3 ms·

You're right when it comes to the investigation. If the DOJ finds that this parallel construction is illegal, then I would accept it as such. My gut says they

You're right when it comes to the investigation. If the DOJ finds that this parallel construction is illegal, then I would accept it as such. My gut says they won't (because of the example I gave), but I accept the possibility that I could be wrong. I still stand by what I said regarding the lack of "snatchings". If a parallel chain of evidence can be constructed that leads to an arrest, that's not "because of" the NSA's monitoring programs. That's because there is a valid reason to investigate this person. The lynchpin is not the NSA's tip, it's the ability to find evidence against a person that is obtained according to the law. A "snatching" would be attributed to the NSA if the only evidence were to have been obtained through the collection of "information pursuant to a valid foreign intelligence tasking". And that's clearly got no evidence to support it.

eliasmacpherson 13y ago
There's two modes of operation, you seem to have the second in mind, and I am thinking of the first: 1: a. NSA collects American national's "information pursuant to a valid foreign intelligence tasking". (this may be illegal, violation of fourth amendment rights, no supreme court decision) b. NSA tip SOD (if 1. is illegal, then it follows it's illegal to pass on) c. SOD instruct police force to stop and search for 'traffic violation' at time and place, obscure evidence trail. (DOJ investigating if this is illegal) d. d:a) no evidence is found. d:b) evidence is found, parallel construction begins. 2: a. law enforcement agency DEA/IRS/SOD asks NSA to get foreign intelligence, because of investigation already underway. other steps as above. My problem is with the first mode. Given the first mode, do you stand by your earlier statement and: "If a parallel chain of evidence can be constructed that leads to an arrest, that's not "because of" the NSA's monitoring programs." See the NSA's statement re: evidence of a crime. If the first mode leads to an arrest it is by definition "because of". In both scenarios I have a problem with d:a) where no evidence is turned up because it seems like a very unreasonable search to me.

eliasmacpherson 13y ago

There's two modes of operation, you seem to have the second in mind, and I am thinking of the first: 1: a. NSA collects American national's "information pursuant to a valid foreign intelligence tasking". (this may be illegal, violation of fourth amendment rights, no supreme court decision) b. NSA tip SOD (if 1. is illegal, then it follows it's illegal to pass on) c. SOD instruct police force to stop and search for 'traffic violation' at time and place, obscure evidence trail. (DOJ investigating if this is illegal) d. d:a) no evidence is found. d:b) evidence is found, parallel construction begins. 2: a. law enforcement agency DEA/IRS/SOD asks NSA to get foreign intelligence, because of investigation already underway. other steps as above. My problem is with the first mode. Given the first mode, do you stand by your earlier statement and: "If a parallel chain of evidence can be constructed that leads to an arrest, that's not "because of" the NSA's monitoring programs." See the NSA's statement re: evidence of a crime. If the first mode leads to an arrest it is by definition "because of". In both scenarios I have a problem with d:a) where no evidence is turned up because it seems like a very unreasonable search to me.