Feds Will Use Surveillance Info in Court Case
Will likely lead to challenge about constitutionality of warrantless data gathering
The Justtice Department has said for the first time that it intends to use information gained from one of the government's warrantless surveillance programmes against an accused terrorist, setting the stage for a probable supreme court test of the Obama administration's approach to national security.
The court has so far turned aside challenges to the law on government surveillance, saying people who bring such lawsuits have no evidence they are being targeted.
A Justice Department spokesman, Brian Fallon, declined comment on Saturday on the new development, beyond the court filing.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
==========I quit working at shoprite and now I make $30h – $72h…how? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance? on something new? after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job
============
http://www.works23.com
Go to website and click Home tab for more details.
Have a bright future….
what Antonio replied I cant believe that a mother able to earn $9155 in a few weeks on the computer. visit site
http://WWW.JOBS72.COM
If it was warrentless surveillance, how could it even be admissible in court? It seems like the defendents lawyer would pre-trial motion to keep the evidence from being introduced. Assuming the judge understands the Constitution he would have to agree, and bar the evidence from the trial.