here's the title/section this amendment refers to:
§1385. Use of Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Space Force as posse comitatus
Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, or the Space Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1385
If I'm understanding correctly, this proposed amendment wants to conflate the prohibition of the execution / enforcement of U.S. law by the armed forces with the provisioning of information/ evidence by the armed forces that may assist in legal and appropriate U.S. authorities enforcing/excuting U.S. law.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any information obtained by or with the assistance of a member of the Armed Forces in violation of section 1385 of
9 title 18, shall not be received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative
committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof.
So let’s see. Your info says clearly it’s illegal per section 1385 to use any branch of the military in service of law enforcement without express authorization by Congress. Attempting to use the military to arrest criminals without Congressional approval or under a Constitutionally-protected scenario would violate this law already, regardless of Schiff’s amendment.
What Schiff’s amendment would ensure is that IF somebody went ahead, ignored the law, and criminally used the military in a law enforcement capacity, nothing carried out under the justification of that act would be admissible in the legal system.
Sort of like how cops can’t charge you with weed possession if they illegally break into your house to find it.
It’s important to note that this proposed amendment specifies that it only covers evidence that was gathered in violation of the existing law. I bolded the relevant text in Schiff’s proposal quote above.
So the only way that Q would be a potential target of this amendment is if Q’s evidence was gathered by a military operation that is already in violation of the existing law. If Q has been gathering evidence legally and with some sort of Constitutionally or Congressionally-recognized authority, then this amendment, even if passed, would not have any effect on Q’s case.
So now my question is, does Schiff truly believe this amendment has efficacy and relevance for anything he may know is coming down the pike? i.e. some inside info or reason to believe that evidence gathering was conducted in violation of the standing law? Or is it desperate, wishful thinking without any firm basis this would make for a legal out?
It would only be a “legal out” under this scenario:
The Q Team either is military, or has military components. They have used their expertise and resources to gather evidence of a major crime, and eventually, they conduct mass arrests of numerous civilians, mostly politicians, scientists, industry leaders.
Normally, this case would be under the purview of civilian law enforcement, but as is the common belief, the Q Team, in this scenario, used military resources, and may have had the military conduct the arrests and carry out sentences.
Now, in this scenario, the Q Team had no Congressional authority, and nothing from the Constitution gave the military in Q’s Team authorization to participate in this operation.
And in this scenario, Q’s Team was willing to fall on their sword. Yes, it was illegal for them to build and conduct the case with the military, but they would happily suffer the consequences, because the evidence would exist and back up their prosecutions. They would be legitimized by their evidence, even if it was criminal to obtain.
In this scenario, Schiff’s amendment would fuck them. Because now, it would ensure that if you are a criminal and committed a crime to build a legal case, your evidence is considered invalid.
Essentially, this would stop the evidence from being useable only if the Q team is already convicted of having violated the law in using the military for law enforcement purposes.
If Q did not involve the military, or had Congressional approval for his team, or otherwise did not already violate the law regarding the separation of military from civilian law enforcement, then the Q team cannot be touched by Schiff’s amendment.
I am not a lawyer, but that is my untrained, unprofessional reading of it.
Schiff’s motivation could be as simple as “he’s a lawyer and ensuring criminals can’t commit a legal suicide-bomb by benefiting legally from their crimes.” But that would require the benefit of the doubt, and such things tend to be rare here. :)
Eh, not a lawyer, and that’s beyond anything but me wildly speculating. But I would imagine that even if the amendment doesn’t get adopted, it would eventually end up in court anyway, because anyone who is accused of a crime due to evidence collected via commission of a crime is going to have a decent chance of getting it thrown out.
That’s why I guess I don’t see Schiff as needing any unusual motivation here. This is the same logic you’d use to defend against the use of blackmailed confessions or evidence collected by a burglar against the… burgled…
here's the title/section this amendment refers to:
If I'm understanding correctly, this proposed amendment wants to conflate the prohibition of the execution / enforcement of U.S. law by the armed forces with the provisioning of information/ evidence by the armed forces that may assist in legal and appropriate U.S. authorities enforcing/excuting U.S. law.
I believe that is correct, yes, but only if this military operation is in violation of the law you quoted.
Here is the actual proposed amendment by Schiff:
https://amendments-rules.house.gov/amendments/SCHIFF_073_xml220705100307358.pdf
So let’s see. Your info says clearly it’s illegal per section 1385 to use any branch of the military in service of law enforcement without express authorization by Congress. Attempting to use the military to arrest criminals without Congressional approval or under a Constitutionally-protected scenario would violate this law already, regardless of Schiff’s amendment.
What Schiff’s amendment would ensure is that IF somebody went ahead, ignored the law, and criminally used the military in a law enforcement capacity, nothing carried out under the justification of that act would be admissible in the legal system.
Sort of like how cops can’t charge you with weed possession if they illegally break into your house to find it.
It’s important to note that this proposed amendment specifies that it only covers evidence that was gathered in violation of the existing law. I bolded the relevant text in Schiff’s proposal quote above.
So the only way that Q would be a potential target of this amendment is if Q’s evidence was gathered by a military operation that is already in violation of the existing law. If Q has been gathering evidence legally and with some sort of Constitutionally or Congressionally-recognized authority, then this amendment, even if passed, would not have any effect on Q’s case.
Yes that makes total and complete sense.
So now my question is, does Schiff truly believe this amendment has efficacy and relevance for anything he may know is coming down the pike? i.e. some inside info or reason to believe that evidence gathering was conducted in violation of the standing law? Or is it desperate, wishful thinking without any firm basis this would make for a legal out?
It would only be a “legal out” under this scenario:
The Q Team either is military, or has military components. They have used their expertise and resources to gather evidence of a major crime, and eventually, they conduct mass arrests of numerous civilians, mostly politicians, scientists, industry leaders.
Normally, this case would be under the purview of civilian law enforcement, but as is the common belief, the Q Team, in this scenario, used military resources, and may have had the military conduct the arrests and carry out sentences.
Now, in this scenario, the Q Team had no Congressional authority, and nothing from the Constitution gave the military in Q’s Team authorization to participate in this operation.
And in this scenario, Q’s Team was willing to fall on their sword. Yes, it was illegal for them to build and conduct the case with the military, but they would happily suffer the consequences, because the evidence would exist and back up their prosecutions. They would be legitimized by their evidence, even if it was criminal to obtain.
In this scenario, Schiff’s amendment would fuck them. Because now, it would ensure that if you are a criminal and committed a crime to build a legal case, your evidence is considered invalid.
Essentially, this would stop the evidence from being useable only if the Q team is already convicted of having violated the law in using the military for law enforcement purposes.
If Q did not involve the military, or had Congressional approval for his team, or otherwise did not already violate the law regarding the separation of military from civilian law enforcement, then the Q team cannot be touched by Schiff’s amendment.
I am not a lawyer, but that is my untrained, unprofessional reading of it.
Schiff’s motivation could be as simple as “he’s a lawyer and ensuring criminals can’t commit a legal suicide-bomb by benefiting legally from their crimes.” But that would require the benefit of the doubt, and such things tend to be rare here. :)
Would this amendment be ‘retroactive’ from date of adoption or only for info post date.?
Eh, not a lawyer, and that’s beyond anything but me wildly speculating. But I would imagine that even if the amendment doesn’t get adopted, it would eventually end up in court anyway, because anyone who is accused of a crime due to evidence collected via commission of a crime is going to have a decent chance of getting it thrown out.
That’s why I guess I don’t see Schiff as needing any unusual motivation here. This is the same logic you’d use to defend against the use of blackmailed confessions or evidence collected by a burglar against the… burgled…
Fascinating, thanks for the context.