US says it will use secret surveillance evidence in court, opening door for ACLU challenge

[Indi Guy]

Source: The Verge

The United States has declared that it will use evidence from warrantless surveillance to pursue a man accused of aiding terrorists, another step towards a potential challenge to the FISA Amendments Act. A notice posted by The New York Times confirms the government's intention to prosecute Jamshid Muhtorov, charged with supporting and attempting to join the Islamic Jihad Union, using evidence obtained under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Specifically, the notice points to Section 702, which has been used to justify the NSA and FBI's internet surveillance program.

The notification comes because of a decision earlier in October, after a debate over whether the government was required to notify criminal defendants if they were being prosecuted based on warrantless wiretaps. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. said there was no legal justification to keep this information secret, despite the fact that the Justice Department had always done so. A previous filing in Muhtorov's case stated that the FBI had collected email and phone communications before going to the courts, and now it's confirmed that some of this will be used in the trial.

As the trial proceeds, it will give the ACLU and several other organizations something they've never had before: hard proof that an individual has been watched under the FISA program. Privacy groups have been pushing lawsuits for years, but courts have so far struck them down, saying that since there's no proof anyone involved was actually surveilled, they can't say they were hurt by it. A criminal case offers a rare chance to prove real, tangible harm; since the evidence would help the prosecution, Muhtorov has a legitimate complaint if it's potentially unconstitutional.


Read more: http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/28/5039372/us-to-use-warrantless-surveillance-evidence-in-court-case

[billhicks76]

1. Its still illegal

How many marijuana arrests are based on warrantless wiretapping?

[DontTreadOnMe]

3. C'mon... not true. Show me ALL the marijuana busts based on warrantless surveillance.

Show me the exact cases, or are you just making it up?

[Th1onein]

6. C'mon.......HOW would we know? These are secret programs. They've already said they reconstruct

the evidence trail.

[DontTreadOnMe]

8. So I guess you can't come up with an example?

You just presume that it is happening.. right?

[Th1onein]

18. LOL. Why would I need an example when they have ADMITTED it?

[billhicks76]

11. Don't You Follow The News???

The New York Times article and many others said the NSA's biggest division with the most infrastructure is dedicated to the DEA which uses it on a routine basis and to keep it secret has officers 'reconstruct' the trail of evidence to justify probable cause...essentially lying to judges and defense attorneys and in many cases prosecutors too. These revelations alone should overturn millions of convictions that violated due process. I truly don't understand why this is now blacked out and jumped on everywhere...is it too overwhelming? Seems pretty basic to me. I'm sure I dont have to provide the links since you're probably adept at Google.

[NCagainstMcCrony]

15. !!!

Sure seems like that is perpetrating a fraud on the courts. Thank god it's the popo doing it otherwise that might be illegal or something.

[billhicks76]

16. EXACTLY

It is not only completely illegal it puts into question all those convictions because due process means confronting your accuser and seeing the trail of evidence which includes what initiated an investigation based on probable cause because you aren't allowed to just go after people willy nilly. I think this is such a huge pandoras box the powers that be want to squelch it quick...it's why they lied in the first place, even to judges.

[DontTreadOnMe]

2. Ok, so the ACLU will now have proof that individuals are being watched under FISA

Last edited Tue Oct 29, 2013, 04:35 AM - Edit history (2)

Yes, the government has been withholding all information that it happens, and now the government will allow that information to be brought into the case.

So this will be the first case that will document a legal "warrant less" surveillance, that led to a high profile terrorist operation.

OK -- they caught the guy! He was funneling cash to a known terrorist organization. Is this NOT the exact thing the FISA is supposed to be doing?

I stand on the side that we, as a country, do "ANYTHING" to catch terrorist organizations. And that "anything", is FISA, and it has been declared LEGAL. If you do not agree with FISA, then overturn the law.

This is the same argument the Teabaggers are using about ObamaCare, saying it is not "legal". But it is the law!

And I am sure there will be plenty of people who will make the claim, that "ordinary citizen's" rights are being violated by FISA... SHOW ME. Show me a case were someone has been prosecuted for warrant less surveillance. Show me ONE case!

I am in total favor for FISA to be watching for large amounts of cash being sent outside the country. It's a flag for criminal activity.

Just think how much corporate criminal activity could be prosecuted... if FISA is used properly.

FISA can be changed to prevent abuses. But don't throw away the entire concept that there are terrorists that need to be stopped.

[PuraVidaDreamin]

4. Yeah, but...

Don't tread on me!

[DontTreadOnMe]

5. ...because I am not.. a terrorist

But we should tread on terrorists.

[Th1onein]

7. Sorry, but you're WRONG

FISA: FOREIGN Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Get that FOREIGN part? It's not to be used to spy on Americans. Warrant or no warrant, it's not supposed to be used to spy on Americans.

[DontTreadOnMe]

9. Charged in Colorado in January 2012 with providing material support to the Islamic Jihad Union...

a designated terrorist organization based in Uzbekistan.

Is Uzbekistan foreign? He allegedly wired large sums of cash overseas.

Still waiting for an example of a FISA case including marijuana....

[Th1onein]

17. It depends on who they were spying on, and where they were located.

The NSA is NOT supposed to spy on Americans. Period.

[Indi Guy]

14. 'I stand on the side that we, as a country, do "ANYTHING" to catch terrorist organizations.'...

I see.

[DontTreadOnMe]

10. The discussion on this case is very important, and I think most are missing the key elements

1. The case is ABOUT proving damages to a defendant. The defendant is claiming he was damaged by warrant less surveillance.

2. In ALL cases up to this point, the NSA has NEVER used any of the warrant less surveillance evidence in their case. Basically, they get a tip (such as an email or phone conversation), then they build a case on "other evidence" they find down the road. In this manner, they DO NOT have to disclose the "initial tip" information in the court proceedings.

3. This is what this case is all about. The ACLU is stating that the NSA or FBI should have to show all the surveillance.

4. So this is the first case where the NSA and FBI ARE showing that evidence.

5. The ACLU will now try to declare the warrant less evidence as illegal. They want to get a ruling on that evidence, since it has never appeared as evidence in ANY court case previously. You can't say it was "illegal" if it is never presented in the case.

6. The NSA feels they have a strong legal case, otherwise they would not be bringing the evidence into court.

7. The FISA laws are very broad when it comes to collecting emails and phone conversations. Please note, the LAWS are very broad. Meaning, they are legal laws.

8. In the future, this still means that the NSA can prosecute someone WITHOUT bringing in the "warrant less" evidence. The current law does NOT require the prosecution to deliver all the "evidence".

-- edits were for multiple typos, I suck at typing.

[billhicks76]

12. LOOK OUT

It's a power grab to have these illegal actions justified and made legal in court...almost codifying them. It probably has to do with the hundreds of thousands of criminal cases (99% drugs) that could be jeopardized for violating due process.

[Agnosticsherbet]

13. If this is the only way to force the govenment to follow the Constitution...

go for it.