DEA going NSA?

posted at 8:41 am on August 5, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

The NSA may not be the only federal agency snooping through your phone records.  In an exclusive this morning, Reuters reports that the DEA has also conducted its own snooping — and has investigators covering it up by falsifying evidentiary trails to keep prosecutions from getting derailed:

A secretive U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration unit is funneling information from intelligence intercepts, wiretaps, informants and a massive database of telephone records to authorities across the nation to help them launch criminal investigations of Americans.

Although these cases rarely involve national security issues, documents reviewed by Reuters show that law enforcement agents have been directed to conceal how such investigations truly begin – not only from defense lawyers but also sometimes from prosecutors and judges.

The undated documents show that federal agents are trained to “recreate” the investigative trail to effectively cover up where the information originated, a practice that some experts say violates a defendant’s Constitutional right to a fair trial. If defendants don’t know how an investigation began, they cannot know to ask to review potential sources of exculpatory evidence – information that could reveal entrapment, mistakes or biased witnesses.

Only some experts say that falsifying evidence violates the right to a fair trial?  Ahem.  That’s the entire point of the civil rights protected by the Constitution when it comes to criminal prosecution.  If the DEA is violating the Fourth Amendment on snooping, it’s not much of a stretch to imagine that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments don’t get a lot of respect at the DEA.

On the other hand, plenty of people are justifying the NSA’s trawling of data on the basis of national security, and the DEA methods don’t appear to differ in great degree from that — except in how the DEA has covered up its activities. Former federal judge Nancy Gertner makes that distinction for Reuters:

“I have never heard of anything like this at all,” said Nancy Gertner, a Harvard Law School professor who served as a federal judge from 1994 to 2011. Gertner and other legal experts said the program sounds more troubling than recent disclosures that the National Security Agency has been collecting domestic phone records. The NSA effort is geared toward stopping terrorists; the DEA program targets common criminals, primarily drug dealers.

“It is one thing to create special rules for national security,” Gertner said. “Ordinary crime is entirely different. It sounds like they are phonying up investigations.”

But is this “entirely different” from national security?  It depends on the definition of that subject.  The program began as part of the war against Latin American drug cartels, according to the Reuters report.  At one time, that was considered a national security issue, and in some cases might still be.  That, however, is a very slippery slope; bank robberies could be considered a national security issue under some circumstances (as it perhaps might have been with the Weather Underground or SLA crimes, for instance). Where does the Department of Justice, which oversees the DEA, draw the “national security” line? That prompts this question from a former federal prosecutor:

“You can’t game the system,” said former federal prosecutor Henry E. Hockeimer Jr. “You can’t create this subterfuge. These are drug crimes, not national security cases. If you don’t draw the line here, where do you draw it?”

Indeed.  It appears that the federal government has had trouble drawing that line anywhere.

Update: Moe Lane points out on Twitter that paralleling investigations to protect confidential sources has been standard practice for law enforcement for decades:

True. However, in this case, the “snitch” is the government itself, not an unaffiliated witness.

Update: Jeff Dunetz hits the nail on the head:

This collection and use of personal data is much worse than the NSA scandal revealed in June. In that case while the ends (national security) may not have justified the means, but in this latest revelation there is no justification for either.  It is an simply an “illegal search”  for a criminal case. The DEA must know their methodology is tainted, why else would they be training their agents to cover it up?

Exactly.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

The collection of evidence requires the lie, because it is done UNCONSTITUTIONALLY MORON! It is what DRIVES THE LIE TO BE NEEDED.

It is NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL, twerp! See? I can use caps too! What drives the “need” to lie is a desire to obtain a conviction when there is insufficient evidence for a conviction. Bias and blind prosecution (see the George Zimmerman case) is what is at issue here, not gathering evidence.

But you can complain all you want about the lie.

It is the lie that spurs the government into action handing down wrongful convictions. If you never collect any evidence, of course you’ll never reach any conviction, no matter how legitimate. The point is to stop the government from behaving illegitimately, while enabling it to act legitimately, not to fight it for the sake of fighting it.

When they have you in court with 12,000 chargesto defend against, of which 10,900 are laws which are arbitrary and you cannot defend against, like Gibson Guitar was subjected to, enjoy your stoic endurance of the pain and suffering.

They all go together, and the fact that you cannot connect any dots makes your patriotism, if there is ANY OF THAT PRESENT in you at all, worthless.

Basically as valuable an ally as McCain, Graham, and the Maine twins.

astonerii on August 5, 2013 at 5:15 PM

A patriot — someone who genuinely loves his country, is interested in protecting the people and upholding the law. You have demonstrated no such interest.

Stoic Patriot on August 5, 2013 at 5:22 PM

A patriot — someone who genuinely loves his country, is interested in protecting the people and upholding the law. You have demonstrated no such interest.

Stoic Patriot on August 5, 2013 at 5:22 PM

HA HAH HAH HAH.
Support the immoral laws! it is your PATRIOTIC DUTY! LOL.

We collected this information on American citizens unconstitutionally through the NSA. Here it is though, so you can target Americans, because we are not allowed to target Americans. Take what we give you and fake in what is necessary to make sure the rubes do not realize what we are doing.
That is the law and order you want? What part of that do you approve of?

The unconstitutional blanket collection of information on American citizens?
The passing of that unconstitutionally obtained information from the left hand to the right hand?
The faking in of information to hide the source of the supposed required probable cause required to start an investigation?
The subverting of the will of the people by hiding what is going on from the people?

What aspect of that is law and order?

astonerii on August 5, 2013 at 5:39 PM

HA HAH HAH HAH.
Support the immoral laws! it is your PATRIOTIC DUTY! LOL.

There’s nothing immoral about the particular law you’re objecting to.

We collected this information on American citizens unconstitutionally through the NSA. Here it is though, so you can target Americans, because we are not allowed to target Americans. Take what we give you and fake in what is necessary to make sure the rubes do not realize what we are doing.
That is the law and order you want? What part of that do you approve of?

Sorry, but the gathering of information is legal by statute and is not contradicted by the Constitution.

The unconstitutional blanket collection of information on American citizens?
The passing of that unconstitutionally obtained information from the left hand to the right hand?
The faking in of information to hide the source of the supposed required probable cause required to start an investigation?
The subverting of the will of the people by hiding what is going on from the people?

What aspect of that is law and order?

astonerii on August 5, 2013 at 5:39 PM

When it comes to secrets, I hate to tell you this, but it requires hiding things. That’s what makes the NSA and national security special — you can’t very well keep secrets if you’re blabbing to everyone about it. As for the collection of information, I again deny your claim that it is unconstitutional, and contend that it supported by statute, was permitted by the Congress and the President, and is overseen by the judiciary.

The problem with your position is rather than search for truth using the tools available to enforce the law, you’d rather just not know. The truth matters.

Stoic Patriot on August 5, 2013 at 5:47 PM

Stoic Patriot on August 5, 2013 at 5:47 PM

The constitution most certainly prevents the kind of surveillance you are talking about.
No patriot. More a sock puppet of the tyrants. I will not give you any benefit of the doubt. You are one of them.

I sure hope they target you someday soon. I will enjoy not hearing you cry and whine about how unfair the laws you are being tried for are.

astonerii on August 5, 2013 at 5:52 PM

How long before we are all loaded onto the trains?

http://www.storyleak.com/video-shows-home-searches-by-boston-police-were-not-voluntary/

they lie on August 5, 2013 at 5:53 PM

The constitution most certainly prevents the kind of surveillance you are talking about.
No patriot. More a sock puppet of the tyrants. I will not give you any benefit of the doubt. You are one of them.

I sure hope they target you someday soon. I will enjoy not hearing you cry and whine about how unfair the laws you are being tried for are.

astonerii on August 5, 2013 at 5:52 PM

Hardly. I’ve been stopped before by police officers before and been asked if they can go through my belongings. I’ve cooperated with such requests, and after they found nothing of interest, I was allowed to go on my way.

No one got hurt, no one got oppressed, and everyone went home happy.

Stoic Patriot on August 5, 2013 at 5:55 PM

Hardly. I’ve been stopped before by police officers before and been asked if they can go through my belongings. I’ve cooperated with such requests, and after they found nothing of interest, I was allowed to go on my way.

No one got hurt, no one got oppressed, and everyone went home happy.

Stoic Patriot on August 5, 2013 at 5:55 PM

Wow, now we see who you are. Giving up your god given rights on a traffic stop! We should certainly trust your judgement on these kinds of things.

Then again, like I said, wait til they target you. Everything becomes of interest then.

astonerii on August 5, 2013 at 5:59 PM

Wow, now we see who you are. Giving up your god given rights on a traffic stop! We should certainly trust your judgement on these kinds of things.

Then again, like I said, wait til they target you. Everything becomes of interest then.

astonerii on August 5, 2013 at 5:59 PM

100% hyperbole.

Stoic Patriot on August 5, 2013 at 6:01 PM

100% hyperbole.

Stoic Patriot on August 5, 2013 at 6:01 PM

A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.

What part is hyperbole? The everything is of interest? It is not hyperbole at all. Like I said, I fought a failure to stop ticket and everything I did was of interest to the police for three months, until I found a job in a different state. And there is nothing you can do about it. They say, you say, the judge is their friend, the judge wins. I took the first three to court like the first failure to stop one. What they do then is add charge after charge after charge until you are forced to spend money on lawyers and at the last minute as you are entering the court room, they drop the charges. But then you are already out thousands of dollars in lawyer fees.

Fail to use a blinker leaving your drive way, ticket. Have one of those air fresheners on your mirror, ticket. Chipped rear window? Ticket. Driving the speed limit. Ticket. Using your blinker four times to cross four lanes of traffic, ticket. Lights not on 3 seconds after it starts to rain ticket. I lived it for 3 months. I know for a fact that it is not hyperbole that when the government wants you, everything is of interest, even if it is legal.

astonerii on August 5, 2013 at 6:10 PM

What part is hyperbole?

Let’s see…

Wow, now we see who you are. Giving up your god given rights on a traffic stop! Then again, like I said, wait til they target you. Everything becomes of interest then.

1.) I doubt you can really see who someone is by a person’s cooperation with a traffic stop, unless the world is very, very bland.

2.) Giving up “God-given” rights? What, to not have someone look through my things? I must’ve missed that commandment.

3.) They did target me, duh. That’s why they stopped me and not someone else. I don’t have to wait for an event that already occurred.

4.) Everything becomes of interest? Hardly. There were numerous things they could have asked me about my education or upbringing that was never asked.

The everything is of interest? It is not hyperbole at all. Like I said, I fought a failure to stop ticket and everything I did was of interest to the police for three months, until I found a job in a different state. And there is nothing you can do about it. They say, you say, the judge is their friend, the judge wins. I took the first three to court like the first failure to stop one. What they do then is add charge after charge after charge until you are forced to spend money on lawyers and at the last minute as you are entering the court room, they drop the charges. But then you are already out thousands of dollars in lawyer fees.

Fail to use a blinker leaving your drive way, ticket. Have one of those air fresheners on your mirror, ticket. Chipped rear window? Ticket. Driving the speed limit. Ticket. Using your blinker four times to cross four lanes of traffic, ticket. Lights not on 3 seconds after it starts to rain ticket. I lived it for 3 months. I know for a fact that it is not hyperbole that when the government wants you, everything is of interest, even if it is legal.

astonerii on August 5, 2013 at 6:10 PM

I can believe that they ticketed you for failing to use a blinker, even though it may be a very minor offense, as well as the chipped rear window, and I can understand being annoyed by that. However, did they actually cite you for obeying the speed limit? That seems like an incredible claim.

If I may be so bold, what state did you get ticketed in repeatedly?

Stoic Patriot on August 5, 2013 at 6:20 PM

1.) I doubt you can really see who someone is by a person’s cooperation with a traffic stop, unless the world is very, very bland.

You are the type of person who does not care about your god given rights, and as such, other people’s rights are worth even less. hence why you are happy to give them away.
You have the god given right to you property, the government has no sanction to enter said property unless you invite them in by either giving probable cause or actually say OK.
That was not targeting you. It was reacting to your getting their attention.
Since they were not targeting you, they left you alone.

Yes, they did ticket me for going the speed limit, 7 times. Of course that is not what the citation said. it typically said I was between 7 and 12 miles over the stated speed limit. You see, it is a Law officer said, some punk said, situation where the deciding vote comes from a completely biased judge. Also, as I already noted, they did not need to prove guilt to cause me serious unearned grief. Going to court and fighting the tickets costs more than paying the tickets even if you include the extra insurance fees. Eventually I was too broke to afford any attorney to fight the tickets and then they take your license. By the way, after the third ticket, I became the epitome of the perfect driver. Like changing exactly one lane at a time. Turning my blinker on and off for each and every lane change. But that gave them the ability to fine me for a bogus excessive use of turn signal charge. The chip in the back window was not an offense that was on the books, and neither was the turning out of my driveway with out a blinker as the judges agreed on both occurrences, but I still had to go to court to prove it. Lost wages even without a lawyer and eventually asked to no longer return to work after the 8th or 9th visit to court.
I certainly hope you get their attention. Since you do not mind people knowing everything about you, could you give out your real name and address. I have a couple friends who are on good terms with police officers. Maybe they would be able to give you a demonstration of what a MILD level of attention can do for your life.

astonerii on August 5, 2013 at 6:39 PM

You are the type of person who does not care about your god given rights, and as such, other people’s rights are worth even less. hence why you are happy to give them away.
You have the god given right to you property, the government has no sanction to enter said property unless you invite them in by either giving probable cause or actually say OK.
That was not targeting you. It was reacting to your getting their attention.
Since they were not targeting you, they left you alone.

If I thought other people’s rights were worth even less, that would certainly make my pro-life advocacy strange since I’m not in utero anymore. What I don’t understand is your need for me to take an uncooperative and antagonistic stance towards police. Police are charged with enforcing the law. I will cooperate with them until there is evidence that that is not their purpose.

Yes, they did ticket me for going the speed limit, 7 times. Of course that is not what the citation said. it typically said I was between 7 and 12 miles over the stated speed limit.

Did they have a radar gun? If they say they clocked you going over the speed limit, I suppose it’s possible they’re lying, but I find it unlikely. Also, when you say you were targeted, were you being ticketed by the same officer, or two officers, time-and-again?

I certainly hope you get their attention. Since you do not mind people knowing everything about you, could you give out your real name and address. I have a couple friends who are on good terms with police officers. Maybe they would be able to give you a demonstration of what a MILD level of attention can do for your life.

astonerii on August 5, 2013 at 6:39 PM

I said I don’t mind the government knowing that, and I don’t mind cooperating with law enforcement because I place in them a certain level of trust. However, I never said that I trust you. Furthermore, you have already expressed a wish to do me harm. Why would I cooperate with you given your stated desire?

And finally, given the mention of your friends, it again brings me back to the question: what state did you get ticketed in repeatedly?

Stoic Patriot on August 5, 2013 at 7:01 PM

Stoic Patriot on August 5, 2013 at 7:01 PM

LOL, you do not trust me so I do not get information on you.
You trust the government, so you are willing to hand over to them anything and everything to them.
I do not trust the government. I do not want them to gain information on me, unless they have cause and reason to gain that information.
Funny how that is.

If I proposed a law that stated that you had to advertise your full name and address in order to post on a site like this, you would be enraged beyond anything I imagine.

You propose to strip my 4th amendment rights which protect me from government…

I have little if any power, and YOU FEAR ME.
The government has nearly unlimited power and you ADORE THEM.

What a waste of skin. By the way, I do not believe you are pro life.

astonerii on August 5, 2013 at 7:09 PM

LOL, you do not trust me so I do not get information on you.
You trust the government, so you are willing to hand over to them anything and everything to them.
I do not trust the government. I do not want them to gain information on me, unless they have cause and reason to gain that information.
Funny how that is.

If I proposed a law that stated that you had to advertise your full name and address in order to post on a site like this, you would be enraged beyond anything I imagine.

The problem with such a law would be the inevitable third party issue, where there could be another person like yourself who also wishes me harm that decides not to post, but use said name-and-address to try and cause me harm. I would not be enraged by such a law, but would likely decide to discontinue to post my views unless sufficiently enraged by a particular matter. Abortion as an issue would likely draw me back in eventually.

Trust is something that can be earned or lost, and it makes little sense to trust someone who is openly telling you that they wish to harm you.

You propose to strip my 4th amendment rights which protect me from government…

I have little if any power, and YOU FEAR ME.
The government has nearly unlimited power and you ADORE THEM.

What a waste of skin. By the way, I do not believe you are pro life.

astonerii on August 5, 2013 at 7:09 PM

1.) Only a fool does not harbor some modicum of fear from a person who wishes to do them harm. They say that there’s a fine line between bravery and stupidity, but what you’re asking for would require abject stupidity.

2.) The government has yet to openly wish to cause me harm. Let me know when they do.

3.) If you’re going to bellyache and thump your chest about fearfulness, then if you don’t fear me you should be willing to prove it and offer your full name and address.

4.) You can believe I’m not pro-life all you like, but feel free to look up any of my postings on HotAir, or on Townhall.com (where I’ve been a member since 2006).

5.) Again, which state did you get ticketed in? That’s hardly going to let me personally identify you.

Stoic Patriot on August 5, 2013 at 7:18 PM

Stoic Patriot on August 5, 2013 at 7:18 PM

Your not very stoic at all.
I do not wish to cause you harm, I just want to educate you about what you support.
I do not think you would ever post again. The reason for the law would be to prevent third parties from faking who they are. That is a protection for you, I say it is so, you have to trust me, because SECURITY!

astonerii on August 5, 2013 at 7:22 PM

Your not very stoic at all.
I do not wish to cause you harm, I just want to educate you about what you support.
I do not think you would ever post again. The reason for the law would be to prevent third parties from faking who they are. That is a protection for you, I say it is so, you have to trust me, because SECURITY!

astonerii on August 5, 2013 at 7:22 PM

You have said that you have been targeted in the past, and you have detailed events indicating that you were wrongfully convicted of infractions that you contend you did not commit. By wishing me to experience such events, you wish to do me harm. So you’ll have to forgive me if I don’t find your reassurances credible.

Stoic Patriot on August 5, 2013 at 7:26 PM

You have said that you have been targeted in the past, and you have detailed events indicating that you were wrongfully convicted of infractions that you contend you did not commit. By wishing me to experience such events, you wish to do me harm. So you’ll have to forgive me if I don’t find your reassurances credible.

Stoic Patriot on August 5, 2013 at 7:26 PM

You said surveillance is OK in your book. it is about all they did with me. Cop number one got angry that I had witnesses that stated I was stopped for a prolonged period of time and got the charge dismissed. See, my aunts and uncles beat his sorry a$$ up in his school years. So he called his other cop friends and told them to watch me, you know surveillance.
You love surveillance and the cops. So why would you not want their attention?
The problem here is that you have not experienced the government you vote for and force upon the 10% or so of Americans that they do turn around and decide to be interested in. I just think you should experience it, that way when you go to the voting booth you are an informed, rather than an ignorant POS voter.

First they cam for the Jews, but… That is you. They have not come for you yet. You are an ignorant fool.

astonerii on August 5, 2013 at 7:31 PM

Stoic Patriot on August 5, 2013 at 7:26 PM

By the way, you are still no patriot. The patriots of this nation fought a war against a government that was far less intrusive into their lives than our is. One which taxed them at about 1/20th the taxes we pay. And they deemed government attention to be something that only occurs when probable cause deems you of interest. So much so they wrote a specified restriction on the government they formed to prevent such happening.
I should go clean you off my toilet now.

astonerii on August 5, 2013 at 7:35 PM

You said surveillance is OK in your book. it is about all they did with me. Cop number one got angry that I had witnesses that stated I was stopped for a prolonged period of time and got the charge dismissed. See, my aunts and uncles beat his sorry a$$ up in his school years. So he called his other cop friends and told them to watch me, you know surveillance.
You love surveillance and the cops. So why would you not want their attention?

I have no desire for their attention, but I’m also not averse to it. As I said before, I will cooperate with law enforcement until there is evidence that enforcing the law is not their purpose.

The problem here is that you have not experienced the government you vote for and force upon the 10% or so of Americans that they do turn around and decide to be interested in. I just think you should experience it, that way when you go to the voting booth you are an informed, rather than an ignorant POS voter.

No, I have experienced the government I vote for. I have been stopped, I have been searched, and I have cooperated, and having done nothing wrong, I’ve been allowed to go on my way. That’s the way things are supposed to work. What you are talking about, including false reporting by the police, is not in compliance with the law, and when stated under oath, constitutes perjury, so to say that I vote for that kind of thing is plainly false.

First they cam for the Jews, but… That is you. They have not come for you yet. You are an ignorant fool.

astonerii on August 5, 2013 at 7:31 PM

And as I have stated before, when you have evidence of abuse of authority by law enforcement, you then prosecute them. This is by no means inconsistent with what I’ve said.

Stoic Patriot on August 5, 2013 at 7:38 PM

And as I have stated before, when you have evidence of abuse of authority by law enforcement, you then prosecute them. This is by no means inconsistent with what I’ve said.

Stoic Patriot on August 5, 2013 at 7:38 PM

They are above the law. Thanks to people like yourself who admire them and adore them. There are so many instances of abuse that is impossible to correct it is not even funny. Because of people like you. Unpatriotic Blowhard.

astonerii on August 5, 2013 at 7:41 PM

By the way, you are still no patriot. The patriots of this nation fought a war against a government that was far less intrusive into their lives than our is. One which taxed them at about 1/20th the taxes we pay. And they deemed government attention to be something that only occurs when probable cause deems you of interest. So much so they wrote a specified restriction on the government they formed to prevent such happening.
I should go clean you off my toilet now.

astonerii on August 5, 2013 at 7:35 PM

By that standard neither are you, unless there’s some kind of war you have fought in against the government, risking your very life while trying to kill government officials and prevail over them to establish a new government.

However, the last I checked, the necessary and sufficient condition for a patriot is someone who loves his country — not someone who is a veteran of the Revolution.

Stoic Patriot on August 5, 2013 at 7:41 PM

They are above the law. Thanks to people like yourself who admire them and adore them. There are so many instances of abuse that is impossible to correct it is not even funny. Because of people like you. Unpatriotic Blowhard.

astonerii on August 5, 2013 at 7:41 PM

They’re not above the law though. They are eligible to be prosecuted, and I have never said to not prosecute people who are violating the law.

Again, you’re resorting to hyperbole.

Stoic Patriot on August 5, 2013 at 7:42 PM

They’re not above the law though. They are eligible to be prosecuted, and I have never said to not prosecute people who are violating the law.

Again, you’re resorting to hyperbole.

Stoic Patriot on August 5, 2013 at 7:42 PM

Nope, you do every time you vote while they are immune from prosecution. You really have no clue what your government is? Or do you just play moron for HotAir? Either way, they are not illegible for prosecution.

A nice example was when I was rear ended. The guy chose to hit and run. I followed him, called the police, the police officer threatened me with charges if I did not let his friend leave unhindered.

When I later tried to get my lawyer to do something against the police officer, they had wiped the phone call from their books and database and claimed my call never went through. The system refused to allow my mobile records into evidence. The cops all played ignorant. Immune. Another instance where I left the state afterwards, since they started taking notice of me.

I am no where near the worst occurrences of this. Police are effectively immune from our laws unless they blatantly do something on camera and even then it is next to impossible to get any justice.

Because of people like you.

astonerii on August 5, 2013 at 7:52 PM

Nope, you do every time you vote while they are immune from prosecution. You really have no clue what your government is? Or do you just play moron for HotAir? Either way, they are not illegible for prosecution.

A nice example was when I was rear ended. The guy chose to hit and run. I followed him, called the police, the police officer threatened me with charges if I did not let his friend leave unhindered.

When I later tried to get my lawyer to do something against the police officer, they had wiped the phone call from their books and database and claimed my call never went through. The system refused to allow my mobile records into evidence. The cops all played ignorant. Immune. Another instance where I left the state afterwards, since they started taking notice of me.

Again, committing one crime to cover-up another does not make someone immune from prosecution. What it does is it destroys evidence that could be used in successfully prosecuting them.

I am no where near the worst occurrences of this. Police are effectively immune from our laws unless they blatantly do something on camera and even then it is next to impossible to get any justice.

Because of people like you.

astonerii on August 5, 2013 at 7:52 PM

What you are asking for would remove the capacity for police officers to gather evidence for prosecuting criminals. If we’re going to go by a “de facto” understanding of immunity though as you seem to use, you would in effect make everyone immune from prosecution. You would trade the supposed “police state” we live in (that I think you’re greatly exaggerating) for a society where just about anything goes. You fear 1984. I fear Lord of the Flies.

Your position also ignores a basic function of government. Government is supposed to protect us from foreign invaders, and from one another. We place that trust in it. If you don’t think it’s worthy of that trust, then you should be calling for abolishing it altogether.

Stoic Patriot on August 5, 2013 at 7:59 PM

Stoic Patriot on August 5, 2013 at 7:59 PM

What is so hard for you to understand…
Until they have reason to believe a crime has been committed by a specific person, they have no right under our constitution to begin collecting information on said person?
What they are doing is collecting information, sifting it, and then assigning crimes to the information and connecting said crimes to individuals. Then they build or fake in a path to the information the unconstitutionally gathered so they can claim they never collected that information in the first place.
The complete backwards way in which they are supposed to operate constitutionally.
But you will never understand that, because you approve of tyranny, even though you will not admit is, as you have some brain damage that prevents you from seeing anything outside of your 50 year old view of the world.

astonerii on August 5, 2013 at 8:05 PM

What is so hard for you to understand…
Until they have reason to believe a crime has been committed by a specific person, they have no right under our constitution to begin collecting information on said person?
What they are doing is collecting information, sifting it, and then assigning crimes to the information and connecting said crimes to individuals. Then they build or fake in a path to the information the unconstitutionally gathered so they can claim they never collected that information in the first place.
The complete backwards way in which they are supposed to operate constitutionally.
But you will never understand that, because you approve of tyranny, even though you will not admit is, as you have some brain damage that prevents you from seeing anything outside of your 50 year old view of the world.

astonerii on August 5, 2013 at 8:05 PM

Yeah, they’re using algorithms to distinguish ordinary behavior from unusual behavior on a given universe of data, and are then refining their results. That’s basic data analysis. I don’t see why that’s so shocking. I fear that no more than I fear SQL.

And despite your claims about constitutional conflict, I honestly do not see one, although since I’m younger than 50 I doubt I have a 50-year old view of the world.

Stoic Patriot on August 5, 2013 at 8:10 PM

Stoic Patriot on August 5, 2013 at 8:10 PM

Of course you do not see the conflict with the constitution you do not support.

astonerii on August 5, 2013 at 8:24 PM

Of course you do not see the conflict with the constitution you do not support.

astonerii on August 5, 2013 at 8:24 PM

Except that I do support the Constitution. I just happen to think you’ve gotten the 4th amendment grossly wrong, and that it doesn’t prohibit creating or querying databases.

Stoic Patriot on August 5, 2013 at 8:28 PM

Except that I do support the Constitution. I just happen to think you’ve gotten the 4th amendment grossly wrong, and that it doesn’t prohibit creating or querying databases.

Stoic Patriot on August 5, 2013 at 8:28 PM

What exactly do you think papers means?

You do not support the constitution, you only support people who are in power. PERIOD.

I sure hope they find you targetable in the near future. You are going to have so much fun spending your life’s savings and then some defending yourself against bogus charges that even when you prove innocence of they will be immune to prosecution for having raked you over the coals.

astonerii on August 5, 2013 at 8:35 PM

What exactly do you think papers means?

You do not support the constitution, you only support people who are in power. PERIOD.

I sure hope they find you targetable in the near future. You are going to have so much fun spending your life’s savings and then some defending yourself against bogus charges that even when you prove innocence of they will be immune to prosecution for having raked you over the coals.

astonerii on August 5, 2013 at 8:35 PM

From the fourth amendment, papers means papers, i.e., physical pages which are in your possession. When it comes to things like phone records, those aren’t yours. You may have a copy, and you may request to keep that or at least get it returned to you after the completion of an investigation, but that doesn’t mean your phone company doesn’t have a copy, or that the government is prohibited from obtaining a copy. It’s not like the government having a copy denies you having a copy.

Stoic Patriot on August 5, 2013 at 8:39 PM

Stoic Patriot on August 5, 2013 at 8:39 PM

So, you are saying that as long as the government was willing to recreate the papers, that a person had no expectation of the government not coming along for NO REASON AT ALL and taking said copies of it? Seriously! That is your argument on this.
You been smoking? Drinking? Maybe both and taking some special pills to boot since the beginning of this conversation? As completely retarded as your original argument was, this is probably 10 magnitudes more so.
Just admit it. TO YOURSELF. I already know it is a FACT. No need to admit it to me. You love authority figures that have power over your life. There are plenty of sickos in the world like you. It is something to be ashamed of, because it is immoral, but at least you will be counted amongst large numbers of them.

astonerii on August 5, 2013 at 8:44 PM

So, you are saying that as long as the government was willing to recreate the papers, that a person had no expectation of the government not coming along for NO REASON AT ALL and taking said copies of it? Seriously! That is your argument on this.
You been smoking? Drinking? Maybe both and taking some special pills to boot since the beginning of this conversation? As completely retarded as your original argument was, this is probably 10 magnitudes more so.
Just admit it. TO YOURSELF. I already know it is a FACT. No need to admit it to me. You love authority figures that have power over your life. There are plenty of sickos in the world like you. It is something to be ashamed of, because it is immoral, but at least you will be counted amongst large numbers of them.

astonerii on August 5, 2013 at 8:44 PM

Again, the key word is “unreasonable” as applied to search and seizure, meaning that there does have to be some kind of reason, so no, it’s not 100% unchecked.

Stoic Patriot on August 5, 2013 at 8:56 PM

Again, the key word is “unreasonable” as applied to search and seizure, meaning that there does have to be some kind of reason, so no, it’s not 100% unchecked.

Stoic Patriot on August 5, 2013 at 8:56 PM

But that is what they are doing. Carpet bombing information. Taking ALL papers to read through with no effective unbiased check at all on those takings. You agree that they are taking everything, you said it was so they can determine legal communications from illegal ones or some such… Even though you admit there is no check on the gathering, you fail to either admit that it is unreasonable or that you are just another Sadistic Masochistic Sadist that by your name enjoys suffering. Preferable in silence…
You really should not lie to yourself as you are doing. It creates problems in your psyche that may become irreversible.

astonerii on August 5, 2013 at 9:10 PM

But that is what they are doing. Carpet bombing information. Taking ALL papers to read through with no effective unbiased check at all on those takings. You agree that they are taking everything, you said it was so they can determine legal communications from illegal ones or some such… Even though you admit there is no check on the gathering, you fail to either admit that it is unreasonable or that you are just another Sadistic Masochistic Sadist that by your name enjoys suffering. Preferable in silence…
You really should not lie to yourself as you are doing. It creates problems in your psyche that may become irreversible.

astonerii on August 5, 2013 at 9:10 PM

But they’re not “taking” your papers. They’re not removed from your possession. They’re downloading copies of data (which are not themselves papers) from company servers, compiling the data, and then querying against it to isolate suspicious records which they can then do further investigation on. That doesn’t strike me as unreasonable.

Stoic Patriot on August 5, 2013 at 9:14 PM

Stoic Patriot on August 5, 2013 at 9:14 PM

You are the type of person who got us where we are which is getting close to a police state.

I guess the bottom line is, if you cool letting people search you, let them… we are fine with that as long as your WILLING and have not broken any laws. Those of us that do not want to let them do whatever they choose to do would rather have it that way unless there is reason for them to do what they want to do.

watertown on August 5, 2013 at 9:25 PM

Did anyone notice when KWtyrant left and then that nateisadouche popped on and then along comes stoic retard to continue the prog narrative. Crying for bans, on a conservative website that they troll, lol. I will tell you what works better than a trollcot, just skip their babble and read everything else. I just read a great one way conversation from astonerii, nicely done. How do you say it nowdays, you just got knocked (verbally) the fluke out son, damn (the libtard, if that wasn’t clear).

What is up with the chocolate ration, that’s I’m talking about right?

Fett on August 5, 2013 at 10:01 PM

But they’re not “taking” your papers. They’re not removed from your possession. They’re downloading copies of data (which are not themselves papers) from company servers, compiling the data, and then querying against it to isolate suspicious records which they can then do further investigation on. That doesn’t strike me as unreasonable.

Stoic Patriot on August 5, 2013 at 9:14 PM

Of course it does not strike you as unreasonable, as you yourself are an absolutely unreasonable freak of nature. Not that many people enjoy being tied up by someone and tortured, but there are people just like you and are the reason the constitution exists.

astonerii on August 5, 2013 at 10:10 PM

Of course it does not strike you as unreasonable, as you yourself are an absolutely unreasonable freak of nature. Not that many people enjoy being tied up by someone and tortured, but there are people just like you and are the reason the constitution exists.

astonerii on August 5, 2013 at 10:10 PM

I see that you’re now moving from hyperbole to simply “make stuff up.”

I will tell you what works better than a trollcot, just skip their babble and read everything else. I just read a great one way conversation from astonerii, nicely done.

Fett on August 5, 2013 at 10:01 PM

That’s the acumen of a libertarian for you — when in trouble or in doubt, ignore what your opposition says. It certainly explains a lot of what astonerii has had to say, including the false equivalencies and hyperbole, not to mention the strawmen that have been attacked as supposedly representing my positions on previous occasions.

Stoic Patriot on August 5, 2013 at 10:18 PM

Just remember, only a few years ago the Left was outraged when they read in the New York Times that the Bush administration was monitoring al Qaeda phone calls. Now the Lefties aren’t even bothered that Obama is monitoring THEIR phone calls.

J Baustian on August 5, 2013 at 10:31 PM

But they’re not “taking” your papers. They’re not removed from your possession. They’re downloading copies of data (which are not themselves papers) from company servers, compiling the data, and then querying against it to isolate suspicious records which they can then do further investigation on. That doesn’t strike me as unreasonable.

Stoic Patriot on August 5, 2013 at 9:14 PM

Heh, you’ve just provided justification for media/software piracy.

oryguncon on August 5, 2013 at 10:59 PM

I kinda like the body cavity searches.
As long as the government uses a soothing lube on their rubber gloves!

Stoic Pierrot on April 4, 1984

4th Amendment? We don’t need no stinkin’ 4th Amendment!

profitsbeard on August 6, 2013 at 2:02 AM

Just remember, only a few years ago the Left was outraged when they read in the New York Times that the Bush administration was monitoring al Qaeda phone calls. Now the Lefties aren’t even bothered that Obama is monitoring THEIR phone calls.

J Baustian on August 5, 2013 at 10:31 PM

And not to quote Chris Christie or anything, everything the GWB did that the liberals whined about in foreign policy and defence, and Obama ran against, he had to continue for our safety. So they shut up.

Don’t worry, when the president is a conservative again, they will stop holding their breath and they will whine and complain about it again. In the meantime they are just setting up their Crony Enviro businesses and trying to live off government grants and tax credits…so they are too busy to bother with silly things like foreign policy. The rules are for Thee but not for me, that is democrats for you.

All the things the media usually blame a president for are conspicuously absent during this period of wandering in the wilderness…People don’t have jobs and can’t afford to buy food? They don’t have jobs and can’t afford to make their student loan payments? Because they don’t have JOBS. Because a robust capitalist economy free-for-all would be unfair.

Someone should ask the president what he has done lately to unfetter the capitalist entrepreneurial spirit of the American people. He is severely wanting. He Reince, it would make a good question for a presidential debate.

Hey do you remember when Obama was a teensy bit jealous of Mitt Romney’s competency and he said he would appoint a Secretary of business/Business Czar? He was pretending he cared so much, now it’s back to the status quo, and MV vacations he could not afford on his own salary. The ironies grate on my eardrums. All the same theme, Democratic Hypocrites and in MA, like in Chicago, Corruptocrats.

Fleuries on August 6, 2013 at 11:42 AM

The proverbial genie is out of the bottle….no one has the guts to stand up and say the collection of every Amrican citizen’s personal data on this scale is UNREASONABLE search and seizure, which the 4th Amendment protects us from, has resulted in the stampede of government agencies who want access to every piece of personal data on every citizen! We are witnessing America’s descent into a Tyranical Police State and the abandonment of the Constitution and Rule of Law.

easyt65 on August 6, 2013 at 2:34 PM

KWtyrant left and then that nateisadouche popped on and then along comes stoic retard to continue the prog narrative.
Fett on August 5, 2013 at 10:01 PM

So much for a big tent. Just suggest that people be careful not to alienate the law enforcement community and your not just a tyrant but now a Progressive. WOW

Controlling crime is not a progressive trait. Nor is it tyranny for that matter. When criminals are allowed to rule, that is a real tyranny. The conservative movement which I support has traditionally been for fiscal responsibility, free market economics free of excessive state control, freedom to practice whatever faith you choose unafraid, and freedom from crime and fear (i.e. law enforcement). If you throw all of us out with your bathwater, you will not be successful at winning majorities.

KW64 on August 6, 2013 at 5:25 PM

KW64 on August 6, 2013 at 5:25 PM

The law enforcement agencies are are alienating themselves. First they made themselves immune from the laws they enforce. Now they subvert the constitution of the United States of America, because citizens rights are not as sacred as the police are. They have no one to blame for their alienation than themselves. The blue line, the union protection racket, their abuses of power, and now their methods of collecting data.
So, if you are supporting their unconstitutional collection of data, you are part of the problem and are a tyranny supporting unpatriotic person unworthy of any good will.

astonerii on August 6, 2013 at 5:32 PM

Comment pages: 1 2