# Does the DEA/NSA collaboration prove that mass conspiracy theories are possible? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 21, 2013, 8:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-dea-nsa-collaboration-prove-that-mass-conspiracy-theories-are-possible/666786 "2013-08-21T08:18:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-dea-nsa-collaboration-prove-that-mass-conspiracy-theories-are-possible/666786/21 "2013-08-21T14:27:39Z")
Generally speaking, one government agency collaborating with another is not a conspiracy. It does not become one until they conspire to commit a crime, which neither the NSA nor the DEA is yet accused of doing here. ---
**Author:** ![aNewLeaf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ac91a4/32.png) [@aNewLeaf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aNewLeaf)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-dea-nsa-collaboration-prove-that-mass-conspiracy-theories-are-possible/666786/22 "2013-08-21T14:50:06Z")
> [@](#): > > 1. They aren’t “spying on everyone else”. You make it sound like there’s some guy in a little room somewhere reading everyone’s emails all day, when the reality of it is that none of that information can be touched without a warrant. I’d be sorely disappointed if the government weren’t able to read the emails of criminal suspects. Email can be read without a warrant. Calls can’t be monitored, but metadata can legally be collected. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-dea-nsa-collaboration-prove-that-mass-conspiracy-theories-are-possible/666786/23 "2013-08-21T14:50:18Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Generally speaking, one government agency collaborating with another is not a conspiracy. It does not become one until they conspire to commit a crime, which neither the NSA nor the DEA is yet accused of doing here. Evidence tampering (i.e. the practice of “parallel construction”, whereby the DEA makes up a bogus story about the origin of the information) most certainly is a crime. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-dea-nsa-collaboration-prove-that-mass-conspiracy-theories-are-possible/666786/24 "2013-08-21T14:53:19Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > Evidence tampering (i.e. the practice of “parallel construction”, whereby the DEA makes up a bogus story about the origin of the information) most certainly is a crime. Nonsense. If a crime is learned about in a way that’s inadmissible in court, there’s absolutely nothing preventing them from finding a way to prove the crime that is admissible. ---
**Author:** ![BrokenBriton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@BrokenBriton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrokenBriton)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-dea-nsa-collaboration-prove-that-mass-conspiracy-theories-are-possible/666786/25 "2013-08-21T14:53:24Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Generally speaking, one government agency collaborating with another is not a conspiracy. It does not become one until they conspire to commit a crime, which neither the NSA nor the DEA is yet accused of doing here. Right, the crime is in telling the American people of the mass surveillance being conducted secretly against it, the fact of which (the mass surveillance) having already been denied to the people (via Congress). That’s not arse about face at all. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-dea-nsa-collaboration-prove-that-mass-conspiracy-theories-are-possible/666786/26 "2013-08-21T14:59:25Z")
> [@BrokenBriton](#): > > Right, the crime is in telling the American people of the mass surveillance being conducted secretly against it, the fact of which (the mass surveillance) having already been denied to the people (via Congress). Exactly. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-dea-nsa-collaboration-prove-that-mass-conspiracy-theories-are-possible/666786/27 "2013-08-21T15:13:13Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Nonsense. If a crime is learned about in a way that’s inadmissible in court, there’s absolutely nothing preventing them from finding a way to prove the crime that is admissible. Irrelevant. “Parallel construction” is a method of tampering with existing evidence to pass off inadmissible evidence as admissible, not an independent discovery of new admissible evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-dea-nsa-collaboration-prove-that-mass-conspiracy-theories-are-possible/666786/28 "2013-08-21T15:29:42Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > Irrelevant. “Parallel construction” is a method of tampering with existing evidence to pass off inadmissible evidence as admissible, not an independent discovery of new admissible evidence. Evidence tampering is not the correct legal category. There are two issues here: candor and admissibility. The admissibility question is controlled by the the doctrine called the [fruit of the poisonous tree](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree). It may or may not apply, depending on how connected the evidence was, and whether the NSA illegally obtained the evidence. Neither is established by the Reuters article with sufficient specificity to say. The other issue is candor. If the DEA lead prosecutors to lie about the source of evidence or the chain of causation that led them to obtain certain evidence, then this a problem even if there is no fruit of the poisonous tree problem. Not sure it’s a crime though. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-dea-nsa-collaboration-prove-that-mass-conspiracy-theories-are-possible/666786/29 "2013-08-21T15:35:24Z")
Is the OP under the impression this is the first major government conspiracy to come to light? The CIA’s stated purpose, or any intelligence apparatus for any other state, is one giant conspiracy. Discovery tends to involve a journalist, a whistle blower, a regulatory body, a theft of classified materials from a secure location, documents being declassified after 50 years or whatever, or one part of the government getting pissed at another part and looking into things (e.g. the [Church commission](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_commission)). Ain’t nothing new about this one. Real life conspiracies don’t tend to be as exciting as the ones imagined by cranks, though. Usually it’s mundane stuff like media/intelligence manipulation, assassinations/coups, spying, covering up previous bad decisions, routine imperial management, and general FUD. The fact the NSA likes to spy on us doesn’t really have any bearing on chemtrails, moon hoaxers, or 9/11 truthers. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-dea-nsa-collaboration-prove-that-mass-conspiracy-theories-are-possible/666786/30 "2013-08-21T15:40:51Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > Irrelevant. “Parallel construction” is a method of tampering with existing evidence to pass off inadmissible evidence as admissible, not an independent discovery of new admissible evidence. No, it’s an act of _constructing_ a _parallel_ chain of evidence that can be used in court. ---
**Author:** ![aNewLeaf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ac91a4/32.png) [@aNewLeaf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aNewLeaf)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-dea-nsa-collaboration-prove-that-mass-conspiracy-theories-are-possible/666786/31 "2013-08-21T15:45:34Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > The fact the NSA likes to spy on us doesn’t really have any bearing on chemtrails, moon hoaxers, or 9/11 truthers. See, this is where I disagree. For ages, I’ve been an anti-conspiracy guy. Chemtrails? Feh, can’t keep something that big secret. Now, I don’t know. Maybe it’s possible. No way for me to find out. And that creeps me out. To me, the NSA business has made almost everything else just slightly more believable. Not the really whacky shit- reptilians don’t shape shift, even if they do interbreed with us. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-dea-nsa-collaboration-prove-that-mass-conspiracy-theories-are-possible/666786/32 "2013-08-21T15:45:57Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > Jesus Christ, **Smapti** , you’re acting like Snowden told you there is no Santa Claus. > [@BrokenBriton](#): > > Fwiw, you sound very, very young. Cut the crap or take it to the Pit. You can’t insult other posters in this forum. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-dea-nsa-collaboration-prove-that-mass-conspiracy-theories-are-possible/666786/33 "2013-08-21T16:06:25Z")
> [@aNewLeaf](#): > > Chemtrails? Feh, can’t keep something that big secret. > Now, I don’t know. Maybe it’s possible. No way for me to find out. And that creeps me out. [Nope. Still impossible.](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Chemtrails) ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-dea-nsa-collaboration-prove-that-mass-conspiracy-theories-are-possible/666786/34 "2013-08-21T16:16:24Z")
> [@aNewLeaf](#): > > See, this is where I disagree. > For ages, I’ve been an anti-conspiracy guy. Chemtrails? Feh, can’t keep something that big secret. > Now, I don’t know. Maybe it’s possible. No way for me to find out. And that creeps me out. So you got red pilled hard. Were you unaware of previous historical conspiracies, or did you not classify them in your brain as such and when this came to light in real time so to speak you suffered cognitive dissonance? This shouldn’t change anything because you should have evidence before believing in anything. EDIT: And although Snowden’s leaks are quite detailed and useful I think most people who were paying attention knew governments were hoovering up internet data and were in bed with the internet providers. This sort of arrangement goes back to Bush, maybe even Clinton. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-dea-nsa-collaboration-prove-that-mass-conspiracy-theories-are-possible/666786/35 "2013-08-21T19:52:48Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > No, it’s an act of _constructing_ a _parallel_ chain of evidence that can be used in court. AKA “Intelligence Laundering”. Why, pray tell, would they go to that trouble, if the way they originally obtained the intelligence was legitimate and legal? Legitimate businesses don’t launder money, only criminal enterprises. The same is true of intelligence agencies, IMO. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-dea-nsa-collaboration-prove-that-mass-conspiracy-theories-are-possible/666786/36 "2013-08-21T19:56:14Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > AKA “Intelligence Laundering”. > > Why, pray tell, would they go to that trouble, if the way they originally obtained the intelligence was legitimate and legal? > > Legitimate businesses don’t launder money, only criminal enterprises. The same is true of intelligence agencies, IMO. So your theory is that the government sought to keep the surveillance programs secret because they are illegal, and not as a way to make them more effective. Ok. It seems like the first step in your theory is to show they are illegal. Go ahead. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-dea-nsa-collaboration-prove-that-mass-conspiracy-theories-are-possible/666786/37 "2013-08-21T20:10:04Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > Why, pray tell, would they go to that trouble, if the way they originally obtained the intelligence was legitimate and legal? To maintain the secrecy of the program. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-dea-nsa-collaboration-prove-that-mass-conspiracy-theories-are-possible/666786/38 "2013-08-21T20:10:06Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > So your theory is that the government sought to keep the surveillance programs secret because they are illegal, and not as a way to make them more effective. Ok. It seems like the first step in your theory is to show they are illegal. Go ahead. My contention is that they are _wrong_. It has nothing to do with the law. The government knows they are wrong, too. Hence, the secret rubber stamp courts, the lying to congress and the American people, the embarrassed backlash, the intimidation of innocent journalists and world leaders, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-dea-nsa-collaboration-prove-that-mass-conspiracy-theories-are-possible/666786/39 "2013-08-21T20:12:52Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > My contention is that they are _wrong_. It has nothing to do with the law. The government knows they are wrong, too. Hence, the secret rubber stamp courts, the lying to congress and the American people, the embarrassed backlash, the intimidation of innocent journalists and world leaders, etc. Ok. So your position is that the NSA spying program was kept a secret because they believed it was wrong? ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-dea-nsa-collaboration-prove-that-mass-conspiracy-theories-are-possible/666786/40 "2013-08-21T20:15:17Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > My contention is that they are _wrong_. It has nothing to do with the law. The government knows they are wrong, too. Hence, the secret rubber stamp courts, the lying to congress and the American people, the embarrassed backlash, the intimidation of innocent journalists and world leaders, etc. What’s wrong about wanting to stop terrorists? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-dea-nsa-collaboration-prove-that-mass-conspiracy-theories-are-possible/666786.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-dea-nsa-collaboration-prove-that-mass-conspiracy-theories-are-possible/666786.md?page=3)