You are correct, I am begging the question, the DOJ are investigating the question. Maybe they will find the DEA and SOD are acting illegally. Hopefully they will. Those who would defend the use of NSA data for domestic crimes are dangerously close to advocating for a police state.
I may have written that quote and edited out because it was wrong. Sorry about that.
I doubt I am mistaken about the poisoned tree though because a source of evidence that may have exculpatory evidence is being obscured. It may also be acquired illegally but that is obscured too.
Implicit in your reply is an admission that the NSA tips are being used.
"people aren't being snatched up off the streets because of the NSA's monitoring programs."
Do you still stand by this because now there's evidence presented to you that the IRS and the DEA have access to NSA tips through the SOD?
A statement from the NSA:
"If the intelligence community collects information pursuant to a valid foreign intelligence tasking that is recognised as being evidence of a crime, [it] can disseminate that information to law enforcement, as appropriate."
I think your example of NSA tips is rather convoluted, I prefer the NSA's statement above as it's pretty clear and leaves little to the imagination.
You're right when it comes to the investigation. If the DOJ finds that this parallel construction is illegal, then I would accept it as such. My gut says they won't (because of the example I gave), but I accept the possibility that I could be wrong.
I still stand by what I said regarding the lack of "snatchings". If a parallel chain of evidence can be constructed that leads to an arrest, that's not "because of" the NSA's monitoring programs. That's because there is a valid reason to investigate this person. The lynchpin is not the NSA's tip, it's the ability to find evidence against a person that is obtained according to the law. A "snatching" would be attributed to the NSA if the only evidence were to have been obtained through the collection of "information pursuant to a valid foreign intelligence tasking". And that's clearly got no evidence to support it.
There's two modes of operation, you seem to have the second in mind, and I am thinking of the first:
1:
a. NSA collects American national's "information pursuant to a valid foreign intelligence tasking". (this may be illegal, violation of fourth amendment rights, no supreme court decision)
b. NSA tip SOD (if 1. is illegal, then it follows it's illegal to pass on)
c. SOD instruct police force to stop and search for 'traffic violation' at time and place, obscure evidence trail. (DOJ investigating if this is illegal)
d. d:a) no evidence is found.
d:b) evidence is found, parallel construction begins.
2:
a. law enforcement agency DEA/IRS/SOD asks NSA to get foreign intelligence, because of investigation already underway.
other steps as above.
My problem is with the first mode. Given the first mode, do you stand by your earlier statement and:
"If a parallel chain of evidence can be constructed that leads to an arrest, that's not "because of" the NSA's monitoring programs."
See the NSA's statement re: evidence of a crime. If the first mode leads to an arrest it is by definition "because of".
In both scenarios I have a problem with d:a) where no evidence is turned up because it seems like a very unreasonable search to me.
I may have written that quote and edited out because it was wrong. Sorry about that.
I doubt I am mistaken about the poisoned tree though because a source of evidence that may have exculpatory evidence is being obscured. It may also be acquired illegally but that is obscured too.
Implicit in your reply is an admission that the NSA tips are being used. "people aren't being snatched up off the streets because of the NSA's monitoring programs." Do you still stand by this because now there's evidence presented to you that the IRS and the DEA have access to NSA tips through the SOD?
A statement from the NSA: "If the intelligence community collects information pursuant to a valid foreign intelligence tasking that is recognised as being evidence of a crime, [it] can disseminate that information to law enforcement, as appropriate."
I think your example of NSA tips is rather convoluted, I prefer the NSA's statement above as it's pretty clear and leaves little to the imagination.