3 ms·

Please explain at what point the accused is allowed an opportunity to face & challenge the original accusation of wrongdoing (the secret accusation that was obt

Please explain at what point the accused is allowed an opportunity to face & challenge the original accusation of wrongdoing (the secret accusation that was obtained by illegal surveillance).

tptacek 13y ago
The state is accusing you of a crime, and you have the right to confront the prosecutor. You can confront any witnesses brought against you. You do not have the right, and never have had the right, to confront every single person in the state who had ever heard about your case. You do not, for instance, get to summon the President or even your state governor to testify in your cases. Once again: the information generated from this program does not generate evidence. It generates intelligence. There is an evidentiary issue involved in the program, which is that it might generate exculpatory facts that the defended might want to introduce into evidence, which the defendant should have the right to discover. But that's (a) going to happen very infrequently and (b) isn't close to the biggest problem with the program, which, for the nth time today, I don't support either.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  The sophistry isn't needed. If an NSA agent provides intel for use against a person in a criminal proceeding, he should have to explain his methodology, and the details of how the intel was obtained. Consider this. Ptacek rents a car to travel from A to B. NSA/DEA/SOD tips off DPS officers to search Ptacek's car for drugs. Of course, they find drugs. At trial Ptacek's defense is "What drugs? I don't know anything about any drugs!" All the judge, prosecutor, defense knows is that you were pulled over, and you [consented, or PC was otherwise obtained] and lots of drugs were found. Now, if the origin of the intel hadn't been concealed, Ptacek's defense atty could subpoena President Obama, sorry, I mean the SOD agent, who could testify as to the source of the intel. It might be discovered that there was no evidence to suggest that Ptacek was aware of the drugs concealed in his rental car. It might even be further discovered that hiding drugs in people's car without their knowledge is one of many ways that drug smugglers move contraband. You completely miss the point of what it means to have a right to face one's accuser.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    You're confusing discovery with confrontation. The discovery problem with this program has been acknowledged ad nauseam already.

Please explain at what point the accused is allowed an opportunity to face & challenge the original accusation of wrongdoing (the secret accusation that was obtained by illegal surveillance).

tptacek 13y ago

The state is accusing you of a crime, and you have the right to confront the prosecutor. You can confront any witnesses brought against you. You do not have the right, and never have had the right, to confront every single person in the state who had ever heard about your case. You do not, for instance, get to summon the President or even your state governor to testify in your cases. Once again: the information generated from this program does not generate evidence. It generates intelligence. There is an evidentiary issue involved in the program, which is that it might generate exculpatory facts that the defended might want to introduce into evidence, which the defendant should have the right to discover. But that's (a) going to happen very infrequently and (b) isn't close to the biggest problem with the program, which, for the nth time today, I don't support either.

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
The sophistry isn't needed. If an NSA agent provides intel for use against a person in a criminal proceeding, he should have to explain his methodology, and the details of how the intel was obtained. Consider this. Ptacek rents a car to travel from A to B. NSA/DEA/SOD tips off DPS officers to search Ptacek's car for drugs. Of course, they find drugs. At trial Ptacek's defense is "What drugs? I don't know anything about any drugs!" All the judge, prosecutor, defense knows is that you were pulled over, and you [consented, or PC was otherwise obtained] and lots of drugs were found. Now, if the origin of the intel hadn't been concealed, Ptacek's defense atty could subpoena President Obama, sorry, I mean the SOD agent, who could testify as to the source of the intel. It might be discovered that there was no evidence to suggest that Ptacek was aware of the drugs concealed in his rental car. It might even be further discovered that hiding drugs in people's car without their knowledge is one of many ways that drug smugglers move contraband. You completely miss the point of what it means to have a right to face one's accuser.
- tptacek 13y ago
  You're confusing discovery with confrontation. The discovery problem with this program has been acknowledged ad nauseam already.