Judge: Warrantless bulk surveillance is legal
Source: ASSOCIATED PRESS
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) A federal judge has affirmed the legality of the U.S. governments secret, warrantless bulk phone and email data collection in denying an Oregon mans motion to dismiss his terrorism conviction. U.S. District Court Judge Garr King on Tuesday upheld Mohamed Mohamuds conviction on terrorism charges.
In doing so, he rejected the argument from Mohamuds attorneys that prosecutors failed to notify Mohamud of information derived under the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act until he was already convicted.
That failure, they say, withheld important information from the defense team and violated Mohamuds constitutional rights. Mohamud was convicted last year of attempting to detonate a bomb at Portlands Christmas tree-lighting ceremony in 2010.
The purported plot was actually an FBI sting, and the bomb was a fake.
###
Read more: http://www.salon.com/2014/06/24/judge_warrantless_bulk_surveillance_is_legal/
intaglio
(8,170 posts)jmowreader
(50,419 posts)Smith v. Maryland (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=442&page=735) found warrantless installation of a pen register, a device that collects the same information as NSA's metadata program, is constitutional.
24601
(3,938 posts)happyslug
(14,779 posts)Yes, the Constitution says the President picks federal judges, but given such appointments must be approved by the Senate and the Senate will NOT approved anyone not recommended by the Senators from that state (and this has been a tradition since 1789) the person who actually appointed this Judge was the Senators from that state. Such Senators always select people of the President's own party, but it is always the Senator's choice (often the Senators agree on a list of nominees and the President gets to select one of the person's on the list).
In 1997 that was Democratic Senator Ron Wyden and Republican Gordon Smith:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Wyden
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Smith_(politician)
I would cite the Wikipedia cite for Senatorial Courtesy, but when I read it, it was in clear error, Wikipedia said it only applies to the Senators of the same party as the President, but my understanding it is for both parties. Basically if the State's Senators oppose a Judicial Nomination, the nomination never is put to a vote. Thus to get confirmed, it is the selection of the Senators from that State for Judges and Federal Prosecutors for that state. Not on the Constitution, but it has a long tradition in the Senate.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-senatorial-courtesy.htm