Court Affirms Wiretapping Without Warrants

hmmmm. sounds to me like 'homeland' is going to be all over this. i'd better start planning to hang my machines on a regular basis, and look for errant black boxes.

eye95 said:

I really would rather read the decision, and not one man's interpretation of it.

Click to expand...

Me, too. But, I only have the barest idea where to start looking, and no idea whether I would even find it if I did.

One thing, though. Above, I over-characterized it as though it was a decision more broadly effective than I should have. From reading again the book reference, I got the idea it was a ruling on a motion. As opposed to a decision that would give broad, far-reaching powers to all the fed LE agents. Not that lacking such a decision prevented the kidnapping in Pakistan in the first place--meaning, it seems the fed agents are not stopped from doing it anyway without a formal decision.

Citizen said:

Me, too. But, I only have the barest idea where to start looking, and no idea whether I would even find it if I did.

Click to expand...

Your Google-fu is weak.

The trial transcript can be found HERE as a PDF. Unless I am missing something (I didn't read the whole thing by any means) what y'all are looking for starts at the bottom of page 20 under the heading Assertion of Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Over Defendants Yousef and Murad

I know you like people to find the links themselves, eye, but I thought this discussion was too interesting to wait on that and Citizen wasn't going fast enough for me.

Well, it seems that US jurisdiction does not apply overseas, except in very few specific instances. And, based on the courts examination of that jurisdiction, it seems that the rights of the defendants, when that jurisdiction extends to them, are protected by the courts.

I just don't see how this case applies to this discussion.