Well, there’s some good news this week in the global “war on terror”. The people who care about privacy in the US have successfully pointed out to the fuckwit in chief that he is not above the law. Yes, unfortunately, he has to actually listen to that pesky “it’s just a piece of paper” constitution from time to time and not spy on people without any legal mandate to do so. Of course, the government will appeal this decision until they get their way (why not? Who cares about the rights of the people not to have unreasonable search or privacy in their own home from intrusive surveillance?). They’ll get legislation through to make it all legal after the fact because right-wing conservative nutjobs will support privacy errosion as an “anti-terror” “necessity”. I don’t think they even understand what the ACLU is trying to save.
While people who can’t add two numbers together continue the expensive and pointless fight to undermine freedoms in society, the ACLU will be doing something about it. They are one of the greatest institutions in the United States. These people care about defending the rights of the people that were fought for all those years ago by the founding fathers. What’s the point of having brave people stand up and establish the Union if idiots can undermine that on a whim? In a world increasingly twisted and distorted by the acts of a small number of people, who would love to see us all living in a police state, it’s refreshing to see brave people making a last stand for freedom.
Jon.
It’s amazing that you’re so convinced, considering that best legal scholars in the country cannot figure this out (e.g. warrantless search at borders was long held constitutional, yet the district court did not even mention that in the opinion). Volokh.com is spit in half with Orin being for yet claiming that plaintiffs have no standing, etc. Curiously though, Eugene Volokh himself while being the foremost champion of privacy and 1st Amendment is against (e.g. for Bush). I’d say that for a computer programmer to spit “fuckwits” left and right only goes to show how clueless he is about the facts of the matter and how he lets his prior belief to override the same facts.
So, the bastion of Bush-hatred, New York Times, posted an article which basically says that it was a crappy ruling. It quotes Suntein and Volokh.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/19/washington/19ruling.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1155960000&en=359d009508f66aa4&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin
You want BBC doing the same before you see that Taylor handed down a very poor decision?