Ideology 1, Law 0: Another strange decision

Ideology 1, Law 0: Another strange decision

An excellent piece from Mr. Greenberg dealing with the ruling concerning NSA wiretaps.


“Who is Anna Diggs Taylor and what does she have against national security?

The answer to the first question is: a U.S. district judge in Detroit. The answer to the second is as mysterious as the decision she handed down Thursday…”

“There may indeed be a legitimate argument against some aspects of the National Security Agency’s wiretaps. But this ruling doesn’t make it. It’s not so much an argument as a series of wild swings:

First off, Her Honor agreed that those challenging the National Security Agency had grounds to sue even if they could not demonstrate any actual material damage to themselves.

The plaintiffs argued that the very existence of the program is such a threat to their delicate psyches that it should be banned. Because even the possibility that the feds might be listening in – none of the defendants claimed their phone lines were actually tapped – could inhibit their conversations with terrorist suspects abroad. How dare the government do such a thing!

It’s an interesting point of view. But it’s not mine, at least not since it was reported that these wiretaps may have played a role in the arrest and conviction of at least one would-be terrorist – Iyman Faris, a truck driver who was casing the Brooklyn Bridge with a view to cutting its suspension cables.

It’s not the NSA’s listening in on international calls that bothers some of us. It’s the distinct possibility that soon it may not be able to. Maybe that’s because we’d like to think the courts would let the government protect one of our basic American rights – the right not to be blown sky-high.”

I second the motion

One response to “Ideology 1, Law 0: Another strange decision”

  1. phizone says:

    And here I was thinking it reasonable to expect the government to abide by their own laws… It’s not ureasonable to require government to obtain a court order when intercepting communications of its citizens, especially when there is a law specifically stating that one must be obtained.

    Also, if a person does not have the right to sue without knowing if their phone is tapped, nobody could ever sue over it, since nobody is going to know their phone is tapped in modern phone switching systems.

    I could go on, there are many reasons this was the right decision by the court.

Leave a Reply