US must tell defendants when spying is used to build case against them(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
US must tell defendants when spying is used to build case against them
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/07/us-must-tell-defendants-when-spying-is-used-to-build-case-against-them/
4 comments
Good job reading the article. </sarcasm>
I'm agreeing with the ACLU lawyer, this is a good first step, considering it's never been disclosed in ~5 years:
> In the nearly five years since the FAA was enacted, the government has never once disclosed its reliance on material obtained through FAA surveillance to counsel’s knowledge.
> In the nearly five years since the FAA was enacted, the government has never once disclosed its reliance on material obtained through FAA surveillance to counsel’s knowledge.
I don't think you understand what is going on then.
The article is about the Justice Department (NSA is under the DoD). IE: This is about the FBI, DEA, ATF, and Eric Holder. NSA is an entirely different agency in a very different section of government.
The article is about the Justice Department (NSA is under the DoD). IE: This is about the FBI, DEA, ATF, and Eric Holder. NSA is an entirely different agency in a very different section of government.
FAA = "FISA Amendments Act". The FAA provides authority to the NSA for use of PRISM and other surveillance.
How would this legal precedent not effect the NSA if they are operating under the same policy as the other agencies you just listed? I don't see how being a part of a different higher level agency would change that.
How would this legal precedent not effect the NSA if they are operating under the same policy as the other agencies you just listed? I don't see how being a part of a different higher level agency would change that.
Because the NSA doesn't prosecute Americans. They don't have lawyers, they don't bring forth evidence in front of a judge. They don't investigate Americans either, so they cannot in fact be affected by this decision. Its impossible to prove a negation btw, so if you wish to "disprove" my statement, bring me a single court case where the NSA prosecuted someone during a public trial.
It just doesn't happen.
DOJ on the other hand, controls the FBI, ATF, and other federal police forces. It is the _job_ of a police force to bring you before a judge. This article states that when this happens, the DoJ is now forced to tell the judge (and the public, in the public trial) whether or not they used FISA powers.
NSA is different. Its a military agency run by a 4 star general of the army. They are military, and as a military-run (civilian) organization, they are subject to different rules and regulations that the DoJ follows. In particular, they aren't supposed to be investigating Americans in the first place.
And the people the NSA does investigate (ie: Bin Laden), they are allowed to do in secret... by nature of being a branch of the military. Military targets do not have rights, they don't receive warrants, they don't check with judges. At best, they check with the FISA court to prove that their target is a legal target of the NSA, but beyond that, they are free to do whatever they want.
Its the difference between a Police and the Military. The military cannot and do not afford their targets any rights. (and as a result, in theory, military run organizations are not allowed to control the US Homeland. Military powers are supposed to be used strictly only on America's enemies).
For this particular story... what we have here is the Federal Police Force (IE: Department of Justice) declaring that they'll follow a particular regulation from now on. It says nothing about the NSA however.
To tie this story into the NSA indicates a misunderstanding on how the US Federal Government works.
It just doesn't happen.
DOJ on the other hand, controls the FBI, ATF, and other federal police forces. It is the _job_ of a police force to bring you before a judge. This article states that when this happens, the DoJ is now forced to tell the judge (and the public, in the public trial) whether or not they used FISA powers.
NSA is different. Its a military agency run by a 4 star general of the army. They are military, and as a military-run (civilian) organization, they are subject to different rules and regulations that the DoJ follows. In particular, they aren't supposed to be investigating Americans in the first place.
And the people the NSA does investigate (ie: Bin Laden), they are allowed to do in secret... by nature of being a branch of the military. Military targets do not have rights, they don't receive warrants, they don't check with judges. At best, they check with the FISA court to prove that their target is a legal target of the NSA, but beyond that, they are free to do whatever they want.
Its the difference between a Police and the Military. The military cannot and do not afford their targets any rights. (and as a result, in theory, military run organizations are not allowed to control the US Homeland. Military powers are supposed to be used strictly only on America's enemies).
For this particular story... what we have here is the Federal Police Force (IE: Department of Justice) declaring that they'll follow a particular regulation from now on. It says nothing about the NSA however.
To tie this story into the NSA indicates a misunderstanding on how the US Federal Government works.
I don't understand, the first basic rule of intelligence services is you can't use any of their information in court. It's the basic premise behind giving them unlimited privileges.
Right, so the dragnet surveillance isn't good for regular, American-style, jury of your peers type of trials.
Dragnet surveillance is only good for guilt-by-association, which really has no place in US jurisprudence. That "voice of authority" type of guilt is un-American, and non-rational, when we get down to it.
Dragnet surveillance is only good for guilt-by-association, which really has no place in US jurisprudence. That "voice of authority" type of guilt is un-American, and non-rational, when we get down to it.
I dont see anything wrong with a simple acknowledge. there has to be some oversight on what information should be redacted, when they are used to build a case
You'd think they realized that at some point sanity and law would prevail and secret trials and evidence had no place under the Constitution.
NSA is a symptom. Secret courts (and "state secret" legal defenses) are the disease.
Limiting NSA through policy or defunding won't do anything. They'll circumvent it and it will continue to happen in secrecy somewhere else.
The only solution to stopping mass surveillance is allowing the ability for the state surveillance to be challenged in court. Secret panels of judges are insufficient means to having judicial checks on state power. The only way this can happen is if 'state secret' laws are revised and FISA courts stop issuing warrants in secret.