DEA intelligence-LawE conceals illgotten inv begins

[depotoo]

Exclusive: U.S. directs agents to cover up program used to investigate Americans
(Reuters) - A secretive U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration unit is funneling information from intelligence intercepts, wiretaps, informants and a massive database of telephone records to authorities across the nation to help them launch criminal investigations of Americans.

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."

cont'd
Exclusive: U.S. directs agents to cover up program used to investigate Americans | Reuters

 

[FA_Q2]

"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."

This is why such things are a terrible idea. Such ‘special’ rules are usually expanded till they are no longer special but rather ordinary.

 

[depotoo]

if indeed that is happening, then it needs to be stopped. Everyone has a right to a clean trial.

 

[bendog]

if indeed that is happening, then it needs to be stopped. Everyone has a right to a clean trial.

It's not so much about creating the parallel trial to hide something. The cops often have informants whose lives would not be worth spit if they were known to some of these animals out there. They stumble onto evidence that in retrospect has serious admissibility issues. That may not make it right, but the cops have been doing it for decades.

But when the DEA starts using data mining .... a new animal. If they've targeted a guy with data mining, and then lied about how they got the probable cause for a warrant to read the emails or listen to his cell .... Well, that would finally be abuse some of us have expected all along. I figured it'd be child porn rather than drugs that tipped govt over the edge, but I can't say i'm shocked.

Pardon my skepticism, but I think it's at best 50-50 if any of these teaparty libertaraian goper congressman touch this with a ten foot pole (or poll)

 

[Katzndogz]

if indeed that is happening, then it needs to be stopped. Everyone has a right to a clean trial.

It's not so much about creating the parallel trial to hide something. The cops often have informants whose lives would not be worth spit if they were known to some of these animals out there. They stumble onto evidence that in retrospect has serious admissibility issues. That may not make it right, but the cops have been doing it for decades.

But when the DEA starts using data mining .... a new animal. If they've targeted a guy with data mining, and then lied about how they got the probable cause for a warrant to read the emails or listen to his cell .... Well, that would finally be abuse some of us have expected all along. I figured it'd be child porn rather than drugs that tipped govt over the edge, but I can't say i'm shocked.

Pardon my skepticism, but I think it's at best 50-50 if any of these teaparty libertaraian goper congressman touch this with a ten foot pole (or poll)

It can be both. Why do you think the feds want everyone's passwords? The government will eventually have complete control over the public. It will be able to phony up any kind of crime, manufacture the evidence, get a compliant media to spread the word and become the totalitarian monarchy it has always wanted to be.

 

[depotoo]

if indeed that is happening, then it needs to be stopped. Everyone has a right to a clean trial.

It's not so much about creating the parallel trial to hide something. The cops often have informants whose lives would not be worth spit if they were known to some of these animals out there. They stumble onto evidence that in retrospect has serious admissibility issues. That may not make it right, but the cops have been doing it for decades.

But when the DEA starts using data mining .... a new animal. If they've targeted a guy with data mining, and then lied about how they got the probable cause for a warrant to read the emails or listen to his cell .... Well, that would finally be abuse some of us have expected all along. I figured it'd be child porn rather than drugs that tipped govt over the edge, but I can't say i'm shocked.

Pardon my skepticism, but I think it's at best 50-50 if any of these teaparty libertaraian goper congressman touch this with a ten foot pole (or poll)

So, do you see the left stepping up to the plate?

 

[bendog]

if indeed that is happening, then it needs to be stopped. Everyone has a right to a clean trial.

It's not so much about creating the parallel trial to hide something. The cops often have informants whose lives would not be worth spit if they were known to some of these animals out there. They stumble onto evidence that in retrospect has serious admissibility issues. That may not make it right, but the cops have been doing it for decades.

But when the DEA starts using data mining .... a new animal. If they've targeted a guy with data mining, and then lied about how they got the probable cause for a warrant to read the emails or listen to his cell .... Well, that would finally be abuse some of us have expected all along. I figured it'd be child porn rather than drugs that tipped govt over the edge, but I can't say i'm shocked.

Pardon my skepticism, but I think it's at best 50-50 if any of these teaparty libertaraian goper congressman touch this with a ten foot pole (or poll)

It can be both. Why do you think the feds want everyone's passwords? The government will eventually have complete control over the public. It will be able to phony up any kind of crime, manufacture the evidence, get a compliant media to spread the word and become the totalitarian monarchy it has always wanted to be.

Of course it can be both. However, the acceptability of data mining is more or less sold on the premise that it identifies possible terrorists, and this in turn justifies snoop and peak warrants ... issued after the fact, but none the less court sanctioned with the court knowing how the information was gathered.

There is not 4th amend issue to that. Some here assert there is, but thus far they can't get a court to agree.

There's always been a reason to construct parallel investigations, most often to protect an informant. The cops can get a warrant without disclosing the informant's name, so long as the informant does not testify, but sometimes even that is not enough to protect the identity. But, the point is the cops use the information to acquire probable cause another way. The article mentioned traffic stop. The cops know car A has drugs, so they then observe a ficticious traffic violation.

But in the past the court's turned a blind eye towards what appeared to be the cops hiding "human" information. The NSA snooping has been premised upon warrants being obtained after FISA view, or reviewed post sneak and peak search, the probable cause. IF NSA data mining provides the probable cause for a drug bust, and the court is never told where the probable cause came from, it's a new game.

It's not that the govt "wants" to control. That's orwellian nonsense. The govt only controls when people accept control. That's Huxley. And we'll see if these brave souls like Ryn Paul and Ted Cruz want to stand up for drug dealers. Perhaps this is their profile in courage moment.

 

[FA_Q2]

It's not so much about creating the parallel trial to hide something. The cops often have informants whose lives would not be worth spit if they were known to some of these animals out there. They stumble onto evidence that in retrospect has serious admissibility issues. That may not make it right, but the cops have been doing it for decades.

But when the DEA starts using data mining .... a new animal. If they've targeted a guy with data mining, and then lied about how they got the probable cause for a warrant to read the emails or listen to his cell .... Well, that would finally be abuse some of us have expected all along. I figured it'd be child porn rather than drugs that tipped govt over the edge, but I can't say i'm shocked.

Pardon my skepticism, but I think it's at best 50-50 if any of these teaparty libertaraian goper congressman touch this with a ten foot pole (or poll)

It can be both. Why do you think the feds want everyone's passwords? The government will eventually have complete control over the public. It will be able to phony up any kind of crime, manufacture the evidence, get a compliant media to spread the word and become the totalitarian monarchy it has always wanted to be.

Of course it can be both. However, the acceptability of data mining is more or less sold on the premise that it identifies possible terrorists, and this in turn justifies snoop and peak warrants ... issued after the fact, but none the less court sanctioned with the court knowing how the information was gathered.

There is not 4th amend issue to that. Some here assert there is, but thus far they can't get a court to agree.

There's always been a reason to construct parallel investigations, most often to protect an informant. The cops can get a warrant without disclosing the informant's name, so long as the informant does not testify, but sometimes even that is not enough to protect the identity. But, the point is the cops use the information to acquire probable cause another way. The article mentioned traffic stop. The cops know car A has drugs, so they then observe a ficticious traffic violation.

But in the past the court's turned a blind eye towards what appeared to be the cops hiding "human" information. The NSA snooping has been premised upon warrants being obtained after FISA view, or reviewed post sneak and peak search, the probable cause. IF NSA data mining provides the probable cause for a drug bust, and the court is never told where the probable cause came from, it's a new game.

It's not that the govt "wants" to control. That's orwellian nonsense. The govt only controls when people accept control. That's Huxley. And we'll see if these brave souls like Ryn Paul and Ted Cruz want to stand up for drug dealers. Perhaps this is their profile in courage moment.

I think 50/50 is WAY to optimistic and would definitely call you out on claiming that the government does not ‘want’ more control. That is not correct. The government always wants more control and that is a basic truth. That control is not to lord over you (the Orwellian concept you pointed to) but rather to ‘save’ you. The people doing this always look at the fact that they can get one more bad guy, that next drug lord or murderer, off the street with these new measures. The reality is that they are RIGHT. They can. The bad part is that does not represent a step forward. What you lose to get that step is far greater than what you gain. The little man on the beat or the cop taking down that criminal will not see that – they have their own microcosm of a world they are operating in but in the long run, the increased ‘security’ and loss of freedoms drags us back and we end up worse off. I would place the likelihood that anyone at all touches this at 90/10 against changing anything though. The government likes the new powers it gains (because, as I said earlier, they are ‘helping’ us all) and no one in government really has the will to shed these new powers.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C. S. Lewis