Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

DonViejo

(60,536 posts)
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 07:58 PM Jun 2014

Judge: Warrantless bulk surveillance is legal

Source: ASSOCIATED PRESS

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — A federal judge has affirmed the legality of the U.S. government’s secret, warrantless bulk phone and email data collection in denying an Oregon man’s motion to dismiss his terrorism conviction. U.S. District Court Judge Garr King on Tuesday upheld Mohamed Mohamud’s conviction on terrorism charges.

In doing so, he rejected the argument from Mohamud’s 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 Mohamud’s constitutional rights. Mohamud was convicted last year of attempting to detonate a bomb at Portland’s 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/

4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Judge: Warrantless bulk surveillance is legal (Original Post) DonViejo Jun 2014 OP
With luck this will go higher and get a definitive verdict from SCOTUS intaglio Jun 2014 #1
You probably won't like the definitive verdict jmowreader Jun 2014 #4
Info on the (Senior Status) Federal Judge, appointed by Bill Clinton in 1997 24601 Jun 2014 #2
Who was that state's Senators at the time period?? happyslug Jun 2014 #3

jmowreader

(50,419 posts)
4. You probably won't like the definitive verdict
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 05:55 AM
Jun 2014

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.

 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
3. Who was that state's Senators at the time period??
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 09:22 PM
Jun 2014

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

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Judge: Warrantless bulk s...