A MAJOR DEFEAT FOR THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION in the NSA communications intercept case, as District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor finds the program unconstitutional. No doubt it will be appealed, but the Bush Administration, in its usual summer slump, doesn't need any more bad news right now.So nevermind the legal issues: it's a "defeat" for the Bush Administration and "bad news" for its "summer slump."
Isn't it more than a little weird that this "non-partisan" law professor views an event of this legal significance strictly through political glasses? Shouldn't Putz, since he's, you know, a law professor and stuff, offer some legal opinion about the judge's ruling, other than how much it's going to harsh the Bush Administration's summer mellow?
Maybe he's bummed himself, 'cause it sure looks like he's been awfully glib and dismissive of the NSA spying program since it surfaced. Here's just a sample:
Of course, if we'd had a terror attack since 9/11 and didn't have a program like that, people would be complaining.
All of these breezy, dismissive, "Hey, it's no big deal! Why all the complaining? It's like overhearing someone's call at Starbucks! Heh!" posts, in the wake of a federal judge ruling the program unconstitutional, make Putz look like, well, a putz.ORIN KERR HAS THOUGHTS on the legality of the NSA monitoring project, to the extent that we understand itMeanwhile, ABC says it's polling well: .... It'll be interesting to see if the Congressional complaints continue if other polls show similar results.
YES, THE NSA NUMBER-TRACKING PROGRAM isn't really "eavesdropping" on calls. But as reader Liz Mauran notes, the misleading press coverage probably doesn't matter: "It seems to me, judging from the number of people in airports, restaurants, and other public venues talking on their cell phones, that it's just fine to have a non-private telephone conversation."
Yes. I wish that people valued their telephonic privacy a bit more. And based on my own experience, I'd pity any NSA agent who was forced to listen to some of the stuff I've overheard. . . .
And yes, you can usually find out who's behind a phone number by simply typing it into Google, and you'll even get a map to their house, which seems like more of a privacy invasion to me.
1 comment:
Thank you for your comment against Glenn Reynolds, who I was not familiar with before this article.
Linking to his post, I note a *serious* discussion by Mr Volohk on this important issue.
Perhaps one of the reasons that events like this get posited as "Wins" or "Losses" for [whoever] is that this executive branch appears to have regularly trumpeted political gain over correct strategic actions.
American have short attention spans, and seem not to like a thoughtful explanation of the important issues in this recent court decision.
The compliant MSM notices this and become handmaidens to shallow public discourse.
So again, thank you.
Post a Comment