5 ms·
Wouldn't there be evidence that doesn't ever become public? The idea was the NSA discovers a bunch of information about someone, then gives the DEA tips on whe
by droopyEyelids 13y ago
Wouldn't there be evidence that doesn't ever become public?
The idea was the NSA discovers a bunch of information about someone, then gives the DEA tips on where to look for evidence of lawbreaking. That way evidence is secret, because when the time comes to share evidence, the DEA has only looked in places to find inculpatory evidence. The superset of all evidence discovered remains 'off the record' with the NSA, and out of the hands of the defense.
- tptacek 13y agoNo. The DEA knows things under this program, but deliberately does not introduce those things as evidence. (One concern from this article that doesn't ring true to me, but maybe someone else can expand on, is the likelihood that this information is exculpatory).
- olefoo 13y agoIf the information that they are acting on is closely linked to evidence of entrapment; or the sorts of grooming and radicalising tactics that the FBI has been known to use to create "domestic terrorists" from angry young men. Then it damn well is exculpatory.
- tptacek 13y agoWhat rational person would argue that it was impossible for there to be secret exculpatory evidence in intelligence intercepts? That wasn't at all my point.