Skip to comments.Christmas bomber case appeal challenges NSA surveillance
Posted on 07/06/2016 7:39:45 PM PDT by BenLurkin
Mohamud is appealing his 2013 conviction on grounds that he was entrapped by undercover federal agents posing as al-Qaida members and the warrantless surveillance of his foreign communications violated his constitutional rights.
It marks the first time a federal appeals court is considering whether the National Security Agencys foreign surveillance programs the same ones that came under scrutiny after the Edward Snowden leaks a few years ago violate the Fourth Amendment rights of criminal defendants.
Stephen Sady, Mohamuds public defender, and another attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union urged the court for a new trial on grounds that the evidence used against Mohamud shouldve never been allowed in the courtroom.
Sady told the judges that using surveillance information on foreigners, which doesnt require a warrant, to spy on any Americans they communicate with is an incredible diminution of the privacy rights of all Americans ... That is a step that should never be taken.
U.S. prosecutors defended the program, saying its perfectly legal under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to access information on Americans that was obtained through foreign communications.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
During WWII ALL US MAIL was Opened and Read by the Government
It was amazing and troubling at the same time how all the Portland liberals were wringing their hands, so worried that the poor muslim (who wanted to kill them), was being unfairly entrapped.
Just reinforces my opinion that liberals are too stupid to live.
“Just reinforces my opinion that liberals are too stupid to live.”
I have no problem with this in general but the stupid bastards will take us with them with their insanity.
Where are all of the “Stop Jihad Now!” yard signs?
If that is not entrapment, what is? Like I said, the guy is a POS and I am sure he wanted to do something, just not sure he could have gotten as far as he did without the FBI.
Seems like a charge of trying to join a terrorist organization would be the correct charge.
That should make things a lot easier for the criminals.
Umm, how about the "alleged" terrorist just says NO?!
Who the F*** side are you on anyway?
Entrapment my ass.
We all know that this case is going to be hastily rushed through and Mohamud will get a huge government settlement courtesy of this current Regime.
PROCON: Umm, how about the "alleged" terrorist just says NO?! Entrapment my ass.
Except the FBI and ATF have been known to infiltrate militias and similar groups and push them into
illegal behavior*, like overthrowing government officials or the like. — In this case they're not just egging the guy on, they're actively helping and assisting him. If it isn't entrapment then it is conspiracy, and the agents are party to it and should be prosecuted on "conspiracy to 'detonate a WMD'".
Your special exceptions for government agents being above the law are precisely why Hillary was not indicted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.