Not to defend this, but don't the police lie to suspects all the time during interrogations? The article doesn't seem to assert that DHS lied to anyone except the suspect (at the time of the detainment), which AFAIK isn't illegal and might even be routine.
I remember watching a video about the interrogation of Stephanie Lazarus, who police suspected of a decades-old murder. They initially misrepresented how much evidence they had on her to get her to talk more, which ultimately worked and helped to gather evidence that assisted in securing the conviction. The point being that our society currently allows the police to lie to suspects (but NOT to the courts/public at large), in theory for the greater good (catching criminals).
Now whether or not this person was fairly targeted in the first place, and whether or not they should be in trouble for wiping their phone is a whole different question, but the premise of the article kind of implies there was some sort of new "gotcha" in the case, which doesn't appear to be so.
_OR_ instead of a "gotcha" it is just summarizing the linked legal document. It doesn't claim that lying to him was illegal but certainly seems a phishing tactic like the document asserts. Which is pretty gross for someone not even under any suspicion of a crime. The title certainly is grandiose, but the article doesn't seem to be doing much more than summarizing the document and recounting his interrogation (sans Miranda, btw).
Not to defend this, but don't the police lie to suspects all the time during interrogations? The article doesn't seem to assert that DHS lied to anyone except the suspect (at the time of the detainment), which AFAIK isn't illegal and might even be routine.
I remember watching a video about the interrogation of Stephanie Lazarus, who police suspected of a decades-old murder. They initially misrepresented how much evidence they had on her to get her to talk more, which ultimately worked and helped to gather evidence that assisted in securing the conviction. The point being that our society currently allows the police to lie to suspects (but NOT to the courts/public at large), in theory for the greater good (catching criminals).
Now whether or not this person was fairly targeted in the first place, and whether or not they should be in trouble for wiping their phone is a whole different question, but the premise of the article kind of implies there was some sort of new "gotcha" in the case, which doesn't appear to be so.
_OR_ instead of a "gotcha" it is just summarizing the linked legal document. It doesn't claim that lying to him was illegal but certainly seems a phishing tactic like the document asserts. Which is pretty gross for someone not even under any suspicion of a crime. The title certainly is grandiose, but the article doesn't seem to be doing much more than summarizing the document and recounting his interrogation (sans Miranda, btw).
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/28825074-tunick-phot...
Yeah, I see nothing to indicate that anyone else was lied to. But I also see no indication that they had any reason to believe wrongdoing on his part.
[dead]