[afarrell]

When the NSA collects evidence on someone and uses that evidence to prosecute a criminal case, they can and should file a motion to suppress that evidence.

The NSA data is collected under search issued by a FISA court. So, during a suppression hearing, defense counsel can challenge the validity of the warrant. If their challenge is denied, they can appeal. If their appeal fails, they can petition the Supreme Court. In all these courts, the proceedings are public record and the standard for a warrant can be debated by lawyers and the public alike. We have an open process for checking the work of the humans issuing FISA court warrants; Use it.

Even if the warrant was valid, the NSA might have overstepped its bounds. This can also be challenged when the NSA defends the admissibility of its criminal evidence in a suppression hearing. An independent judiciary can decide if the executive branch has acted outside its bounds. No, an investigator isn't punished for the overbroad evidence collection, but they are embarrassed by having a criminal get off due to their sloppiness. We have an open process for checking the work of human investigators in this country; Use it.

It isn't as if the government just takes that evidence and unilaterally decides to blow people up. We have due process in this country; Use it.

/s

[YokoZar]

This would be a reasonable view if there weren't a systematic campaign by the NSA, FBI, and DEA to lie to judges and prosecutors about the actual source of underlying evidence.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intel...

The EFF calls it Intelligence Laundering. The DEA calls it parallel construction. Either way it is sinister and immoral and a court hasn't had a chance to rule on it precisely because it is very difficult for defendants to prove that both the prosecutor and judge were lied to.

[afarrell]

I don't actually hold the view expressed. I've just been trying (and failing) to find a compelling way to articulate the following point: "The FISA court's warrant system is flawed because the validity of its warrants or their execution are never checked because the warrants aren't actually used to bring criminal cases."

So, I thought I'd try sarcasm. But I couldn't come up with a concise way to address the fact that parallel construction means that their info actually is used in criminal cases. Oh well, back to the drafting board...

[pessimizer]

It worked for me. It read like obvious fiction as far as to what I know about the NSA and the last couple of administrations.

[mckoss]

I believe it has been reported that the FBI lies about the sources used in investigations so that defendants never find out about the true sources that led to their prosecution. Your legal right to challenge sources of evidence is useless in the face of a corrupt government whose primary goal is to hide those sources from the public.

[avmich]

But you can always ask FBI to prove that their sources are legitimate. They say the sources are legitimate, but you say no, and it's their word versus your word, right?

On an unrelated news, http://mayday.us campaign still has two days left.

[joe_the_user]

It isn't as if the government just takes that evidence and unilaterally decides to blow people up.

Well, except when they do, in Afghanistan or Yemen, say.

[afarrell]

Yes, I am aware of that. I am also aware that the NSA does not being criminal cases even if it does give data to the FBI.

[bgentry]

And meanwhile, years of your life will be wasted sitting in prison awaiting challenges, all while you're threatened with decades in prison for evidence that the government should never have had access to. Not to mention the legal fees if you can't get pro-bono coverage on your case.

It's no wonder so many plea out to a lesser (but certain) sentence when given the choice.