3 ms·
I'm confused, again. Don't we subpoena people all the time just because they are associated with the subject of an active investigation? That's literally Law En
by mpyne 13y ago
I'm confused, again. Don't we subpoena people all the time just because they are associated with the subject of an active investigation? That's literally Law Enforcement 101.
Do you think they didn't bother to search the available records for close associates of a Mob boss under investigation for racketeering? That they just wiretap the one guy and that's all?
- betterunix 13y agoWhat do emails not sent to or received from the subject of the investigation have to do with the investigation? It might have been reasonable, if the government had real reason to believe Julian Assange have broken our laws, to request emails related to him or to Wikileaks. It is not acceptable to just demand everything, unless they are also seeking to prosecute this person.
- mpyne 13y agoTell that to the judge man, he or she signed the warrant. Maybe the government was able to put forward the theory that there's a whole network of like-minded people working with Assange, a network that cooperated to run a website or something, and that this guy's emails should be useful in piecing that together for use in the eventual trial against whoever the hell they're investigating.
- lawnchair_larry 13y agoThis is not how subpoenas work, at all. This is straight up surveillance. It doesn't matter that a judge rubber stamped it. That isn't the bar for what is okay, as we all know.