Comments on: Dawud Brasco

By: Floridian

Floridian — Sun, 21 May 2006 02:51:30 +0000

Today’s headline news was that the U.S. government’s wiretapping of millions of Americans was legal. Anybody remember Senator Joseph McCarthy and McCarthysm? Dawood Brasco indeed!

By: pearljamfan

pearljamfan — Sat, 20 May 2006 19:35:15 +0000

The ACLU has no clue when it comes to many things. This is just the latest

By: Vikram

Vikram — Sat, 20 May 2006 16:15:47 +0000

Attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union asked the FBI on Monday to release documents detailing any post-Sept. 11 surveillance of Southern California mosques and Muslims.

The ACLU must approve of the way in which the Federal Air Marshal program is being run...

Air marshall anonymity in danger More needs to be done to ensure the anonymity of federal air marshals, says a critical new report Congress will look into next week. ... In practice, the report found, "many federal air marshals indicate that the dress code actually draws more attention to the identity of the federal air marshals because of its rigid requirements that prevent federal air marshals from actually blending in with their surroundings." ... The report also faults the service for requiring marshals to stay at designated hotels and show their credentials upon checking in. ... Link

By: Saurav

Saurav — Sat, 20 May 2006 13:28:05 +0000

Beyond the detective's testimony, police officials yesterday would not discuss the scope of the program and provided no details about its structure, its guidelines or its successes or failures. Several officials, however, suggested it was in its early stages.

This scares no one?

By: vinod

vinod — Fri, 19 May 2006 18:30:37 +0000

a true patriot. my hat’s off to him.

By: GujuDude

GujuDude — Fri, 19 May 2006 17:32:53 +0000

My bad, you are right. I apologize. I thought the picture they had in that inset of 3 guys was the officer because it said “informant” on it.

Uh, yea, ditto. Again.

By: Janeofalltrades

Janeofalltrades — Fri, 19 May 2006 17:16:49 +0000

FYI...the below was my line of thinking though originally I thought they had posted his picture. DJ88 thanx for saying it more lucidly.

I don't see why they have to blow this guy's cover and put him on the stand. Some courts have remote presence systems that allow a person to participate in a court proceeding without having to transport them from the prison. Someone could easily be questioned by the defense lawyers without revealing his identity. Why do we afford that luxury to convicts and not to undercover agents? Or how about putting the "handler" on the stand instead on the agent's behalf?

By: Janeofalltrades

Janeofalltrades — Fri, 19 May 2006 17:14:44 +0000

Sid, My bad, you are right. I apologize. I thought the picture they had in that inset of 3 guys was the officer because it said “informant” on it.

By: gulab jamun

gulab jamun — Fri, 19 May 2006 17:13:05 +0000

hang on you guys, read the article. they didn't "blow his cover." it's a public, federal trial, and the statements made in the course of testimony are a matter of public record. from the article

fyi: from what I read and understood, the picture is that of the defendant, NOT the detective. Also, the article never mentions his name.

By: DJ 88

DJ 88 — Fri, 19 May 2006 16:58:04 +0000

Sounds exactly like the plot of Sleeper Cell on Showtime, except that this is local NYPD and the undercover on the show was a federal agent.

I don't see why they have to blow this guy's cover and put him on the stand. Some courts have remote presence systems that allow a person to participate in a court proceeding without having to transport them from the prison. Someone could easily be questioned by the defense lawyers without revealing his identity. Why do we afford that luxury to convicts and not to undercover agents? Or how about putting the "handler" on the stand instead on the agent's behalf?