You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: WoT
Courts Side With NSA On Wiretaps
2006-12-26
Contrary to the shallow stupidity that passes for "liberal" thought (hijacked that bitch, they did) these days is that Justice is a process, not just a limp symbol wearing a blindfold and holding the scales... in the other hand is the sword that enforces justice, that gives substance to the process. It is defined in that Constitution thingy - and they must not be allowed to hijack that any further.
Defense lawyers who had hoped that the public disclosure a year ago of the National Security Agency's wiretapping program would yield information favorable to their clients are being rebuffed by the federal judiciary, which in a series of unusually consistent rulings has rejected efforts by terrorism suspects to access the records.

In at least 17 criminal cases, federal district judges nominated to the federal bench by presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush have ruled against requests to force the government to tell defendants, most accused of terrorism-related crimes, whether the NSA eavesdropped on them without a court warrant.

The rulings indicate that even as public support for the war in Iraq has eroded in polls and as the NSA program has come under criticism from congressional Democrats, and even some Republicans, federal judges may be a bulwark that the Bush administration can rely on to defer to at least some aspects of its wartime policies.
That's far rosier than I would describe the situation...
The judges' decisions have come after defense attorneys filed motions requesting access to relevant surveillance intercepts that the government obtained without a warrant. Defense attorneys claim they are entitled to such information and that evidence obtained from warrantless wiretaps is tainted and inadmissible at trial. In many, but not all instances, the motions were filed after a conviction.
Posted by:.com

#2  I'm skeptical there's actually been much of what Moose is alleging (I didn't say none, but "much"), but even if there were, I don't see how we can avoid negative unintended consequences in domestic war policies any more than we can avoid the occasional civilian casualty in Iraq. Hell, there's a raft of outrageous state misbehavior/incompetence in law enforcement daily having nothing to do with NSA or surveillance of any kind. Of course we should build in checks to minimize mistakes or abuses, but I think singling out NSA or Patriot Act-related stuff is unwarranted and I've seen no evidence presented that liberty is endangered.
Posted by: Verlaine   2006-12-26 12:24  

#1  I imagine it is also being used against drug dealers and even copyright violators, too. And that is the problematic part of it.

The NSA should go back to its primary mission, National Security. This does not include ordinary criminal activities unrelated to terrorism. The FBI was quite adept at policing that up already, with ordinary court-ordered wiretaps, and even it didn't need any more special authority beyond the secret judicial oversight panel.

This has proven to be one of the worst drawbacks of Patriot Act and related provisions. The government just seems to be incapable of keeping its scope limited to terrorists.

Little old white ladies searched in airports, using advanced unwarranted surveillance techniques to bust a $500 pot deal, keeping dossiers and sending agents provacateur to investigates otherwise harmless fruitbats, not even Moonbats.

I wouldn't be surprised if that DA wouldn't try to assert some Homeland Security act against the Duke lacrosse team. And just because he can.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2006-12-26 11:34  

00:00