DEA Manuals Show Feds Use NSA Spy Data, Train Cops to Construct False Chains of Evidence

[Are_grits_groceries]

Smoking Gun: DEA Manuals Show Feds Use NSA Spy Data, Train Cops to Construct False Chains of Evidence

Drug Enforcement Administration training documents released to MuckRock user C.J. Ciaramella show how the agency constructs two chains of evidence to hide surveillance programs from defense teams, prosecutors, and a public wary of domestic intelligence practices.

In training materials, the department even encourages a willful ignorance by field agents to minimize the risk of making intelligence practices public.

The DEA practices mirror a common dilemma among domestic law enforcement agencies: Analysts have access to unprecedented streams of classified information that might prove useful to investigators, but entering classified evidence in court risks disclosing those sensitive surveillance methods to the world, which could either end up halting the program due to public outcry or undermining their usefulness through greater awareness.

An undated slide deck released by the DEA to fleshes out the issue more graphically: When military and intelligence agencies “find Bin Laden's satellite phone and then pin point [sic] his location, they don't have to go to a court to get permission to put a missile up his nose." Law enforcement agencies, on the other hand, “must be able to take our information to court and prove to a jury that our bad guy did the bad things we say he did.”
<snip>
Much more: https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2014/feb/03/dea-parallel-construction-guides/

Spied on and then lied to...

[woo me with science]

1. Remember when there was mocking for suggesting that the spying even existed?

What a thick, stinking river of corruption has come into view.

This needs to go on The Greatest Page.

[Baitball Blogger]

2. Yeppers. Threads were locked for spreading woo.

[RC]

4. Too much stuff labeled "Woo", later turns out not to be woo.

The good part is people are starting to pay attention. Let's hope is is not too late.

[woo me with science]

9. +10000

Let's hope it is not too late.

[Baitball Blogger]

21. What really gets me is how people and organizations break the law

in order to sustain an advantage that allows them to enjoy a higher quality of life at our expense.

[840high]

85. ....^

[Enthusiast]

22. Yes, we wouldn't want the spreading of woo. In the meantime it's

corruption from sea to shining sea. "I see nothing."

[Aerows]

152. See no evil

hear no evil

speak no evil.

And as you say, corruption from sea to shining sea.

[woo me with science]

8. Now "that" is some steaming PR effusion.

Last edited Sun Feb 16, 2014, 02:47 AM - Edit history (1)

[Enthusiast]

23. And predictable as the sunrise.

[neverforget]

10. Not shocked at all. nt.

[Scuba]

17. Fake Democrats are well-ingrained in our Party and DU.

[grahamhgreen]

83. Republican Democrats, I've heard as well.

[woo me with science]

93. +1 And right now we get to witness the magic of an election year,

when vote-seeking corporate Democrats temporarily scale back their open contempt for actual Democratic policy and pretend, briefly and dishonestly, to care about some of the same issues we do.

[Aerows]

144. And that's what pisses me off

more than anything.

[hootinholler]

28. Fucking McCarthyites! n/t

[bvar22]

35. They have become parodies of themselves.

It used to be amusing.
Now, they are just boring,
and predictable.

[Maedhros]

62. I've put both of them on my ignore list, and threads have immediately become more constructive. [n/t

[sabrina 1]

39. Yes. But now that it has been exposed, the way not to deal with it is to use the 'look over there'

tactic. Or, as I have seen, 'I trust the government'. My question is will that trust dissipate should there ever be a Republican in the WH? I remember asking Right Wingers that question during the Bush years as they attacked anyone who pointed out the dangers of giving this much power to the Government. Their standard answer was 'I have no problem with it, if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about'. So I asked them 'what if a Democrat wins the WH'?? They couldn't even imagine it!

[VanillaRhapsody]

57. We have always had spies...who was deluded into thinking this is something new?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

70. If the OP is true we aren't talking about spies.

We're talking about using national security assets for civil law enforcement and fabricating evidence.

[VanillaRhapsody]

71. Well that's a huge leap...

requiring big proof.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

72. Yes, that's what the article in the OP is alleging: that an insider has provided that evidence

I've read elsewhere about the NSA working with law enforcement. That should be a big no-no. If they are also working to falsify chains of evidence that would be even more egregious.

The source has not been -- to my very limited knowledge -- proven out; but neither has it been impeached.

[VanillaRhapsody]

73. Well just saying "somebody said so" is not going to cut it...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

74. Which is exactly what would make falsifying chains of evidence so egregious.

As I said, my knowledge is limited and the source has not been proven-out.

However, this shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. The NSA refuses to confirm it is not listening in on congress. Clapper has lied under oath. They have proven themselves untrustworthy. I would like to see this story pursued to a conclusive end.

[VanillaRhapsody]

75. OMG (Clapper again)....and yeah...I am dismissing...

this is hearsay.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

76. For a while Watergate was merely hearsay.

[VanillaRhapsody]

80. lots of things are hearsay and never proven true too...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

81. But we would never know either way unless we pursued the truth. n/t

[VanillaRhapsody]

82. but you don't just believe every thing you hear just because it fits your narrative

[Nuclear Unicorn]

87. I didn't have a narrative until the NSA gave me one.

[VanillaRhapsody]

90. yeah right...no narrative....

[Nuclear Unicorn]

92. Do you have anything of substance or just a smiley provided to you by the founders of this forum?

[questionseverything]

95. reuters reported on this last summer

sod is not denying it and solicitor general has admitted it to SC//////

Muhtorov’s challenge has its roots in the case rejected by the Supreme Court last year. In deciding to dismiss, the Supreme Court relied upon the assurance by the U.S. solicitor general that the government would notify criminal defendants when it had used evidence from the surveillance.

But the solicitor general at the time did not know that the Justice Department had a policy to conceal such evidence from defendants. He learned of it only after some criminal defendants sought clarification of remarks that Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) made in late 2012 that the government had used evidence from warrantless monitoring in certain cases. The department reversed its policy last year.
/////////////////////////////////////////////

so the solicitor general presented false info to the supreme court????? because he did not know that justice department was (illegally) concealing evidence???

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/terrorism-suspect-challenges-warrantless-surveillance/2014/01/29/fb9cc2ae-88f1-11e3-a5bd-844629433ba3_story.html

[Aerows]

101. Exactly n/t

[Aerows]

100. You are absolutely right, Nuclear Unicorn

But understand that the poster you are dealing with has one purpose in mind - defend the NSA at all costs, even to their own credibility (which is pretty limited after the things they have posted, anyway).

[Aerows]

145. Honey, if you got any more phony with your arguments

You would be made of Styrofoam.

[Aerows]

97. Oh, you showed up

I'm really surprised by that. Heaven knows that you can't stay away from protecting the NSA/Security state.

[Aerows]

143. Wait a second

I thought we all knew this, everyone does it, and if it happens under a Democratic President it's okay.

Oh, and shut up. I forgot that one.

[OnyxCollie]

3. K&R. nt

[WillyT]

5. HUGE K & R !!!

[blkmusclmachine]

7. You'd be a fool to trust the EN-SS-EH

[zeemike]

11. Yep spied, lied and tried...

We got nothing on the Stasi...only we do it better.

And what is to say that they don't use it on politicians or troublemakers to control things?
The infrastructure it there and no one is watching them...or even dares to.

[Th1onein]

183. But, but, but it's LEGAL!

Don't you know that? It's LEGAL. It's LEGAL. So it's all okay.

[ohheckyeah]

12. Has the ACLU gotten involved

in this mess with the NSA?

[jsr]

13. They're keeping two sets of books

[Oilwellian]

14. How to violate our Fourth Amendment rights is in their training manuals?

entering classified evidence in court risks disclosing those sensitive surveillance methods to the world, which could either end up halting the program due to public outcry or undermining their usefulness through greater awareness.

It would be interesting to learn how many Americans have been prosecuted and imprisoned due to this illegally obtained information. I hope the actual pages of the manual are disclosed so we will know how they deceived everyone.

[woo me with science]

15. +1 This should be the beginning of relentless investigation of these crimes,

Last edited Sun Feb 16, 2014, 12:42 PM - Edit history (1)

not the end of a revelation.

[grasswire]

29. NSA appears to be a criminal enterprise. nt

[woo me with science]

36. No hyperbole there. nt

[reddread]

37. kick for that n/t

[Aerows]

53. Second kick

That is a mouthful of truth.

[Aerows]

103. It boggles the mind

that there are a handful of people that defend this. Everyone with a brain should be picking up a fucking rock and getting ready to end this rabid beast of a system. This leads to nowhere good, sound and just.

[Warren DeMontague]

16. So they have a "taint review team"

Yuk.

[randome]

18. You guys did read all the training slides available, right?

The ones that say it is not permissible to lie under oath? As for the rest of it, the 'missile up Bin Laden's nose'? He was not an American citizen so our laws did not apply to him.

And the 'unfortunately named' Taint Review Team? Sounds like they are very up front about what they are doing and go through a lot of hurdles to avoid complications.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Reach out and touch someone today.
Kick a Republican in the gonads.[/center][/font][hr]

[Fumesucker]

19. In your opinion is constructing false evidence trails an ethical government practice? n/t

[randome]

20. I would think it irrelevant in regard to non-citizens.

So long as there is enough evidence by other means to satisfy a jury. We're not talkiing about evidence fabricated out of the very air.

Say the NSA obtains an email regarding money laundering but doesn't want to reveal how it did so. DEA is tipped off by the NSA and then says that they discovered the email.

That email still exists.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[questionseverything]

26. to be confronted with the witnesses against him

Article [VI]
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

[hootinholler]

27. Where in the Constitution does is say it only applies to citizens?

I think I missed that part. Especially since some of the privileges of citizens are enumerated separately, it kind of implies that it applies to everyone under its jurisdiction.

Evidence laundering is not constitutional. Nothing you or anyone says or does short of an amendment will make it ok.

[woo me with science]

31. And there it is. Endorsement of secret government fabrication of evidence trails.

When THIS makes it unapologetically into the talking points, it drives home how criminal and dangerous the corporatists who have seized control of our government really are.

This is not just another flavor of politics in America. These are corporate fascists taking direct aim at the very foundations of our Constitutional government and system of laws.

[rhett o rick]

32. What you are saying that it doesnt matter how you get evidence. Search warrants are not required

if you find evidence. You either are ignorant of the Constitution or you dont believe in it. You also make the mistake in believing that the powers like NSA, CIA, DEA, FBI, etc. only use their power for goodness.

[riderinthestorm]

34. Well, Carl Bernstein says it okay so for randome, that means its okay!111!!!1 nt

[Aerows]

47. Randome

is more "ethically" "enlightened" than the rest of us. Randome doesn't have to believe in the Constitution, innocent until proven guilty or any of that meager stuff.

Randome seems to have known this all along, it isn't a big deal and everybody does it so why is everyone complaining about it.



Did I sum that up correctly? And I can tell you who else is going to show up next. Someone with a name that has a spice in it. And is ecstatic.

[Octafish]

66. Seems to think the time's have gone beyond it.

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3793190

[Aerows]

96. When you believe the Constitution

is an outmoded, dated piece of paper, and the freedoms of our citizens it protects, you are not an ally of the Democratic Party. You aren't an ally of the United States.

"Document worship"? That's a messed up message. Law is what keeps society from teetering toward anarchy.

[randome]

105. Where did I ever say we don't need laws or am in favor of anarchy?

The Constitution should not be a Progressive version of the Bible. Freedom of thought means being willing to see everything in a fresh light, no matter how sacred.

That does not mean I want to throw out the Bill of Rights.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Rules are made to be broken. Including this one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Aerows]

106. Your own petard

do enjoy being hoisted on it.

"I agree with the characterization of the Constitution.

Old and outmoded. We can still have rights and protections with a new system of government. Unfortunately, that will never happen as too many worship a piece of 18th century paper. " -Randome

[randome]

108. The biggest change I would like is to do away with the House of Representatives.

Have a Senate and a President, maybe expand the Senate to 4 reps per state and that's it.

If you could design your own perfect government, are you saying you would change NOTHING about the Constitution?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

[Aerows]

109. Having the rule of law

is what prevents anarchy, full stop. When you start to believe that laws can be broken, and society can exist without being plunged into chaos, you support breaking the law that everyone in civil society agreed upon. Sometimes they must be broken - I do not in any way, shape or form disagree with that idea.

The problem comes in when it isn't a person breaking the law, and instead becomes an institution with the power to imprison, kill and torture another with no oversight. That's when civil society reaches a breaking point. That's when you have no recourse for the fabric of society being ripped apart and shredded.

When people can't say "you have crossed the line" because people didn't know you were even doing it, you aren't part of civil society anymore. You are a warlord that demands obedience to rules that only you are privy to.

[randome]

113. But every law and rule on the books has exceptions.

The OP isn't about anyone demanding obedience. It's about parallel construction. A jury of one's peers is still involved.

I never said anything about throwing away rule of law. I'm saying it may not be best to base our concepts of law and justice on something nearly 240 years old.

Another part of the Constitution I would change: the 2nd Amendment.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[Aerows]

117. "I promise"

"The reason I sent XXXXX to jail was for a very good reason. XXXXX doesn't know why they are in jail and I won't make the reason public record, but it's okay, because I promise it is for a very good reason."

Is that a society you want to live in? It sounds like that is exactly what you are advocating.

[randome]

121. My very first example is valid, I think.

If proof exists that shows criminal activity, that is not the same as putting someone in jail for no reason. A jury still has to convict. This is not about keeping proof from a jury or a judge. It's about protecting confidential sources.

Like it or not, we have undercover cops and agents risking their lives to do the right thing. Do they sometimes abuse their responsibilities? Or course. But that's not what the OP is about.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[Aerows]

125. Oh, so now you admit they often abuse their responsibilities?

Once is one time too many. That doesn't protect a damn soul in the USA - it weakens our protections. I think you haven't opened a dictionary or an encyclopedia and looked up the words "totalitarian", "fascism" and "tyranny".

You need to.

[randome]

129. I never said 'often'.

'Once is one time too many'? Let me know when you have the perfect society ready for immigrants. But I won't hold my breath.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Aerows]

130. If that is your defense

You need a new debriefing on what to say.

[Aerows]

120. When you defend creating false evidence trails

You are throwing out the Bill of Rights, and your ability to discuss this topic honestly.

[randome]

122. No one is creating false evidence. At least not within the confines of the OP.

This is about protecting confidential sources. Proof to a jury and judge is still mandatory.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[Aerows]

124. Randome

Last week you said that it was all bullshit. This week, "it's all bullshit". I'm not going to apologize when I frankly state "You are full of bullshit" because you keep defending this no matter how far down the rabbit hole it goes.

What is your agenda? It certainly isn't defense of the USA that is your motive if you believe attacking it's very underpinnings is a good thing.

[questionseverything]

127. it is illegal because they are denying a fair trial

I get that u personally do not think the bill of rights are necessary, important or laws worth enforcing but some of us still do..from the bill of rights.....

to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him;

simply put parallel construction leaves out the first "witness against him"

[randome]

131. The 'witness' in the example I suggested, would be the email.

How that email was discovered is irrelevant so long as Gmail or whatever has the proof that so-and-so sent that email. That email would also be the 'nature and cause of the accusation'.

I would assume. I'm simply guessing as to how this would normally work.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[questionseverything]

132. SC disagrees

Exclusionary Rule
The principle based on federal Constitutional Law that evidence illegally seized by law enforcement officers in violation of a suspect's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be used against the suspect in a criminal prosecution.

The exclusionary rule is designed to exclude evidence obtained in violation of a criminal defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement personnel. If the search of a criminal suspect is unreasonable, the evidence obtained in the search will be excluded from trial.

The exclusionary rule is a court-made rule. This means that it was created not in statutes passed by legislative bodies but rather by the U.S. Supreme Court. The exclusionary rule applies in federal courts by virtue of the Fourth Amendment. The Court has ruled that it applies in state courts although the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.(The Bill of Rights—the first ten amendments— applies to actions by the federal government. The Fourteenth Amendment, the Court has held, makes most of the protections in the Bill of Rights applicable to actions by the states.)

The exclusionary rule has been in existence since the early 1900s. Before the rule was fashioned, any evidence was admissible in a criminal trial if the judge found the evidence to be relevant. The manner in which the evidence had been seized was not an issue. This began to change in 1914, when the U.S. Supreme Court devised a way to enforce the Fourth Amendment. In Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 34 S. Ct. 341, 58 L. Ed. 652 (1914), a federal agent had conducted a warrantless search for evidence of gambling at the home of Fremont Weeks. The evidence seized in the search was used at trial, and Weeks was convicted. On appeal, the Court held that the Fourth Amendment barred the use of evidence secured through a warrantless search. Weeks's conviction was reversed, and thus was born the exclusionary rule.

The exclusionary rule established in Weeks was constitutionally required only in federal court until mapp v. ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (1961). In Mapp, Cleveland police officers had gone to the home of Dollree Mapp to ask her questions regarding a recent bombing. The officers demanded entrance into her home. Mapp called her attorney and then refused to allow the officers in without a warrant. The officers became rough with Mapp, handcuffed her, and searched her home. They found allegedly obscene books, pictures, and photographs.

Mapp was charged with violations of Obscenity laws, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to seven years in prison. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, but the U.S. Supreme Court overturned it.

[randome]

136. I get that.

But unwarranted searches are not an issue in cases of national security. In those cases, the SC usually allows an exception.

No one is claiming that evidence was obtained illegally in the OP. The claim is that, in limited cases, that national security prevents disclosure of how the evidence was obtained.

The evidence still must stand on its own to convince a jury to convict. And if, in addition, a judge agrees with the national security exception, then that evidence is evaluated on its own merit.

Again, just my guess as to how this works, and has worked, for at least a couple of decades now.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[questionseverything]

140. so sorry but spying on American citizens

still requires an individual warrant....a mass warrant to verizon covering 60 thousand peops at a time does not cut it...and we know from further disclosure it goes way beyond meta data...altho evidently that is all it takes to send out a drone

from the original reuters article....

Although these cases rarely involve national security issues, documents reviewed by Reuters show that law enforcement agents have been directed to conceal how such investigations truly begin - not only from defense lawyers but also sometimes from prosecutors and judges.

The undated documents show that federal agents are trained to "recreate" the investigative trail to effectively cover up where the information originated, a practice that some experts say violates a defendant's Constitutional right to a fair trial. If defendants don't know how an investigation began, they cannot know to ask to review potential sources of exculpatory evidence - information that could reveal entrapment, mistakes or biased witnesses.

"I have never heard of anything like this at all," said Nancy Gertner, a Harvard Law School professor who served as a federal judge from 1994 to 2011. Gertner and other legal experts said the program sounds more troubling than recent disclosures that the National Security Agency has been collecting domestic phone records. The NSA effort is geared toward stopping terrorists; the DEA program targets common criminals, primarily drug dealers.

"It is one thing to create special rules for national security," Gertner said. "Ordinary crime is entirely different. It sounds like they are phonying up investigations."

[Octafish]

110. I knew that and other responses on that thread bothered me for a reason.

The Constitution. The Constitution. The Constitution.

Didn't start perfect, but it was the best ever created.

It has gotten better down through the years, thanks to We the People and the statesmen and stateswomen the nation produces.

It is in danger of being cast aside, due to the unaccountable secret government and the rich turds that pull its strings. Cough Carlyle Group and their subsidiary Booz Allen of NSA fame.

[questionseverything]

116. what the defenders of illegal spying fail to point out is

there is a legal manner to change the Constitution

justice department certainly knew this when they decided to act illegally (for the last 2 decades it seems)

of course they did that because they knew the American people would never go along with it

as a side note I wonder how do they even teach civics now, with the 4th gutted and the right to a fair trial gone, and the freedom of the press on the ropes

[Aerows]

123. It just goes to show

that there is no heinous act the government can commit without someone who benefits from said program defending it ardently.

[Aerows]

118. When people openly advocate

that we throw aside the rule of law and justice in favor of fear-mongering and becoming a punitive society, we've gone off the rails. It's bad enough that people die for lack of health care, but when we decide to imprison people on false evidence trails, we as a people have failed our own nation.

[questionseverything]

112. that kind of explains it all

random does not believe in a free people governing themselves

he seems to think citizens are children that need protecting from the boogeyman

[Aerows]

115. Yep

That's what I got out of it, too.

[neverforget]

171. Yeah, that poster always poo poohs the NSA revelations. It's not shocking that they hold

the view that the Constitution is old and outdated but it is shocking that they actually posted their honest opinion.

[grahamhgreen]

84. Did we change your mind? I hope!!!

[randome]

98. Uh, no.

As Reactionary points out below, parallel construction has occurred for decades, often to prevent undercover agents from being exposed.

Tell me what you would do if some super-secret agency said they found an email plotting a crime but that you could not reveal your source? Would you shrug your shoulders and say, "Well, guess there's nothing we can do about that."? Or would you try to find the evidence -evidence that a jury would wholeheartedly believe- to prevent that crime from being committed?

Being pure of heart means people will be victimized, perhaps even murdered. Would you want that on your conscience?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[Aerows]

107. The Constitution of the United States of America

won't convince you that you are wrong, so why would pesky little things like the Bill of Rights get in your way?

I'm pretty certain that a class of five year olds would identify spying for no reason as "wrong" and "harmful". Then again, maybe I overestimate the abilities of PR folks to dredge up shit.

[grahamhgreen]

158. You asking if I would rather follow the American system of jurisprudence enshrined in the

Constitution, or whether we should use a system enshrined by police states in the past.

I choose America.

How 'bout you?

Do you believe in due process, yes or no?

[randome]

163. Someone could answer the question I posed.

And as I stated elsewhere, there is no law, rule or regulation that does not have exceptions.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you don't give yourself the same benefit of a doubt you'd give anyone else, you're cheating someone.[/center][/font][hr]

[Aerows]

48. It's acceptable, of course it is

because someone in the NSA said it was.

[sabrina 1]

41. Did Clapper lie under oath?

[Aerows]

45. You know, it becomes more clear by the day

Which team you are on. Taint Review Team.

Every one of these threads, you have defended the NSA. You use the same weak arguments, over and over again, excuse lack of due process, because "we've always known this", "everybody does it", and "so what if we do, 9/11".

So excuse me if I fail to provide cover for taint that you spread, and instead illuminate it.

You are part of the machine that makes this happen.

If this post gets locked as a call out, so. fucking. be. it.

You have fooled exactly no one.

[randome]

102. I have never used 9/11 as a justification for anything.

I'm not trying to scare anyone, simply parsing the information. And it's the truth: parallel construction has been a part of the system for decades.

There is no law, no amendment, no bureaucratic rule, that does not have exceptions to it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[Aerows]

104. You wouldn't know a law

if it smacked you on the back of the thighs with a cat-o'-nine tails if you think this is legal, just and sound.

If you think you can justify this away, either, and call it Constitutional, I give you too much credit by even replying to you.

[progressoid]

63. "not permissible to lie under oath"

It's telling that they even need to point that out.

[Aerows]

114. Nobody in government has to obey the law anymore

Certainly not Clapper or Alexander. That's for the plebes.

[Aerows]

126. Hey, lying under oath

is A-Okay, as long as you don't get caught doing it, right? I mean, it's for your safety and all.

[reACTIONary]

65. +10 (nt)

[struggle4progress]

86. Perhaps expecting inhabitants of the Innertubes to actually read and understand documents,

in order to assess whether those documents support their preconceived notions, is sometimes unrealistic

[msanthrope]

88. I am quite enjoying this thread...the shutdown of Silk Road, which almost certainly happened because

of NSA surveillance (via the SOD) has reignited a legal issue that doesn't get much play..parallel construction. Which isn't illegal, per se.

[questionseverything]

94. the solicitor general lied to SC because he assumed justice would follow the law?

Muhtorov’s challenge has its roots in the case rejected by the Supreme Court last year. In deciding to dismiss, the Supreme Court relied upon the assurance by the U.S. solicitor general that the government would notify criminal defendants when it had used evidence from the surveillance.

But the solicitor general at the time did not know that the Justice Department had a policy to conceal such evidence from defendants. He learned of it only after some criminal defendants sought clarification of remarks that Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) made in late 2012 that the government had used evidence from warrantless monitoring in certain cases. The department reversed its policy last year.
/////////////////////////////////////////////

so the solicitor general presented false info to the supreme court????? because he did not know that justice department was (illegally) concealing evidence???

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/terrorism-suspect-challenges-warrantless-surveillance/2014/01/29/fb9cc2ae-88f1-11e3-a5bd-844629433ba3_story.html

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

[Aerows]

128. LOL!

Something like Silk Road wouldn't even need to operate if we changed our drug laws and quit putting people in jail for the sole reason of profit. It's not like the CIA hasn't been operating a drug scheme to enrich itself for decades, and don't bother refuting it because everyone and their bother already knows it.

You are a self-professed lawyer. I assume that means you are passingly familiar with the law.

[msanthrope]

133. Ah...the defense of Silk Road...and human trafficking. Lovely. Silk Road would operate

if we legalized pot in every state because Silk Road allowed human trafficking as a currency.

You didn't think it was all cash and Bitcoins, did you?

[Aerows]

134. Interesting way of deflecting a sincere question.

Bring in a trope that everyone finds repugnant. Brilliant!

[randome]

137. Don't forget the murder-for-contract hire.

Silk Road had a lot of repugnant things going for it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[Aerows]

138. You've defended some repugnant things

I'm surprised you aren't one hundred percent on board with contract killing.

[questionseverything]

141. when they come to take your rights away

they bring up some horrid thing that every1 agrees should not happen and say...well we could stop this if it was not for all those darn privacy protections...blahblahblah

[Aerows]

142. We may be voices in the wilderness, my friend

but the call *will* be answered sooner or later. Brave souls aren't in as short supply as we are lead to believe.

[Octafish]

24. Now is it a Police State?

Gee. Who will the Secret Police set up next?

[woo me with science]

25. As usual, you cut directly through the bullshit.

Thank you.

[reddread]

30. kick for this n/t

[Aerows]

49. Kicking this comment

so that everyone can see it.

[ProSense]

33. U.S. to review DEA unit that hides use of intel in crime cases

U.S. to review DEA unit that hides use of intel in crime cases

By John Shiffman and David Ingram

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Justice Department is reviewing a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration unit that passes tips culled from intelligence intercepts, wiretaps, informants and a large telephone database to field agents, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Monday.

Reuters reported Monday that agents who use such tips are trained to "recreate" the investigative trail to effectively conceal the DEA unit's involvement from defense lawyers, prosecutors and even judges, a policy many lawyers said could violate a defendant's right to a fair trial. Federal drug agents call the process of changing the true genesis of an arrest "parallel construction," according to a training document.

Although the DEA program may use legal means to collect and distribute the tips, critics say that by hiding the origin of a case, defendants may not know about potentially exculpatory evidence.

<...>

In an interview with Reuters last month, two senior DEA officials defended the program, saying it has been in place since the late 1990s, has been reviewed by every Attorney General since then, and is perfectly legal. One DEA official said "parallel construction" is used every day by agents and police nationwide and is "a bedrock concept."

- more -

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-reaction-idUSBRE97412S20130805

Originally posted here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023413365

About the Reuters DEA Special Operations Division Story
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023408152

[questionseverything]

38. so the farmer says to the fox

please guard my hen house

there is just no way to spin this if you are an American that loves your country and the Constitution

[reddread]

40. +1 succinct and dead on correct

and there never has been and never will be.

[Aerows]

50. Amen to never has been

and never will be. You can spin like a yo-yo but this will never, ever be okay.

[ProSense]

42. "Spin"?

OP: "Smoking Gun: DEA Manuals Show Feds Use NSA Spy Data, Train Cops to Construct False Chains of Evidence "

My point is that Reuters reported this in August 2013, and this program has existed since the 1990s.

Take it anyway you want to.

[Aerows]

51. Oh, I think the American people

are tired of "taking it".

I also think most of DU is specifically tired of "taking it" from you.

Feel free to take that.

[ProSense]

52. You know what:

"I also think most of DU is specifically tired of 'taking it' from you."

...I don't care. In fact, I'm glad that I can help you feel superior.

Just a note: Obama fucking won, and you don't ever have to vote for him again. Ever.

[Aerows]

54. Well Gee, my dear ProSense

that makes me want to help your goals along. You are such a pleasant person. Do you work FOR the Democratic Party, or against it? It is extremely difficult to tell sometimes due to your hostility.

I don't particularly give a fuck what you have to say, but somebody might - and it isn't a welcome message for the Democratic party. It's more of a "stay away if you do not worship" message which is never very helpful.

Evangelizing falls flat when they see the crazy in your eyes, dear.

[ProSense]

55. Ah

"Well Gee, my dear ProSense that makes me want to help your goals along. You are such a pleasant person."

..."my dear" Aerows, spare me the fake endearment and additional self-righteous drivel. I mean, this:

"I also think most of DU is specifically tired of 'taking it' from you."

...isn't the response of a "pleasant person."

[Aerows]

56. Should I offer you a box of rocks

or a bunch of hammers?

*taps lips*

No dear, I think I shall give you a bag of hair.

[ProSense]

58. Well,

"Should I offer you a box of rocks or a bunch of hammers?"

...to quote you: "I don't particularly give a fuck what you" do.

[Aerows]

59. Copy/Paste is such a high-level skill set

You've also mastered the use of emoticons. What's next, is ProSense going to graduate to html markup language? I might just be frightened then.

There will be a reckoning of everyone that ever said a negative word about ProSense once she learns HTML markup. A FULL reckoning.

No more blue links for her, this will be full-blown her own MySpace pages in response!

[ProSense]

60. Aerows

Copy/Paste is such a high-level skill set

You've also mastered the use of emoticons. What's next, is ProSense going to graduate to html markup language? I might just be frightened then.

There will be a reckoning of everyone that ever said a negative word about ProSense once she learns HTML markup. A FULL reckoning.

No more blue links for her, this will be full-blown her own MySpace pages in response!

...does lame.

[Aerows]

61. Thanks for kicking it

I thought it was rather inspired, myself, too!

[woo me with science]

43. Thank you.

What PR garbage we are fed re: this criminality.

[debunkthis]

44. Sounds like grounds to

reviewed every conviction in every case brought to court by the DEA over at least the last decade.

[Aerows]

46. Sure does

That's going to piss off everyone that works for the DEA and the prison for profiteers.

Chance anything will change? Nil. Unless enough people start getting pissed off about this, but then they will start kicking in doors to preserve compliance, citizen.

[woo me with science]

77. +1000000

[G_j]

111. +1000

[woo me with science]

64. Kick

[me b zola]

67. K&R

[fascisthunter]

68. Gee, nobody saw this Happening! **sarcasm**

[reACTIONary]

69. Parallel construction is used...

...to protect undercover agents and or confidential informants from exposure in court, which could result in having their life threatened or their effectiveness as an informant diminished or extinguished. It seems to me that these are legitimate concerns and that the practice of parallel construction is not, per se, an injustice.

Here is a somewhat cynical look at the practice:

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/08/10/challenging-the-ghost-of-parallel-construction/

...experienced criminal defense lawyers lifted an eyebrow and stifled a yawn. How do you break something that we’ve all known about for 20 years? ...The point was pretty obvious: the government didn’t want to burn its rats or methods, because once the defense learned how an investigation was initiated (or what gave the defendant’s away), others still out there would adjust their actions, maybe make a snitch disappear, and that would be the end of things...

...if we knew all about this, /why have we/ never challenged the government’s violation of everything Americans hold dear about the law. First of all, we did. We challenged it to the extent it was amenable to challenge in every case that was brought based on a phony investigative claim. I mean, how many times can the DEA, usually via local cops, fortuitously stop a mule who just happened to have ten kilos of cocaine in a “clavo” (secret compartment) in his car? ... And judges laughed at us. We couldn’t prove that it was a lie in any individual case.

...Twenty years later, “shockwaves” ripple across the media as government lies are given an official name, parallel construction, as if that changes what’s been going on for a generation. Perhaps a skeptical public will demand of its politicians that a system build on a foundation of lies be stopped.... Or perhaps the justification for manufacturing lies and subverting the system will make sufficient sense that nobody will think twice about it.

[Maedhros]

89. Interesting User Name.

re·ac·tion·ar·y
rēˈakSHəˌnerē/
adjective
adjective: reactionary

1.
(of a person or a set of views) opposing political or social liberalization or reform.
synonyms: right-wing, conservative, rightist, ultraconservative;

Did you choose that yourself?

[reACTIONary]

146. No, it was imposed upon me...

...by the ruthlessly tyrannical police state that oppresses us all!

Seriously, though, who other than I would have chosen it?

[Maedhros]

147. Interesting choice, given the forum we are on. That's all.

It's almost as if it was picked specifically to antagonize Liberals.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

150. I might be a bit slow(or just ignorant) but just how does the name antagonize Liberals? n/t

[Aerows]

155. Because liberals are referred to as reactionary

going against the grain for believing that society can be better. For believing in change when the status quo is a pool of dispair.

That is what a liberal is - someone that is steadfast in the desire for change, but we get called "reactionary" because we realize where the system has failed and we seek to bring a more positive element. It steps on toes.

[Maedhros]

157. "Reactionary" originally referred to those elements in France that opposed the Revolution.

The current definition is thus:

re·ac·tion·ar·y
rēˈakSHəˌnerē/
adjective
adjective: reactionary

1.
(of a person or a set of views) opposing political or social liberalization or reform.
synonyms: right-wing, conservative, rightist, ultraconservative;

So by announcing one is a Reactionary, one is announcing that one opposes political and social liberalization - e.g. income equality, gay rights, etc.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

159. it has had a number of definitions though haven't it?

when i saw the name i actually thought it ironically fitting(having used a somewhat different definition) considering the direction the US has been heading for a while now.

after all, with the right wing course it was heading it isn't a bad thing to want to return to a more sensible course(it does admittedly turn the term halfway on its head but in my mind it kinda fitted)

addendum: A explanation an American friend gave me a while back that i saved to a file was this: A Reactionary is a rational moralist combating cultural and political insanity. (i always liked that line and looking at the republican party well, the words 'political insanity' suits them perfectly)

minor addition: I'm not saying its a good word or bad word, merely letting some thoughts run free from my mind(reason i won't put a definite on it is that words can differ quite in meaning across the pond so its quite easy to talk past each other )

[Maedhros]

162. A poster with the handle "reACTIONary" posts consistently in defense of the NSA

and blanket surveillance of American citizens not suspected of a crime?

That's the opposite of opposing a right-wing course, and indicative of a conservative stance.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

164. I have no problem with the nsa as an agency, they have a job to do

but I would if I was an American oppose blanket surveillance

Where would that put me?

[Maedhros]

165. Opposing surveillance in the absence of suspicion

would put you in favor of the U.S. Constitution's protections against unwarranted search and seizure.

[reACTIONary]

172. The NSA is an inteligence organization...

They primarily engage in espionage, not law enforcement. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits espionage or protects foreign governments from "unwarranted search and seizure".

[Maedhros]

173. See, it's posts like this that convince me you aren't arguing in good faith.

Because to post what you did would be to blatantly ignore the glaring issue with the NSA: the fact that the agency is conducting surveillance of U.S. citizens that are not suspected of any crime.

I'm assuming that you aren't completely ignorant of current events, so that leaves only the possibility that you are purposely obfuscating in order to provide cover for the bad acts of the NSA.

Since you aren't engaging in good faith debate, you can join the ignore list.

[reACTIONary]

180. When you accuse me of defending "blanket survelance"...

... of American citizens not suspected of a crime, you are, in my opinion, exaggerating what is being done by the NSA and attributing to me a position I did not take. I don't know if this is done in "bad faith" or for the purpose of "obfuscating" but that accusation is what I was responding to.

My belief, based on my knowledge of current events and the revelations to date is that the NSA is primarily and almost entirely concerned with legitimate signals intelligence of foreign targets, and is uninterested in and not involved with conducting surveillance of U.S. citizens except to the extent that it is incidental to their foreign intelligence, is authorized by law and is compliant with Constitutional principles.

And even in those cases where they do end up with information concerning illegal or suspicions activates of American citizens, they turn the information over to the FBI, the DEA or other law enforcement agencies, because law enforcement is not their job.

[questionseverything]

184. yes that is the entire point of this op

nsa spys on Americans ,then turns the info over to le and they prosecute w/o telling how the investigation started

[reACTIONary]

185. No, The NSA spys on foreign targets...

...who sometimes contact Americans to perpetuate a criminal conspiracy. When they do, the NSA turns the info over to the proper law enforcement agencies for follow through.

They do prosecute the criminals without telling how the investigations started. Which seems to be a fairly common law enforcement practice when dealing with informants involved in criminal conspiracies And I don't see any injustice in that.

[questionseverything]

186. maybe this judge can explain why it is illegal

from the original reuters article....

Although these cases rarely involve national security issues, documents reviewed by Reuters show that law enforcement agents have been directed to conceal how such investigations truly begin - not only from defense lawyers but also sometimes from prosecutors and judges.

The undated documents show that federal agents are trained to "recreate" the investigative trail to effectively cover up where the information originated, a practice that some experts say violates a defendant's Constitutional right to a fair trial. If defendants don't know how an investigation began, they cannot know to ask to review potential sources of exculpatory evidence - information that could reveal entrapment, mistakes or biased witnesses.

"I have never heard of anything like this at all," said Nancy Gertner, a Harvard Law School professor who served as a federal judge from 1994 to 2011. Gertner and other legal experts said the program sounds more troubling than recent disclosures that the National Security Agency has been collecting domestic phone records. The NSA effort is geared toward stopping terrorists; the DEA program targets common criminals, primarily drug dealers.

"It is one thing to create special rules for national security," Gertner said. "Ordinary crime is entirely different. It sounds like they are phonying up investigations."

[reACTIONary]

187. I have never heard of anything like this at all...

"I have never heard of anything like this at all," said Nancy Gertner, a Harvard Law School professor who served as a federal judge from 1994 to 2011."

Boy, talk about CLUELESS...

From my post above (Parallel construction is used...)

...experienced criminal defense lawyers lifted an eyebrow and stifled a yawn. How do you break something that we’ve all known about for 20 years? ...

Experienced trail lawyers have known about this for TWENTY YEARS!

We challenged it to the extent it was amenable to challenge in every case that was brought based on a phony investigative claim.... And judges laughed at us. We couldn’t prove that it was a lie in any individual case. ...Twenty years later, “shockwaves” ripple across the media as government lies are given an official name, parallel construction, as if that changes what’s been going on for a generation.

AND they have CHALLENGED IT every chance they had! And the Judges laughed at them! And Nancy Gertner has NEVER heard of it????? Totally Clueless.

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/08/10/challenging-the-ghost-of-parallel-construction/

[neverforget]

174. So the Constitution doesn't apply to intelligence agencies?

[reACTIONary]

176. The fourth amendment...

...does not apply to gathering intelligence on foreign targets. The NSA does not have to get a warrant to tap a communications link in Iran. The NRO doesn't need one to launch a spy satellite.

[neverforget]

177. No kidding. This debate is about the NSA spying on Americans.

[reACTIONary]

178. The NSA is not spying on Americans...

...in the sense quoted above, "blanket surveillance". If a foreign target contacts an American citizen to further a criminal conspiracy, he does open himself to severance, following due procedure, which may or may not require a warrant, depending on the circumstances.

[neverforget]

179. Baloney. Verizon, of which I am an American customer, has been handing over metadata to the NSA

of American citizens. I can reasonably assume that my information is in an NSA database somewhere although I am an American citizen. An intelligence agency that is supposed to be spying on foreigners is spying on Americans.

On a conference call with reporters in August, a senior U.S. intelligence official spoke in blunt terms about the cooperation of the telecom giants with the NSA surveillance programs. “The telecommunications companies are ordered to comply with this,” the official said. “That’s their role in this. As in a wide variety of other contexts, they get served with an order and they comply with the court’s order.” The official declined to either confirm or deny whether any of the telecommunications companies had ever objected to participating in the programs.

In another NSA program, authorized by the USA PATRIOT Act, the telecom giants work with the government to provide access to the phone records of tens of millions of U.S. citizens, including the number called, when the call was made, and the length of the conversation. Among the documents that Snowden leaked was a top-secret court order issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) — a secret court made up of 11 federal judges appointed by U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts — which requires Verizon to provide the NSA on an “ongoing, daily basis” with this so-called “metadata” on all phone calls made by its U.S. customers.



Read more: Verizon, AT&T Challenged on NSA Spying | TIME.com http://business.time.com/2013/11/21/verizon-att-challenged-on-nsa-spying/#ixzz2tjkpakSv

The National Security Agency is currently collecting the telephone records of millions of US customers of Verizon, one of America's largest telecoms providers, under a top secret court order issued in April.

The order, a copy of which has been obtained by the Guardian, requires Verizon on an "ongoing, daily basis" to give the NSA information on all telephone calls in its systems, both within the US and between the US and other countries.

The document shows for the first time that under the Obama administration the communication records of millions of US citizens are being collected indiscriminately and in bulk – regardless of whether they are suspected of any wrongdoing.

The secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (Fisa) granted the order to the FBI on April 25, giving the government unlimited authority to obtain the data for a specified three-month period ending on July 19.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order

[reACTIONary]

181. I think you definitly can reasonably assume that...

...your information is in an NSA database somewhere. The same information that is in the Verizon database they got it from. So NSA is "spying" on you to the same extent that Verizon is.

As I am sure you know, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in third party business records, and they may be collected and used for law enforcement and national security purposes, to the extent authorized by law. That would be the law under which they are served with "a court order" as quoted above.

I don't consider this to be "spying" on you, especially given the other procedural protections and limitations that are in place.

[neverforget]

182. Trust us! We would never abuse our power! Ever! Smith v Maryland, the ruling that supposedly allows

collection of 3rd party records was about a robber (singular) that local law enforcement was after. Leaping from single person surveillance to collection of everybody's (all Americans) metadata is a gigantic leap that I'm sure the judges in that case did not anticipate.

The power of the State (federal, state and local) is much greater than that of business as they do not have the ability to imprison you.

[reACTIONary]

167. Thanks! (nt)

[Aerows]

153. Indeed n/t

[reACTIONary]

166. I am a liberal...

...a progressive liberal. I picked the name to amuse liberals, myself included. So, instead of being so "interested" in my name, why don't you comment on the topic?

[Maedhros]

168. As a Liberal, I am much more concerned with how parallel construction negatively impacts

discovery and the rights of the accused to mount an effective defense than I am about preserving the secrets of spy agencies. Especially if, as described in the linked article, the practice of parallel construction has experienced significant mission creep and is now being taught to all branches of the DEA when it was intended to only be used by the Special Operations Division.

Since you identify as a progressive liberal, I would have thought you would also be concerned more with civil liberties than with expanding the power of spy agencies.

[reACTIONary]

169. As citizens who value our freedom and our liberal democracy...

... and the liberal democracies of our allies, we all have an interest in preserving the secrets of our spy agencies. National security is an essential component of a people's freedom and security in the world, and espionage is a necessary component of our national security. Without it, we wouldn't live in a liberal democracy.

As far as "mounting an effective defense" goes, consider the quote from the defense lawyer I posted above:

I mean, how many times can the DEA, usually via local cops, fortuitously stop a mule who just happened to have ten kilos of cocaine in a “clavo” (secret compartment) in his car?

If you've been pulled over for a traffic violation and "just happened" to have ten kilos in a secret compartment, how does knowing that the cop was tipped off by an informant help you to mount an "effective defense"? At best, it would help you to raise procedural objections that have nothing to do with the substantive question of whether or not you are guilty of the crime. At worse, it would allow your gang to off the snitch that ratted you out. In neither case do I see justice being served.

And thanks for commenting on the substance of my post, rather than my username!

[Aerows]

154. Valerie Plame

was exposed by the very government you revere.

Last I heard, no one went to jail for exposing her, and she wrote a book.

Tell me about exposure and how dangerous it is, again.

[reACTIONary]

170. Lets look again...

... at the quote from the defense lawyer I posted above. He's devoted his carrier to defending drug offenders, he deals with them on a regular basis, and knows what they are like:

...The point was pretty obvious: the government didn’t want to burn its rats ... because once the defense learned how an investigation was initiated (or what gave the defendant’s away), others still out there would ... make a snitch disappear, and that would be the end of things...

Sounds like exposing an informant actually is pretty dangerous. You don't think drug gangs will off a snitch?

[Michigan-Arizona]

78. K&R n/t

[GoneFishin]

79. This is an injustice. Literally. Legitimate concerns? Tough shit. Work within the law ...

like what is expected and demanded from us grunts.

They get away with it because they abuse the power they are entrusted with and leverage it to stave of any would-be oversight and avoid getting caught breaking the law.

[wildbilln864]

91. & k & r! n/t

[Boom Sound 416]

99. Wow, they don't call it a War on Drugs for nothing

[Aerows]

119. Defending this

is essentially signing the death warrant of our nation, and your own self.

You may see it as useful, but it is useful to murder babes in their cribs, too, under certain circumstances. That does not make it right. And it for damn sure doesn't make it "lawful", "just" or even appropriate.

There is a reason why a chain of evidence needed to be established, and it was to prevent one innocent from going to jail. I'd rather let one hundred guilty people go, than to convict an innocent.

That doesn't seem to be our motto anymore. It seems to be "I'd like to punish everyone as harshly as I can because my ego demands it."

[Aerows]

135. Did this not go away?

Is it still being kicked for all to see? Why yes, it is and should be.

[woo me with science]

149. Yup.

It stays on top, because this level of criminality needs to stay on top.

[Aerows]

139. I'm pretty tired

of aggression for aggression's sake.

How about the rest of you?

Locking people up on trumped up charges, because we can. That isn't a functional society.

[JohnyCanuck]

148. K & R n/t

[Coyotl]

151. How many convictions will be overturned because of this breach of our constitutional rights?

Imagine having to review every conviction for the last decade or more!

[Aerows]

156. K&R n/t

[Aerows]

160. This is really messed up

the deeper you dig into it.

What happened to due process?

[Aerows]

161. I refuse to let this sink

This is serious.

[neverforget]

175. This is serious. I'm with you Aerows!