What are you people going to say when this decision is overturned?
I don't know, but that is pretty much a done deal (at that point I will need to be reminded who the activist judges are). Most people will say..."which is your favorite American Idol contestant so far." It won't get the kind of attention that, say, Terry Schiavo did.
Of those that even notice, 2/3 will say "Great. No more giving comfort to the enemy. I don't talk to terrorists on the phone so this will not affect me."
The other third will recognize it as having no legal basis and/or suggest that this loss of rights undermines what we are all about.
Either way, this likely will not be stopped and more drug busts will likely occur.
I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
Any judge, no matter their political leaning, would have to come to the same conclusion if they determined that the matter could be heard in court. After they failed to get the case thrown out because of the classification, they offered no defense at all, which was an automatic win for the plaintiff.
The judge ruled that the case would go foward because of the amount of info they have already released to the public. They already admitted to doing the spying, all they have to do is justify it to people who know law. (terror!, 911!, death! doesn't work as a legal defense usually)
They could have easily argued their right under law to do the surveillance, and how it doesn't infringe on 1st ammendment rights if they felt they had a strong case, but instead are pretty much saying "We did spy, but we don't have to explain ourselves as we are above the law"
So, lets see. They can flagrantly break any law they want so long as they don't give security clearance to any judges.
Maybe the next judge will be one of those 'activist' judges they installed and will agree that the admistration doesn't have to be held accountable or even explain itself even when admitting to breaking a law.
The crazy thing here is that this was allowed to move forward because the administration admitted it was going on and couldnt hide behind the state secrets defense to get the case dismissed . I would assume from this that anything deemed necessary to fight the War on Terror would not be subject to these kind of lawsuits if the administration simply refuses to acknowledge its existance.
Comments
I'll be dissapointed that the terrorists won.
You know, keeping people afraid enough to sacrifice their rights. That is what terror is isn't it? Using fear as a tool to get what you want.
I don't know, but that is pretty much a done deal (at that point I will need to be reminded who the activist judges are). Most people will say..."which is your favorite American Idol contestant so far." It won't get the kind of attention that, say, Terry Schiavo did.
Of those that even notice, 2/3 will say "Great. No more giving comfort to the enemy. I don't talk to terrorists on the phone so this will not affect me."
The other third will recognize it as having no legal basis and/or suggest that this loss of rights undermines what we are all about.
Either way, this likely will not be stopped and more drug busts will likely occur.