Patriot Act works!

[Rich Lucibella]

Is the proposed scenario, OK? I've already granted that, while pointing out that it's also laughably circular in its logic; given that none of us is on a "need to know" basis these days when it comes to infringement of Rights granted to us by God and unassailable except thru illegal government action....leastways, that's what our Founding Documents claim.
Rich

 

[invention_45]

Hmmm...the usual "o my god the government is" emotion aside, seems like its a good bust to me. Evidence of a crime frequently unrealted to the intial issue turns up in investigations....are we saying that all of a sudeden thats improper...

It's what we call a "fishing expedition".

 

[Wildalaska]

It's what we call a "fishing expedition".

No actually and technically a fishing expedition is somehting entirely disimilar from my scenario

Now Rich am I to conclude that you are against the use of CIs in criminal investigations?

And how is the scenario "laughably circular in its logic"

Wildihaveanother1911Alaska

 

[Rich Lucibella]

Now Rich am I to conclude that you are against the use of CIs in criminal investigations?

For the most part, yes. CI dependence leads to lazy investigative work and far too many bogus cases and convictions for my taste. Before you know it, they make it illegal NOT to be a snitch....tried to pass that law again this year.

And how is the scenario "laughably circular in its logic"

I've already explained that.
- You have a PATRIOT Act passed to fight terrorism.
- You have the Milkman arrested as a result of PATRIOT for selling Black Market Milk.
- You ask why they used wiretaps under PATRIOT and FISA.
- You're told, "Under PATRIOT we can't release that information to you."
- You conclude, therefore, that all fruit of FISA taps must be directly related to Terrorism. (YOU conclude that. I'm a skeptic when it comes to sub-rosa Executive Authority directed against the Bill of Rights.)

That's pretty much a classic circular argument, oui?
Rich

 

[Wildalaska]

For the most part, yes. .

Which means for some parts, no...so how do you pick and choose? On the egregiosness of the crime?

Before you know it, they make it illegal NOT to be a snitch....tried to pass that law again this year.

Why...they have had it on the books since the days of the founding fathers..I think its 18 USC sec 4: <Misprision of a Felony)

" Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."

You have a PATRIOT Act passed to fight terrorism.
- You have the Milkman arrested as a result of PATRIOT for selling Black Market Milk.
- You ask why they used wiretaps under PATRIOT and FISA.
- You're told, "Under PATRIOT we can't release that information to you."
- You conclude, therefore, that all fruit of FISA taps must be directly related to Terrorism. (YOU conclude that. I'm a skeptic when it comes to sub-rosa Executive Authority directed against the Bill of Rights.)

No no Rich you read me wrong..under my scenario they CAN release the info by CHARGING...they dont want to so they dont charge...of course the basis of the warrant itself and the veracity of the CI does get reviewed under probable cause test...and I dont conclude that all fruit of FISA taps must be related to terrorism because I know that there arent...thats logical

Just like here, the fact that there were FISA warrants is already known....

WildsowhereisthecircularityAlaska

 

[BreacherUp!]

Wild, you're one of the few posters on here that seems to understand what is really going on, and how FISA may work in these instances.
Carry on...

 

[Rich Lucibella]

of course the basis of the warrant itself and the veracity of the CI does get reviewed under probable cause test

Can't eat that cake from both directions, big guy. Weren't you one of the Members that defended Bush's right to wiretaps without FISA review? If so, where is the "reviewed under probable cause test"? Answer: By the same Executive Branch engaging in those activities.

What part of "circular" do you not understand here?

Which means for some parts, no...so how do you pick and choose? On the egregiousness of the crime?

Nope. I simply draw the line at Plea Bargains if you snitch on your buddy, the guy down the street, a guy you think you may have heard about, someone who said something during an intimate moment in the prison shower, or some complete stranger you pointed out just to get your own teet outta the ringer. Snitches are fine, if they lawfully lead or point you to conviction evidence; snitches who become the evidence, in return for lowered or dropped sentences are no evidence at all. The Drug Wars have proved nothing, if not that.

Lemme ask you this: If Prosecutors were allowed to fully use snitch information to develop a case, but barred from using snitch testimony in return for Plea Bargains, do you think the practice would all but disappear? If so, why? Could it be because the very snitch who is the centerpiece of the "evidence" against the defendant is being richly rewarded for saying exactly what the Prosecutor hopes to hear? That's called lazy investigation; lazy prosecution. Do you see no conflict of interest for said snitch in such cases?
Rich

 

[BreacherUp!]

Rich, I don't understand how you think using CIs and CWs (snitches, as you call them) is lazy. Actually, using these assets is one of the best, and sometimes only way, of infiltrating organizations. A source whose veracity has not yet been determined or documented HAS to be backed up by other corroborating evidence, unless this source's veracity has been proven and is known to the prosecutor and judge.

 

[rick_reno]

I'm assuming the reason for the FISA involvement was that some portion of the $11 million they made in this operation was going to fund terrorist operations somewhere.

 

[Rich Lucibella]

Breach-
You are not reading and that is not your style. I never said I was against "using" them to infiltrate or gather evidence. What I very clearly stated was that I was against making them the evidence centerpiece in return for reduced or suspended sentences.

Now, we can go round the block about how many "bad guys" would get away without Plea Bargain testimony. But, see, that's not a big concern of mine. There will always be far more "bad guys" on the outside than in. I'm far more concerned about one "good man" going inside because of snitch-for-plea testimony; about one good guy getting put down by a "Team" during a raid based on snitch info than I could ever be about 10 "bad men" getting off.

I'm assuming the reason for the FISA involvement was that some portion of the $11 million they made in this operation was going to fund terrorist operations somewhere.

Yup. We can all assume. But we'll never know....because FISA is a Secret Court. Sadaam used the same device in issues of National Security. 'Course America can never become like that....because, well because, ummmmmm, we're Free.

Rich

 

[Wildalaska]

Weren't you one of the Members that defended Bush's right to wiretaps without FISA review? If so, where is the "reviewed under probable cause test"?

Ho wait a sec Rich meine freund, I can and do defend Bushs right to tap without FISA review...but one has got nothing to do with the other..I bet there would never be a PROSECUTION using those taps...nor I betcha, even an application for a warrant based on info derived therefrom...no AUSA wants to get hoisted on the petard of using evidence derived unless Ts are crossed and Is are dotted

Snitches are fine, if they lawfully lead or point you to conviction evidence; snitches who become the evidence, in return for lowered or dropped sentences are no evidence at all. The Drug Wars have proved nothing, if not that.

Do you see no conflict of interest for said snitch in such cases?

Ah but isnt that a question of credibility for the jury? Ever see a cross exam of a snitch (or rat as they are known as)?...have you ever read the jury charges concerning Interested Parties, Motive to Fabricate, Falsus in Uno....

Taking your comments about rats to the furthest extreme leads inescapably to the conclusion that you have no confidence in either the jury system or the intelligence of your fellow citiizens...

No me, I have jury duty next month..bet I dont get picked

WildyourturnASlaska

 

[Rich Lucibella]

Ho wait a sec Rich meine freund, I can and do defend Bushs right to tap without FISA review...but one has got nothing to do with the other..I bet there would never be a PROSECUTION using those taps...nor I betcha, even an application for a warrant based on info derived therefrom...no AUSA wants to get hoisted on the petard of using evidence derived unless Ts are crossed and Is are dotted

Now you try my patience and your own credibility, WA.

I need put no words in your mouth to demonstrate that you've said in this very thread:
- All accused from FISA investigations must have been involved in terrorism.
- Checks and Balances exist in such cases.
- Check and Balances do not exist in some of these cases, however.
- In the cases where the checks and balances don't exist, when they should exist, there is no foul because no one will be hurt.
- No one will be hurt unless, of course, they're bad guys, in which case no checks and balances should be required.
- You believe this because the people doing the stuff with and without the checks and balances have assured you of the above.

Please. Get off my frequency. You're embarrassing yourself.
Rich

 

[Wildalaska]

What I very clearly stated was that I was against making them the evidence centerpiece in return for reduced or suspended sentences.

Centerpeice and star and two different things. Gotti wouldnt have went down if it was either just Sammy the Bull or wiretaps...both were necessary.

because FISA is a Secret Court.

Not if you are basing a criminal prosecution on it...FISA stuff is not secret unless a district court says it is...and its alwsys subject to a motion to suppress...thats a two edged sword by the way anticipaitng your further arguments

WildiwanttoplaywithgunsnotthelawAlaska

 

[Wildalaska]

handling each one:

All accused from FISA investigations must have been involved in terrorism.

Yes, actually foreign intelleigence but yes as I understand that

Checks and Balances exist in such cases.

Did i say that?...there are no checks and balances in FISA even pursuant to the statute....it is unfettered Government

In the cases where the checks and balances don't exist, when they should exist, there is no foul because no one will be hurt.No one will be hurt unless, of course, they're bad guys, in which no checks and balances should be required.

Where did I say that?

-

You believe this because the people doing the stuff with and without the checks and balances have assured you of the above.

I learned on the feet of my first employer never to trust the government. Im giving you alternatives

Oh and by the way...there is n othing more than an AUSA fears more than embarasement..Losing is OK, but dont get embarrassed. And theri are a great number of District Judges who love to embarass AUSAs...just see what happens when one gets caught slipping some FISA stuff in secretly. Its way too easy to do a good prosecution without it.

All will work out like RICO

WildimagunguyAlaska

 

[Rich Lucibella]

Gotti wouldnt have went down if it was either just Sammy the Bull or wiretaps...both were necessary.

Stop now.
The Gotti wiretaps WERE subject to checks and balances; not from a Secret Court but from a Constitutionally empowered one. Without Sammy's testimony, who says Gotti wouldn't have "gone down"? The media you DO prefer to believe?

One thing is for certain, however. Jerry Hooshe would never have received a wrongful lethal injection if not for the encouraged perjured testimony of a snitch by a Prosecutor seeking to solve a high profile crime just before his run for US Senate. Agreed?
Rich

 

[Wildalaska]

The Gotti wiretaps WERE subject to checks and balances; not from a Secret Court but from a Constitutionally empowered one

OK but a prosection based on FISA wiretaps is also subject to review

Without Sammy's testimony, who says Gotti wouldn't have "gone down"? The media you DO prefer to believe?

The government needed both. Conversations with lawyers involved, I wasnt living in NYC at the time

Not familiar with the case you cite. Not sure how much I support for the death penalty anyway, in light of whatever that case is and others..

WildturkishfoodtonightAlaska

 

[Rich Lucibella]

OK but a prosection based on FISA wiretaps is also subject to review

Except, of course, when you defend the act of not seeking FISA approval at all....which you have. And your reasoning? "Well, see. No one will get prosecuted without a FISA review. After all, who cares if the government chooses to illegally sniff your wife's undies, as long as they don't prosecute anyone with the info. It's all just an exercise. If you have nothing to hide....."

Wild-
You've flipped so many times on this thread alone that I think it's fair to say you're dismissed now....at least by me.

The debate, and our written statements, stand now for TFL posterity. I let these chips fall where they will.
Rich

 

[Wildalaska]

Cant see how, but hey, we shall continue later, its SWMBos birthday and Ive got to start the softening up process for a Blaser LRS2 thats coming.

WildclassyoucontiunewiththedebateforawhileAlaska

 

[BreacherUp!]

Rich, I obviously misread your post. Whatever I was going to say has been addressed between you and WildAlaska. Good debate, I might add.

 

[invention_45]

For the most part, yes. CI dependence leads to lazy investigative work and far too many bogus cases and convictions for my taste. Before you know it, they make it illegal NOT to be a snitch....tried to pass that law again this year.

It's already illegal to not be a snitch. Think "plea bargaining".