Ignore and refuse to participate in wild speculation until evidence appears. That's how we have to operate, lest we succumb to every conspiratorial fantasy the Internet can come up with.
but arguing that the NSA program has never lead to anyone being 'snatched up off the streets', is WILDLY disconnected from reality. The whole purpose of the program is to snatch terrorists up off the streets, the whole purpose of it being classified is to enable it to function without explicitly giving terrorists a good understanding of our ways and means...
how on earth is assuming a program is used for at least what the government claims it is used for a conspiratorial fantasy?
Do you have evidence that indicates US citizens are being 'snatched' from the streets of the US without being arrested, tried, or convicted as per the US criminal justice system?
You say it's wildly disconnected from reality and that the NSA's entire purpose is to do precisely this, and if that's the case you should be able to easily show me examples which demonstrate the 'snatchings' are a) occurring and b) the norm.
If it's not conspiratorial fantasy, then the evidence should be in abundance, right?
The relevant parts:
In April 2010, U.S. President Barack Obama placed al-Awlaki on a list of people whom the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency was authorized to kill because of terrorist activities.[32][33][34] The "targeted killing" of an American citizen was unprecedented. Al-Awlaki's father and civil rights groups challenged the order in court.[32][34][35][36] Al-Awlaki was believed to be in hiding in Southeast Yemen in the last years of his life.[26] The U.S. deployed unmanned aircraft (drones) in Yemen to search for and kill him,[37] firing at and failing to kill him at least once,[38] before succeeding in a fatal American drone attack in Yemen on September 30, 2011.[39] Two weeks later, al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen who was born in Denver, was killed by a CIA-led drone strike in Yemen.[40][41][42] Nasser al-Awlaki, Anwar's father, released an audio recording condemning the killings of his son and grandson as senseless murders.[43]
And US officials admitted the killing of the boy was mistake.
Got it.
I do know the government has claimed that this system has stopped dozens of terrorist plots. I make the assumption based on my judgement that these terrorists are not given a 'stop it or else we will arrest you' but are instead 'detained' in some way. Maybe you disagree with that, and feel these folks are issued a subpoena to appear in court at some later date. Further my understanding is this program is classified, and whatever is done with these 'detained' individuals is not a matter of public record. I guess this is an assumption as well, but seems like a pretty basic one, you don't issue gag orders and maintain top secret security and then throw on the publicaly available court dockets 'this guy was arrested due to the fact the NSA data captured he was interacting with a known foreign terrorist', this doesnt mean he wasnt tried by some secret court, I make no guesses as far as what happens once someone is 'detained'... disagree with that if you will, but its not a conspiracy theory, thats as far as i understand it the official government line on what the program is used for.
> Do you have evidence that indicates US citizens are being 'snatched' from the streets of the US without being arrested, tried, or convicted as per the US criminal justice system?
Is what I asked. Non-US citizens aren't necessarily granted the same rights US citizens are granted.
Use of NSA info in the manner described above is scope creep because they aren't terrorists, or foreign.
Here's the article linked from the wikipedia page. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE...
"A similar set of instructions was included in an IRS manual in 2005 and 2006, Reuters reported." [2]
Basically they use "evidence" obtained illegally, tip off the DEA and it seems the IRS.
Choice quote[1]: "Nancy Gertner, a Harvard Law School professor who served as a federal judge from 1994 to 2011, described the practice of "parallel construction" as "a fancy word for phonying up the course of the investigation". It was one thing, she said, to create special rules for national security, but creating rules for ordinary crime threatened to undermine the bill of rights, set up as a check against the power of the executive."
Ezekiel Edwards, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union's criminal law reform project[1]: He said that the concealing of information about the source of an investigation was unconstitutional because it did not allow defendants their right to confront and examine the evidence the government has against them.
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/06/justice-departm...
[2] http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/08/us-dea-irs-idUSBRE...
It doesn't matter much if you construct an investigation while being led by information obtained outside of the chain of evidence - at least it doesn't matter with any other kind of information.
You say, "basically they use evidence obtained illegally to prosecute someone" - but that's not what they're doing. They're doing exactly the opposite. They're using the legally obtained evidence to prosecute someone, and taking guidance from the other data that can't be admitted.
"Current and former federal agents said SOD tips aren't always helpful - one estimated their accuracy at 60 percent. But current and former agents said tips have enabled them to catch drug smugglers who might have gotten away."
[1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE...
Your quotation marks are out of order, because I took pains not to say "basically they use evidence obtained illegally to prosecute someone". It's more subtle than that.
In cases where the parallel construction was successful, it was probably illegal, and the convicted can appeal.
In refutation of your general thrust that all investigations are like this and it doesn't matter[2]: "Not all evidence gathered by a private investigator is legal, however. For instance if the PI breaks into a private residence, taps a phone, or uses a planted microphone or listening device in a private place, then in these cases such evidence is not generally admissible. That is because any conversations or activities done in private places, behind closed doors have a reasonable expectation of privacy."
[2] http://www.claydugas.com/legal-process/is-evidence-gathered-...
one last edit, just in case you had any doubt about the chance of successful appeal, this is legal terminology so it has a strange name but it is worth reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisoned_tree
Better article on the IRS link:
[3] http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/07/us-dea-irs-idUSBRE...
You literally said "basically they use evidence obtained illegally to prosecute someone". Whether you went back and changed it later is a different story, but I copy+pasted what you wrote.
And if you think this is how fruit of the poisoned tree works, you're sorely mistaken. What you can't do is break into a home, take evidence, and use that evidence.
What you can do is, while you're executing a warrant on a home for another reason glance at your suspect's mail, notice a piece of mail is from someone you investigated prior who claimed to not know your suspect, go find another link between those two people, and then use their testimony once you've gotten them to confess to knowing the person as a link in a legit evidence chain. This isn't "fruit of the poisoned tree", and is basically what NSA tips are.
COMPLETELY different.
I may have written that quote and edited out because it was wrong. Sorry about that.
I doubt I am mistaken about the poisoned tree though because a source of evidence that may have exculpatory evidence is being obscured. It may also be acquired illegally but that is obscured too.
Implicit in your reply is an admission that the NSA tips are being used. "people aren't being snatched up off the streets because of the NSA's monitoring programs." Do you still stand by this because now there's evidence presented to you that the IRS and the DEA have access to NSA tips through the SOD?
A statement from the NSA: "If the intelligence community collects information pursuant to a valid foreign intelligence tasking that is recognised as being evidence of a crime, [it] can disseminate that information to law enforcement, as appropriate."
I think your example of NSA tips is rather convoluted, I prefer the NSA's statement above as it's pretty clear and leaves little to the imagination.
I still stand by what I said regarding the lack of "snatchings". If a parallel chain of evidence can be constructed that leads to an arrest, that's not "because of" the NSA's monitoring programs. That's because there is a valid reason to investigate this person. The lynchpin is not the NSA's tip, it's the ability to find evidence against a person that is obtained according to the law. A "snatching" would be attributed to the NSA if the only evidence were to have been obtained through the collection of "information pursuant to a valid foreign intelligence tasking". And that's clearly got no evidence to support it.
1:
a. NSA collects American national's "information pursuant to a valid foreign intelligence tasking". (this may be illegal, violation of fourth amendment rights, no supreme court decision)
b. NSA tip SOD (if 1. is illegal, then it follows it's illegal to pass on)
c. SOD instruct police force to stop and search for 'traffic violation' at time and place, obscure evidence trail. (DOJ investigating if this is illegal)
d. d:a) no evidence is found.
d:b) evidence is found, parallel construction begins.
a. law enforcement agency DEA/IRS/SOD asks NSA to get foreign intelligence, because of investigation already underway.
other steps as above.
My problem is with the first mode. Given the first mode, do you stand by your earlier statement and: "If a parallel chain of evidence can be constructed that leads to an arrest, that's not "because of" the NSA's monitoring programs."
See the NSA's statement re: evidence of a crime. If the first mode leads to an arrest it is by definition "because of".
In both scenarios I have a problem with d:a) where no evidence is turned up because it seems like a very unreasonable search to me.
Of course there is no credible evidence when evidence is known to be actively suppressed. See: 'Intel Laundering.'
Also the US boasts that spying resulted in thwarted attempts. Where are those court cases? More importantly, where are the bodies of those involved? Sure is easy to not have credible evidence when all evidence aside from one sided snippets and meaningless statistics is never published.
edit: diminoten sure shifts goal posts around a lot. Changing persons to US persons, etc.
Is Snowden the first mistake the NSA has ever made, in your eyes, then?
edit: Tried to respond below but have been "submitting too fast" while submitting nothing for far too long to care to wait more.
I am not saying the NSA has flawless execution, you are the one repeating it for whatever reason.
I'm saying the NSA/Administration when pushed had to put out something that showed the spying was 'working.' In response they said multiples of domestic plots were foiled. Given the lack of full disclosure as to what the US's secret laws are secretly doing, we are forced to parse the headlines and the body count of the population for information on what has happened, where people went.
Problem is there is only a handful of incidents revealed to the public. The Boston bombers don't count because even though they fit NSA criteria for observation they apparently had no clue about their actions. The Al-Shabaab money provider was explicitly mentioned, so that is one.
Since we know the US kidnaps and tortures people, then makes every attempt to have the guilty escape[1], we don't require further evidence to ask the questions:
Where are the bodies, living or dead, of the others involved in domestic cases the NSA said they helped foil? The NSA says the program is for terrorists, the US government is known to rendition their victims away to be tortured under claims of them being terrorists. This has been documented enough to appease you.
If the NSA's spying program is not meant to result in the kidnapping and torture of others, what is it for? Bringing people to court?
Again, where are those involved in the domestic incidents cited as being foiled by the NSA?
Not all in court, that is for sure.
[1] http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/07/18/how_a_cia_off...
Because, if you'll recall, that's what we were talking about.
This thread is called 'The NSA Is Commandeering the Internet.' Throughout it you have been attempting to diminish or shift the subject to "US citizens on US soil."
Please stop.
edit: I just noticed you took the subject of CIA renditions and attempted to turn it into a "US citizens on US soil" subject as you have done to the others in this thread. While completely ignoring the subject you made the response to.
What the heck, guy.