Printable View
Trying to post links from my phone, so bear with me.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/id...30805?irpc=932
http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/th...overing-it-up/
The part that actually worries me the most is that they are lying to judges and prosecutors who are on their side. I figure it was just a matter of time untill all the NSA hoopla uncovered something actually getting used for whatever purpose they can dream up. Seems totally wrong and yet expected. Anybody actually suprised?
This is my surprised face.
[LOL]Quote:
Originally Posted by COcz
I should probably stop texting my buddy about Breaking Bad.
I should quit discussing dexter as wellQuote:
Originally Posted by blacklabel
Sent by a free-range electronic weasel, with no sense of personal space.
Load of equine manure IMO, about on par with so many other claims from the lamebrain media.
I don't know about this one. The sources are big time news agencies and the post is as liberal as they come. Personally, at this point I have a tendency to believe the possibility that NSA was releasing information to the DEA in criminal cases. Historically, whistleblowers like Snowden release information, are persecuted for it, and then found to be telling the truth and only really released the tip of the iceberg attempting to mitigate the damage from the info release. Discovering a clear and concise systemic violation of the 4th amendment buried underneath the initial info release makes all too much sense. After seeing the rest of the insanity this administration has done, this is far from farfetched.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter
"Recreate evidence" sounds a lot like "fabricate evidence" to me...
Manufacture evidence, then charge based on that evidence...all of us on "lists" would be vulnerable.
Not necessarily, and this is where gray is the primary color. What they are doing is showing a different case initiation. Based on the article, they aren't fabricating evidence, but omitting what pointed them to a suspect initially. Here's an example.Quote:
Originally Posted by TFOGGER
I suspect that Ronin 13 is a drug dealer, but have nothing but conjecture based on a really flimsly gut feeling based on his posts here and my career as a Fed.. I can't as a Fed open a criminal investigation against him with this. So, I wait until a Friday night/Saturday morning and pull him over with the assistance of a local LE agency. We sweep his car and find two kilos of cocaine in his car and a wad of cash stuffed in his sock. BAM, case initiation based on the car stop. In reality, I suspected him originally based on my awesome crime fighting skills, but that shit doesn't work in court.
Now, replace the NSA sharing information in place of my awesome crime fighting skills and gut feelings. It's direction, but not evidence. The problem is it's information illegally acquired when the NSA shares it and therefore all additional information discovered based on it is "fruit of the poisonous tree". Awesome crime fighting skills is just overlooked and the investigation is denied due to credible information.
The difference is the integrity that is required in law enforcement. Sometimes it's a really hard thing to see the difference when you are in the middle of it all.
The source at the Post is a BLOG and taking shots at the EEEEEEVIL military-intelligence-national security apparatus fits right in with their liberal ideologies even if Obama takes some collateral damage. I believe they are piecing together half-understood half-truths to arrive at their claims. Historically, treasonous shits like Snowden claim whistleblower status to avoid the consequences of their actions -- and so far, a LOT of what Snowden claimed only makes sense to misinformed conspiracy theorists. I put nothing out of reach of the despicable cretins in the Obama Administration but there are a lot of dedicated (i.e., non-stereotypical GSes) public servants at NSA and other organizations who wouldn't go along with anything even close to what's been claimed.