Federal Prosecutors Cite Warrantless Wiretaps as Evidence

[Xsyne]

You can see gravity.

Do abstract concepts not exist because you can't see them?

That, on the other hand, works.

[Luveria]

I assume you're aware of the multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics. Lets apply Tsmida Eri's belief system to that. If other parts of the multiverse aren't being seen or touched, we know they don't exist.

Anything within one universe does not exist with respect to anything within another universe under many-worlds.

Yet it still exists, somewhere, somewhere else.

[The Emerald Legion]

You can see gravity.

Do abstract concepts not exist because you can't see them?

Err, you can see them. Abstract concepts are processed in the brain correct? So you could look at a brain to see the concept.

[Xsyne]

Anything within one universe does not exist with respect to anything within another universe under many-worlds.

Yet it still exists, somewhere, somewhere else.

No, it doesn't. Existence is a relative property.

Edit: although as interesting as this discussion may be, this probably isn't the thread for it

[Luveria]

Do abstract concepts not exist because you can't see them?

That, on the other hand, works.

Legal rights are pretty much an abstract concept that exists through the willingness of a state enforcing the rights.

We may as well say no state has authority, because we can't see or touch a state's authority. I don't see why there is a double standard for rights.

[Luveria]

Do abstract concepts not exist because you can't see them?

Err, you can see them. Abstract concepts are processed in the brain correct? So you could look at a brain to see the concept.

Knowledge of legal rights are processed in the brain too aren't they?

[God Kefka]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/27/us/federal-prosecutors-in-a-policy-shift-cite-warrantless-wiretaps-as-evidence.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department for the first time has notified a criminal defendant that evidence being used against him came from a warrantless wiretap, a move that is expected to set up a Supreme Court test of whether such eavesdropping is constitutional.

Prosecutors filed such a notice late Friday in the case of Jamshid Muhtorov, who was charged in Colorado in January 2012 with providing material support to the Islamic Jihad Union, a designated terrorist organization based in Uzbekistan.

Mr. Muhtorov is accused of planning to travel abroad to join the militants and has pleaded not guilty. A criminal complaint against him showed that much of the government’s case was based on e-mails and phone calls intercepted under a 2008 surveillance law.

The government’s notice allows Mr. Muhtorov’s lawyer to ask a court to suppress the evidence by arguing that it derived from unconstitutional surveillance, setting in motion judicial review of the eavesdropping.

The New York Times reported on Oct. 17 that the decision by prosecutors to notify a defendant about the wiretapping followed a legal policy debate inside the Justice Department.

The debate began in June when Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. discovered that the department’s National Security Division did not notify criminal defendants when eavesdropping without a warrant was an early link in an investigative chain that led to evidence used in court. As a result, none of the defendants knew that they had the right to challenge the warrantless wiretapping law.

The practice contradicted what Mr. Verrilli had told the Supreme Court last year in a case challenging the law, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. Legalizing a form of the Bush administration’s program of warrantless surveillance, the law authorized the government to wiretap Americans’ e-mails and phone calls without an individual court order and on domestic soil so long as the surveillance is “targeted” at a foreigner abroad.

A group of plaintiffs led by Amnesty International had challenged the law as unconstitutional. But Mr. Verrilli last year urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the case because those plaintiffs could not prove that they had been wiretapped. In making that argument, he said a defendant who faced evidence derived from the law would have proper legal standing and would be notified, so dismissing the lawsuit by Amnesty International would not close the door to judicial review of the 2008 law. The court accepted that logic, voting 5-to-4 to dismiss the case.

In a statement, Patrick Toomey, staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, which had represented Amnesty International and the other plaintiffs, hailed the move but criticized the Justice Department’s prior practice.

“We welcome the government’s belated recognition that it must give notice to criminal defendants who it has monitored under the most sweeping surveillance law ever passed by Congress,” Mr. Toomey said. “By withholding notice, the government has avoided judicial review of its dragnet warrantless wiretapping program for five years.”

The Justice Department change traces back to June, when The Times reported that prosecutors in Fort Lauderdale and Chicago had told plaintiffs they did not need to say whether evidence in their cases derived from warrantless wiretapping, in conflict with what the Justice Department had told the Supreme Court.

After reading the article, Mr. Verrilli sought an explanation from the National Security Division, whose lawyers had vetted his briefs and helped him practice for his arguments, according to officials with knowledge of the internal deliberations. It was only then that he learned of the division’s practice of narrowly interpreting its need to notify defendants of evidence “derived from” warrantless wiretapping.

There ensued a wider debate throughout June and July, the officials said. National security prosecutors raised operational concerns: disclosing more to defendants could tip off a foreign target that his communications were being monitored, so intelligence officials might become reluctant to share crucial information that might create problems in a later trial.

Mr. Verrilli was said to have argued that there was no legal basis to conceal from defendants that the evidence derived from legally untested surveillance, preventing them from knowing they had an opportunity to challenge it. Ultimately, his view prevailed and the National Security Division changed its practice going forward, leading to the new filing on Friday in Mr. Muhtorov’s case.

Still, it remains unclear how many other cases — including closed matters in which convicts are already service prison sentences — involved evidence derived from warrantless wiretapping in which the National Security Division did not provide full notice to defendants, nor whether the department will belatedly notify them. Such a notice could lead to efforts to reopen those cases.

This is probably going to be a really big deal, as it will most likely be challenged and then eventually sent up to the Supreme Court, whose ruling will really define the future of privacy rights in the United States.

What do you guys think about this case, and the possible future SCOTUS case? I'm personally putting my hopes on progressive 4th amendment jurisprudence.

I'm expecting the liberal justices (Kagan, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor) to vote together as a bloc to challenge the constitutionality of warrantless wiretaps, as they did in CLAPPER, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE, ET AL. v. AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL USA ET AL.

Alito is the most likely of the conservative justices to flip with the Liberals in my view, because he supports a mosaic theory of the 4th amendment (http://www.volokh.com/2012/01/23/whats- ... ter-jones/), though his majority decision in Clapper v. Amnesty left a bad taste in my mouth (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12 ... 5_ihdj.pdf). Roberts and Kennedy are somewhat unreliable on privacy issues (particularly Kennedy), though they have a chance of flipping. Scalia and Thomas are basically lost causes.

Cause for hope goes exponentially up if one of the conservative justices retires and is replaced by a young liberal justice attuned to technology much as Kagan is. Nevertheless, the votes might be there with the current set of justices, and getting theses issues into the public spotlight is better than having them isolated in secret courts or not discussed at all.

Whatever it takes to stop the terrorists...

Shrug

[The Emerald Legion]

Err, you can see them. Abstract concepts are processed in the brain correct? So you could look at a brain to see the concept.

Knowledge of legal rights are processed in the brain too aren't they?

Indeed they are.

Doesn't mean I agree with what rights are in place, but they exist.

[Luveria]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/27/us/federal-prosecutors-in-a-policy-shift-cite-warrantless-wiretaps-as-evidence.html?_r=0



This is probably going to be a really big deal, as it will most likely be challenged and then eventually sent up to the Supreme Court, whose ruling will really define the future of privacy rights in the United States.

What do you guys think about this case, and the possible future SCOTUS case? I'm personally putting my hopes on progressive 4th amendment jurisprudence.

I'm expecting the liberal justices (Kagan, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor) to vote together as a bloc to challenge the constitutionality of warrantless wiretaps, as they did in CLAPPER, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE, ET AL. v. AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL USA ET AL.

Alito is the most likely of the conservative justices to flip with the Liberals in my view, because he supports a mosaic theory of the 4th amendment (http://www.volokh.com/2012/01/23/whats- ... ter-jones/), though his majority decision in Clapper v. Amnesty left a bad taste in my mouth (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12 ... 5_ihdj.pdf). Roberts and Kennedy are somewhat unreliable on privacy issues (particularly Kennedy), though they have a chance of flipping. Scalia and Thomas are basically lost causes.

Cause for hope goes exponentially up if one of the conservative justices retires and is replaced by a young liberal justice attuned to technology much as Kagan is. Nevertheless, the votes might be there with the current set of justices, and getting theses issues into the public spotlight is better than having them isolated in secret courts or not discussed at all.

Whatever it takes to stop the terrorists...

Shrug

As long as it is being done within laws, but that is what the Supreme Court will be deciding as mentioned in the OP.

[Blasveck]

That, on the other hand, works.

Legal rights are pretty much an abstract concept that exists through the willingness of a state enforcing the rights.

We may as well say no state has authority, because we can't see or touch a state's authority. I don't see why there is a double standard for rights.

There are a lot of concepts that you can't touch.

You can't "touch" Fascism, can you?

[The Emerald Legion]

Legal rights are pretty much an abstract concept that exists through the willingness of a state enforcing the rights.

We may as well say no state has authority, because we can't see or touch a state's authority. I don't see why there is a double standard for rights.

There are a lot of concepts that you can't touch.

You can't "touch" Fascism, can you?

Poke a Nazi in the head. Voila. You've touched Fascism.

[Luveria]

Knowledge of legal rights are processed in the brain too aren't they?

Indeed they are.

Doesn't mean I agree with what rights are in place, but they exist.

Then you would agree no rights inherently exist, and that all existing rights only exist because of social, cultural, and state systems which have brought those rights into existence and make those rights exist. That only strengthens the case that rights are indeed something that exists, as long as humans will sustain systems that have rights.

[The Emerald Legion]

Indeed they are.

Doesn't mean I agree with what rights are in place, but they exist.

Then you would agree no rights inherently exist, and that all existing rights only exist because of social, cultural, and state systems which have brought those rights into existence and make those rights exist. That only strengthens the case that rights are indeed something that exists, as long as humans will sustain systems that have rights.

No. I'm saying Rights inherently exist because people think they do.

Saying rights don't exist is like saying Windows 8 doesn't exist.

EDIT: Corrected to support the metaphor.

[God Kefka]

Then you would agree no rights inherently exist, and that all existing rights only exist because of social, cultural, and state systems which have brought those rights into existence and make those rights exist. That only strengthens the case that rights are indeed something that exists, as long as humans will sustain systems that have rights.

No. I'm saying Rights inherently exist because people think they do.

Saying rights don't exist is like saying Windows 8 doesn't exist.

EDIT: Corrected to support the metaphor.

Isn't that why they DON'T inherently exist?

Something that inherently exists exists whether or not people believe it exists or not because it unconditionally has material form...

[The Emerald Legion]

No. I'm saying Rights inherently exist because people think they do.

Saying rights don't exist is like saying Windows 8 doesn't exist.

EDIT: Corrected to support the metaphor.

Isn't that why they DON'T inherently exist?

Something that inherently exists exists whether or not people believe it exists or not because it unconditionally has material form...

I don't accept dualistic nonsense. Therefor, Thought is a material phenomenon, meaning thoughts have material form.

Or are you implying that you don't believe this forum is a real material thing?

[God Kefka]

Isn't that why they DON'T inherently exist?

Something that inherently exists exists whether or not people believe it exists or not because it unconditionally has material form...

I don't accept dualistic nonsense. Therefor, Thought is a material phenomenon, meaning thoughts have material form.

Or are you implying that you don't believe this forum is a real material thing?

This forum is a real material thing in the sense that there is this place on the internet where people are right now having a debate...
So long as this condition is filled, the forum can be said to exist (regardless of what anyone were to think). The forum is a physical thing.

Rights don't inherently exist because there is no sense in which they exist if people were all to suddenly not believe they exist. They could be acting in accordance with rights but if they don't have a sense that the rights exist, don't talk about rights, don't know what rights are, don't have discourse to expand or fold back the rights... then the rights don't exist. It merely becomes a coincidence of chance and a cultural practice that certain ''rights'' are respected that can be broken at any time. There has to be some kind of word or idea believed by the majority that is phrased out in a manner similar to the conception of ''rights...''

The mere actions don't create the right. There has to be accompanying belief that is recognizable as rights... Absent those beliefs, rights cannot exist and so they don't inherently exist.

[The Emerald Legion]

I don't accept dualistic nonsense. Therefor, Thought is a material phenomenon, meaning thoughts have material form.

Or are you implying that you don't believe this forum is a real material thing?

This forum is a real material thing in the sense that there is this place on the internet where people are right now having a debate...
So long as this condition is filled, the forum can be said to exist (regardless of what anyone were to think). The forum is a physical thing.

Rights don't inherently exist because there is no sense in which they exist if people were all to suddenly not believe they exist. They could be acting in accordance with rights but if they don't have a sense that the rights exist, don't talk about rights, don't know what rights are, don't have discourse to expand or fold back the rights... then the rights don't exist. It merely becomes a coincidence of chance and a cultural practice that certain ''rights'' are respected that can be broken at any time. There has to be some kind of word or idea believed by the majority that is phrased out in a manner similar to the conception of ''rights...''

The mere actions don't create the right. There has to be accompanying belief that is recognizable as rights... Absent those beliefs, rights cannot exist and so they don't inherently exist.

And if I were to smash all the computers, this forum would not exist. If I were to incinerate a person, that person would not exist.

There are always things that can be done to destroy something. The idea that just because it is vulnerable to destruction that it doesn't exist is ridiculous. There is no "Inherent" or "Subjective" There is just Existence and Non-Existence.

[Draakonite]

Hmm, they watch what people say and then prosecute people because of things they said...

[Luveria]

Then you would agree no rights inherently exist, and that all existing rights only exist because of social, cultural, and state systems which have brought those rights into existence and make those rights exist. That only strengthens the case that rights are indeed something that exists, as long as humans will sustain systems that have rights.

No. I'm saying Rights inherently exist because people think they do.

Saying rights don't exist is like saying Windows 8 doesn't exist.

EDIT: Corrected to support the metaphor.

Yes, and rights often require a system in place. If a state suddenly ceases to exist, then people would rightfully believe the rights that state provided are gone, because now there isn't an authority to say those legal rights exist. That is what I mean by a system being in place to make the desire for rights translate into being rights that are actual.

[The Emerald Legion]

No. I'm saying Rights inherently exist because people think they do.

Saying rights don't exist is like saying Windows 8 doesn't exist.

EDIT: Corrected to support the metaphor.

Yes, and rights often require a system in place. If a state suddenly ceases to exist, then people would rightfully believe the rights that state provided are gone, because now there isn't an authority to say those legal rights exist. That is what I mean by a system being in place to make the desire for rights translate into being rights that are actual.

If there was no government to enforce rights, would you murder someone?

[God Kefka]

This forum is a real material thing in the sense that there is this place on the internet where people are right now having a debate...
So long as this condition is filled, the forum can be said to exist (regardless of what anyone were to think). The forum is a physical thing.

Rights don't inherently exist because there is no sense in which they exist if people were all to suddenly not believe they exist. They could be acting in accordance with rights but if they don't have a sense that the rights exist, don't talk about rights, don't know what rights are, don't have discourse to expand or fold back the rights... then the rights don't exist. It merely becomes a coincidence of chance and a cultural practice that certain ''rights'' are respected that can be broken at any time. There has to be some kind of word or idea believed by the majority that is phrased out in a manner similar to the conception of ''rights...''

The mere actions don't create the right. There has to be accompanying belief that is recognizable as rights... Absent those beliefs, rights cannot exist and so they don't inherently exist.

And if I were to smash all the computers, this forum would not exist. If I were to incinerate a person, that person would not exist.

There are always things that can be done to destroy something. The idea that just because it is vulnerable to destruction that it doesn't exist is ridiculous. There is no "Inherent" or "Subjective" There is just Existence and Non-Existence.

It exists... it just doesn't INHERENTLY exist if it is absolutely dependent on people's belief in them.

If something exists whether or not people believe in it then it exists inherently... if it is tied to the condition that people have to believe that it exists than it is not inherently existing.

Hence a computer exists up until the moment it is destroyed. It inherently exists or doesn't exist irrespective of belief.

Rights on the other hand, completely depend on people's beliefs.

[Luveria]

Yes, and rights often require a system in place. If a state suddenly ceases to exist, then people would rightfully believe the rights that state provided are gone, because now there isn't an authority to say those legal rights exist. That is what I mean by a system being in place to make the desire for rights translate into being rights that are actual.

If there was no government to enforce rights, would you murder someone?

Probably not. I can't say the same for other people.

[The Emerald Legion]

And if I were to smash all the computers, this forum would not exist. If I were to incinerate a person, that person would not exist.

There are always things that can be done to destroy something. The idea that just because it is vulnerable to destruction that it doesn't exist is ridiculous. There is no "Inherent" or "Subjective" There is just Existence and Non-Existence.

It exists... it just doesn't INHERENTLY exist if it is absolutely dependent on people's belief in them.

If something exists whether or not people believe in it then it exists inherently... if it is tied to the condition that people have to believe that it exists than it is not inherently existing.

Hence a computer exists up until the moment it is destroyed. It inherently exists or doesn't exist irrespective of belief.

Rights on the other hand, completely depend on people's beliefs.

The issue with that, is that sort of position depends on a dualistic view of reality that A.) Views the mental processes as separate from the physical reality and B.) Views said mental processes as "Less real" than that physical reality.

That view is incorrect, therefor that position is incorrect. Thought is a measurable physical phenomenon.

If there was no government to enforce rights, would you murder someone?

Probably not. I can't say the same for other people.

Exactly. Rights are Objective, for those who hold them and nonexistent for those who don't.

[God Kefka]

It exists... it just doesn't INHERENTLY exist if it is absolutely dependent on people's belief in them.

If something exists whether or not people believe in it then it exists inherently... if it is tied to the condition that people have to believe that it exists than it is not inherently existing.

Hence a computer exists up until the moment it is destroyed. It inherently exists or doesn't exist irrespective of belief.

Rights on the other hand, completely depend on people's beliefs.

The issue with that, is that sort of position depends on a dualistic view of reality that A.) Views the mental processes as separate from the physical reality and B.) Views said mental processes as "Less real" than that physical reality.

That view is incorrect, therefor that position is incorrect. Thought is a measurable physical phenomenon.

Mental processes are separate from the physical reality though, they are a way to interpret the physical reality but they are not themselves always the physical reality.

Everything that IS physical has to exist. Everything that exists in the mental realm may or may not exist in the physical realm and thus may or may not actually exist. For example, 100% of people could believe a silver unicorn exists... but this doesn't necessarily describe the physical reality accurately.

Hence when something has a physical form and is completely independent of subjective mental states, you can say with 100% that it exists. But if something is dependent on subjective mental states to exist and has no inherent physical form... then you have good reason to start questioning its inherent existence.

The only things we can be sure inherently exist are those that have physical form independent of subjective mental processes.

[Luveria]

Probably not. I can't say the same for other people.

Exactly. Rights are Objective, for those who hold them and nonexistent for those who don't.

I don't disagree.