Edward Snowden and the NSA

Well I ain't asking d'Oillie. You ask him.

 

He hasn't told the world much that wasn't already out there. He's confirmed rumors with stolen documents but I don't think many doubted the rumors. I think the damage remains whether Snowden is breathing or not.

 

Not if you are in Hanoi and your name is Jane.

It set a very bad precedent.

 

Just watched the movie, it was pretty decent I thought.

 

The Fed system is very procedural and you likely won't find an arrest warrant issued without an indictment or information. Technically, warrantless arrests are authorized in several circumstances but the US Attorney's Office highly discourages the practice aside from violent offenses.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

I watched it and spent the entire movie vomiting in a trash can. Holy shit this movie is nothing but a liberal propaganda movie. This movie is definitely a based upon liberal wet dream. This movie portrays Snowden as some sort of quant or super generous with direct access to senior level leadership. That the world was going end without his help as if he were some sort of super hero. He was a low level analysis for a contracting company who stole classified information and ran to our adversaries for protection. Fucking traitor!!

 

Damn, I forgot all of this. But, I think most definitely be issued a warrant for arrest without an indictment. In fact, it is done all the time, on a daily basis throughout the country. Don't pay child support, don't pay driving fines, don't show up for court? I can give you a 100% guarantee that there will be a warrant issued for your arrest without an indictment. Whether it is federal, state, or local does not matter. The same legal limitations apply. Jurisdiction would be the question.

 

Trust me, the Fed and State systems operate differently.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

Different Constitution laws?? Care to demonstrate that?

 

No, thanks to the 14th Amendment, states are supposed to defer to Federal statues when a conflict arises--the "supremacy clause". US District courts use Federal law and rules of criminal proceedings; State courts use state law and have their own rules governing criminal prosecution. US Attorney's Offices don't charge based on state statutes and State courts don't charge violations of Federal law. I'm sure one of the legal eagles can find an exception, but those are not common.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

You might be mixing apples and kumquats. Not paying a fine, refusing to pay child support, or not showing up for some court proceedings do not require an indictment. All are simple contempt of court charges and the judge presiding over them will issue a warrant. If, of course, I'm correct.

 

My point was that a warrant can be issued without an indictment and they are issued all the time.

 

Again, on the State side, yes. On the Federal side, highly unlikely. Any statutes Snowden may be charged with violating would be likely be Federal and therefore almost certainly require an indictment or information prior to arrest. The USAO tends to be extremely cautious, especially with high profile cases.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

Today, in Civics 101. The legal process and you.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-mn/criminal-procedures

"When Someone is Suspected of a Federal Crime...

1. Complaint and Arrest Warrant -- Law enforcement obtains a Warrant for Arrest of the alleged offender. The warrant is based on an Indictment (see below) or a Complaint filed with the U.S. District Court. An Affidavit, signed by a law enforcement officer, usually accompanies the Complaint. The Affidavit explains the crime committed as well as the role of the accused in that crime. In other words, the Affidavit is used to establish probable cause that the accused committed the crime."

https://www.fbi.gov/resources/victi...ption-of-the-federal-criminal-justice-process

"If the agency concludes that a crime was committed and identifies a suspect, federal law enforcement officers (known as special agents) may make an arrest without obtaining an arrest warrant; may obtain an arrest warrant for a named person; or, in some circumstances, may delay making an arrest in order to obtain additional evidence proving the suspect’s guilt."

 

Yes, that is correct. In the Federal system arrest warrants can be issued based on complaints, informations, or indictments. U.S. District court judges (typically Magistrate judges) can sign complaints which provide probable cause to generate and execute an arrest warrant, but are not formal charging documents and therefore subject to the 48 hour due process limitation. Grand Juries issue indictments (and less commonly, informations) which serve the dual purpose of authorizing arrest warrants to be issued and executed, as well as formally charging the subject(s) with violation of a Federal statute and initiating prosecutorial proceedings. Complaints are typically used in instances requiring immediate transfer to Federal custody due to exigent circumstances e.g. a bank robbery suspect arrested by a local LE agency (Banks are FDIC insured, making robbery a Federal felony, assuming the USAO decides to prosecute vs. kicking the case down to State court). By and large, Federal cases tend to be longer duration investigations and the DOJ wants to maintain the 95-ish% conviction/plea statistic they've amassed. Therefore, almost every Asst. US Attorney prefers an arrest based on an indictment in non-exigent circumstances. It's one less thing a defense attorney can procedurally scrutinize and increases the likelihood of a plea vs trial.

By the way, I hate you for making me type this out on my phone.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

A couple of things here. First off, I never argued preference. Secondly, looking through the past discussion and in the renewed discussion, my position has been that a warrant can be issued without an indictment. I still stand by that position and it would appear that you do agree with that. Thirdly, that does not change from Federal, State, to Local. As I said previously, what does change is the jurisdiction based upon the type of crime and the circumstances of which that determine whether or not it meets federal or state jurisdiction.

So, if you agree that a federal agency can issue an arrest warrant without an indictment.....WTF are you arguing??