaded the person into committing the crime, as opposed to ju
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure they want to do that. And it's useless. The criterium should be 'what are the chances the guy would commit the crime if we ignore him?'
Re: (Score:2)
This is completely wrong. I mentioned Marc Sageman in another post, he's an expert on these things. Statistically many people are somewhat sympathetic to terror attacks in some form, but only the tiniest minute fraction will actually go ahead by themselves and do it. Even the fact that some people are very radical in their statements is no indication. The FBI approach of coaxing som
Re:technicality (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
There has never been a plane with two bombs
Got ya! ;) [ww2today.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Undercover Cop Disgracefully Tricks Autistic Student into Selling Weed, Court Denies Family Justice"
http://www.rollingstone.com/cu... [rollingstone.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Oups
"The Entrapment of Jesse Snodgrass"
http://www.alternet.org/civil-... [alternet.org]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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 with
Re: (Score:2)
Mens Rea, Guilty mind, aka Criminal Intent.
Great!
I'll take a small box and put a big red button on it and label it "Planetary Core Detonator", put it on a bench in a park, and then we can put to death anyone that pushes the button for attempted mass murder, genocide, and crimes against humanity for trying to destroy the Earth. They had the intent, right?
"Mens Rea" is not the only factor. Other factors must be present, like means and opportunity.
If they just took some random idiot hater with no means or opportunity (knew nothing about bombs or bomb-m
Re: (Score:2)
The bomb was fake, so obviously he didn't attempt to kill Americans.
A fake device is still terrorism, because the fundamental purpose is still to cause people to fear for their life, in order to chill their behavior or achieve political ends. Because the scare from a fake threat will still disrupt law and order, and prevent the planned event going forward.
Also, the motivation can still be the same..... disrupt Americans' culture, way of life, freedoms, by causing security backlash or additional co
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Keep allowing law enforcement to commit crimes to catch criminals, that will send a message to the people.
Re: (Score:2)
So, the obvious answer here is to prosecute both him and the LE officers that broke the law.
Is it breaking the law to not detonate a bomb that doesn't exist?
Re:technicality (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
So if I make you a dinner with tomatoes and think that tomatoes are poisonous, I'm in for attempted murder?
Re: (Score:2)
It all depends; did you accidentally spill the beans to anyone, in particular law enforcement? ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
So if I make you a dinner with tomatoes and think that tomatoes are poisonous, I'm in for attempted murder?
Yes, if you really thought you were feeding me something that was poisonous, you could in theory be charged with something. Possibly attempted murder, but I'm not sure what the actual charge might be.
As far as I know, it's a crime in every state to "deliberately poison food, drinks or medicine intended for human consumption". Penalties include fines and up to several years in prison.
So yeah, if you really thought you were poisoning me, yes, you may indeed be charged. In this case it's all about intent.
Silly me (Score:2)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
So if I'm not selling drugs, but I *believe* that's what I'm doing, I can be put in jail
Yes, and people have gone to jail for it.
-
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.
No, because (theoretically) "ignorance of the law is no excuse", unless you're Hillary Clinton. The whole "intent" thing is tricky to prove in court, it's a huge, subjective gray area.
But as far as Hillary Clinton, goes, personally, I think she should be charged and convicted, just as Comey said he'd do to an FBI agent guilty of the same "misbehavior". It's a crime to "mishandle" classified information, and I think it's pretty fucking clear that's what she did.
-
And here I was, thinking that evidence of a crime is what you went to jail for.
Silly me...
Yep
Re:technicality (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
IIUC, H.L.Mencken was pretty much down one everyone. And was popular because he did so in such elegant verbiage. It's not really proper to call someone who dislikes everyone an anti-semite just because he includes Jews as a part of everyone.
OTOH, I admit I'm judging him by his reputation. I haven't read much by him, because biting put-downs aren't my thing.
Re:technicality (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: technicality (Score:2)
Scope creep (Score:5, Insightful)
(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.
Unconstitutional? (Score:2)
Re: Unconstitutional? (Score:1, Insightful)
Murder is unconstitutional... Doesn't mean you can use a confession made under torture to convict.
As a matter of fact... (Score:2, Informative)
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 b
Re: (Score:3)
Not quite. The Constitution is a limit on the powers of the us.gov.
Murder is illegal, not unconstitutional. Unless the killer is acting in a government capacity, in which case the 4th Amendment might apply (see #blacklivesmatter for details, though).
Re: Unconstitutional? (Score:2)
Murder is illegal
Under Federal law?
Re: (Score:2)
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???
That pesky rule of law thing always gets in the way.
Re: (Score:3)
The two guys who were training him for a year, radicalizing him and providing him with a trigger to pull at the right moment, were in fact FBI agents. So was he *really* going to bomb anybody or did they put this thought into his mind and the evidence on his lap? Entrapment is a tricky thing, and especially in this case if it indeed involved unconstitutional wiretapping.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, trying to blow people up isn't unconstitutional. The writers left that kind of law up to the states.
Damnit NSA (Score:3)
I find myself rooting for the terrorist to win, and I'm ok with that.
And I am NOT ok with that.
Re:Damnit NSA (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
I almost feel for the prosecutors, but fuck 'em! (Score:1)
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!
Aiding and abetting (Score:1)
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 vict
The problem is how they tried to get him (Score:2)
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 lo
Catching dumb terrorists (Score:2)
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.
9th Circuit (Score:3)