4 ms·

I think the reason Americans don't see foreign spying as an issue is this: If the US spies on a German citizen, the US can't go and arrest said citizen without

I think the reason Americans don't see foreign spying as an issue is this: If the US spies on a German citizen, the US can't go and arrest said citizen without the German government's consent. However, when you spy domestically, the US citizen can't exactly defend himself and can get railroaded under National Security...then tossed in jail. There is a very, very big difference between what domestic security forces can do to you vs. foreign ones.

marcosdumay 12y ago
> If the US spies on a German citizen, the US can't go and arrest said citizen without the German government's consent. What isn't true anymore (replace Germany with Pakistan for an extreme example) and don't really matter anymore, because it looks like all the mafias that own governments are supporting each other nowadays.
ninv 12y ago
>If the US spies on a German citizen, the US can't go and arrest said citizen without the German government's consent. why arrest when we can blackmail them. (evil laugh)
dragonwriter 12y ago
> If the US spies on a German citizen, the US can't go and arrest said citizen without the German government's consent. Patently false. See, among numerous other incidents and legal cases, United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655 (1992). The US can and does arrest foreign citizens in foreign countries for offenses committed in foreign countries without the consent of any foreign country, and has done so overtly for quite a long time.
- tptacek 12y ago
  That is a disquieting case that sets an insane precedent, but note that it does not enable the USG to use unwarranted foreign SIGINT to introduce evidence in a criminal case. (Hopefully this comment clarifies instead of sounding dismissive; that citation was very helpful).
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > That is a disquieting case that sets an insane precedent, but note that it does not enable the USG to use unwarranted foreign SIGINT to introduce evidence in a criminal case. That's what parallel construction is for, which is rather orthogonal to the issue of whether the target is a foreign citizen located in a foreign country at the time of the arrest or a US citizen in the US at that time. And also note that options for action based on NSA surveillance aren't limited to arrest followed by criminal prosecution.
    - tptacek 12y ago
      The parallel construction discussion is also very complicated. I should be clear: you're right, the comment made upthread about how noncitizens are insulated from the impact of US surveillance was not valid.
    - mpyne 12y ago
      > That's what parallel construction is for Parallel construction relies on having other law enforcement agencies available with which to conduct the parallel evidence (re-)gathering. How would that work in a foreign country? It seems at the very least we'd have to have FBI or similar in their country (which limits the possibilities to nations with agreements that permit this). The U.S. LE agent abroad would then still need to be able to detain and search for the evidence to re-locate, all while maintaining U.S. rules of evidence, and all while not getting arrested by the host nation in the process. The latter sounds like a guarantee to me if you should even whisper a hint that "parallel construction" is taking place over there. A counter-argument is that Constitutional protections are not all considered to apply on foreign soil by U.S. courts, but given that these actions would be taken by an agent of the USG I'm still not sure how such a case doesn't get thrown out immediately. > And also note that options for action based on NSA surveillance aren't limited to arrest followed by criminal prosecution. But nor are the options literally infinite.
      - opendais 12y ago
        In the case that he cited, that is why the named defendant was acquitted and sent back to Mexico. They didn't have a case that stood up in court.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- opendais 12y ago
  The argument was basically "Mexico didn't say we couldn't do it based on the extradition treaty, even tho they were aware of the Ker doctrine under which we'd be allowed to do this when the treaty was negotiated". So the argument was that there was consent (based on the Extradition Treaty). That is very, very different than them saying "We can kidnap someone from county X for reason Y without an extradition treaty in place." It was them basically saying "Mexico agreed to the unspoken terms that we'd use our legal precedents that preceded the treaty unless expressly forbidden to do so." So, Mexico consented by way of treaty and by not excluding forcible abduction (which was considered legal at the time the treaty was signed). That isn't the same as "did not consent". That is the Mexican government saying "Oops, we consented 60 years ago but we want to take it back now. We just forgot to mention it." https://www.aclu.org/safe-free/united-states-v-alvarez-machain https://www.aclu.org/safe-free/united-states-v-alvarez-macha... https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/504/655/case.html https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/504/655/case.htm... "(b) Neither the Treaty's language nor the history of negotiations and practice under it supports the proposition that it prohibits abductions outside of its terms. The Treaty says nothing about either country refraining from forcibly abducting people from the other's territory or the consequences if an abduction occurs. In addition, although the Mexican Government was made aware of the Ker doctrine as early as 1906, and language to curtail Ker was drafted as early as 1935, the Treaty's current version contains no such clause. Pp. 663-666."
- malvim 12y ago
  If I may add, they also seem to KILL foreign people without asking anyone for permission/consent/support/whatever. Of course, Osama Bin Laden is an extreme case, but still...
  - veidr 12y ago
    Bin Laden was indeed an extraordinary case, but the USA unilaterally kills a lot more foreign people than just that guy.
dragontamer 12y ago
Learn US Govermnent 101 please. The NSA is a military agency. The Military is not afforded police powers. The NSA is restricted in its ability to cooperate with the FBI. Furthermore, any illegally gathered evidence is tossed out before it is told to the jury. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree The US is allowed to spy on its citizens, as appropriate under the 4th amendment. IE: With warrants, due process, and all that good stuff. When the DoJ / FBI fails to comply with the rules, illegal evidence is tossed out before trials even begin.
- fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
  Good grief. Stop pretending that NSA and DOJ are playing by the rules. We know they're not. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intelligence-laundering https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intel...
- Kim_Bruning 12y ago
  US government 102: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction .
- opendais 12y ago
  Eh? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction NSA hands it over to the DEA who arrests you based on an investigation based on that information. They've been doing it and getting away with it so I think your believe that the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree will protect you is false.
  - dragontamer 12y ago
    Parallel construction proves my statements. On the books, legally and in front of a judge, the NSA and DEA are not allowed to work with each other. Parallel Construction is a (probably illegal) technique that DEA agents are using right now to get around the legal authorities. But it involves DEA agents lying under oath towards judges. IE: I don't think the practice of parallel construction is going to hold up in courts in the long term.

marcosdumay 12y ago

> If the US spies on a German citizen, the US can't go and arrest said citizen without the German government's consent. What isn't true anymore (replace Germany with Pakistan for an extreme example) and don't really matter anymore, because it looks like all the mafias that own governments are supporting each other nowadays.

ninv 12y ago

>If the US spies on a German citizen, the US can't go and arrest said citizen without the German government's consent. why arrest when we can blackmail them. (evil laugh)

dragonwriter 12y ago

> If the US spies on a German citizen, the US can't go and arrest said citizen without the German government's consent. Patently false. See, among numerous other incidents and legal cases, United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655 (1992). The US can and does arrest foreign citizens in foreign countries for offenses committed in foreign countries without the consent of any foreign country, and has done so overtly for quite a long time.

tptacek 12y ago
That is a disquieting case that sets an insane precedent, but note that it does not enable the USG to use unwarranted foreign SIGINT to introduce evidence in a criminal case. (Hopefully this comment clarifies instead of sounding dismissive; that citation was very helpful).
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > That is a disquieting case that sets an insane precedent, but note that it does not enable the USG to use unwarranted foreign SIGINT to introduce evidence in a criminal case. That's what parallel construction is for, which is rather orthogonal to the issue of whether the target is a foreign citizen located in a foreign country at the time of the arrest or a US citizen in the US at that time. And also note that options for action based on NSA surveillance aren't limited to arrest followed by criminal prosecution.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    The parallel construction discussion is also very complicated. I should be clear: you're right, the comment made upthread about how noncitizens are insulated from the impact of US surveillance was not valid.
  - mpyne 12y ago
    > That's what parallel construction is for Parallel construction relies on having other law enforcement agencies available with which to conduct the parallel evidence (re-)gathering. How would that work in a foreign country? It seems at the very least we'd have to have FBI or similar in their country (which limits the possibilities to nations with agreements that permit this). The U.S. LE agent abroad would then still need to be able to detain and search for the evidence to re-locate, all while maintaining U.S. rules of evidence, and all while not getting arrested by the host nation in the process. The latter sounds like a guarantee to me if you should even whisper a hint that "parallel construction" is taking place over there. A counter-argument is that Constitutional protections are not all considered to apply on foreign soil by U.S. courts, but given that these actions would be taken by an agent of the USG I'm still not sure how such a case doesn't get thrown out immediately. > And also note that options for action based on NSA surveillance aren't limited to arrest followed by criminal prosecution. But nor are the options literally infinite.
    - opendais 12y ago
      In the case that he cited, that is why the named defendant was acquitted and sent back to Mexico. They didn't have a case that stood up in court.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
opendais 12y ago
The argument was basically "Mexico didn't say we couldn't do it based on the extradition treaty, even tho they were aware of the Ker doctrine under which we'd be allowed to do this when the treaty was negotiated". So the argument was that there was consent (based on the Extradition Treaty). That is very, very different than them saying "We can kidnap someone from county X for reason Y without an extradition treaty in place." It was them basically saying "Mexico agreed to the unspoken terms that we'd use our legal precedents that preceded the treaty unless expressly forbidden to do so." So, Mexico consented by way of treaty and by not excluding forcible abduction (which was considered legal at the time the treaty was signed). That isn't the same as "did not consent". That is the Mexican government saying "Oops, we consented 60 years ago but we want to take it back now. We just forgot to mention it." https://www.aclu.org/safe-free/united-states-v-alvarez-machain https://www.aclu.org/safe-free/united-states-v-alvarez-macha... https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/504/655/case.html https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/504/655/case.htm... "(b) Neither the Treaty's language nor the history of negotiations and practice under it supports the proposition that it prohibits abductions outside of its terms. The Treaty says nothing about either country refraining from forcibly abducting people from the other's territory or the consequences if an abduction occurs. In addition, although the Mexican Government was made aware of the Ker doctrine as early as 1906, and language to curtail Ker was drafted as early as 1935, the Treaty's current version contains no such clause. Pp. 663-666."
malvim 12y ago
If I may add, they also seem to KILL foreign people without asking anyone for permission/consent/support/whatever. Of course, Osama Bin Laden is an extreme case, but still...
- veidr 12y ago
  Bin Laden was indeed an extraordinary case, but the USA unilaterally kills a lot more foreign people than just that guy.

dragontamer 12y ago

Learn US Govermnent 101 please. The NSA is a military agency. The Military is not afforded police powers. The NSA is restricted in its ability to cooperate with the FBI. Furthermore, any illegally gathered evidence is tossed out before it is told to the jury. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree The US is allowed to spy on its citizens, as appropriate under the 4th amendment. IE: With warrants, due process, and all that good stuff. When the DoJ / FBI fails to comply with the rules, illegal evidence is tossed out before trials even begin.

fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
Good grief. Stop pretending that NSA and DOJ are playing by the rules. We know they're not. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intelligence-laundering https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intel...
Kim_Bruning 12y ago
US government 102: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction .
opendais 12y ago
Eh? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction NSA hands it over to the DEA who arrests you based on an investigation based on that information. They've been doing it and getting away with it so I think your believe that the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree will protect you is false.
- dragontamer 12y ago
  Parallel construction proves my statements. On the books, legally and in front of a judge, the NSA and DEA are not allowed to work with each other. Parallel Construction is a (probably illegal) technique that DEA agents are using right now to get around the legal authorities. But it involves DEA agents lying under oath towards judges. IE: I don't think the practice of parallel construction is going to hold up in courts in the long term.