3 ms·

If I understand this correctly, it is the simultaneously the most absurd and scary thing I have read in a very long time. So now crimes committed by the govern

If I understand this correctly, it is the simultaneously the most absurd and scary thing I have read in a very long time. So now crimes committed by the government cannot be challenged because the government never intended anyone to find out about it - thats a horrid peace of law.

Zigurd 13y ago
> thats a horrid peace of law It isn't law. It's one judge's tortured (Nah. Blackmailed?) logic. He isn't reading the law. He is stuffing caulk into a big crack, and inferring that the flaw should never have been there. The logical consequence of this is that all the cases from targets that can infer they are targets based on the Snowden documents will have to result in courts that simply ignore the crime. That goes way beyond Gonzaga.
- malandrew 13y ago
  I would love to see someone take the speculation of blackmail further. It's obviously speculation and not fact, but it's reasonable speculation that is entirely possible and no longer in the realm of tin-foil hattery and that's why it matters. We no longer required a tortured conspiracy theory to consider blackmail a likely explanation of why this horrific judgement was made, and that's frightening in and of itself.
- rossjudson 13y ago
  How do we know this judge hasn't been blackmailed, by the way? The honest protestations of a security agency that genuinely believes the ends justify the means? The public statements of the NSA imply that there's no choice in this matter -- that this kind of surveillance is mandatory. What hasn't happened is an honest debate about whether the public is willing to trade away whatever remains of their privacy for a fractional increase in "security". I think the public ought to at least have the opportunity to make a voting statement on that matter. Secret privacy invasion programs make the debate impossible, until they're not secret. What's happened is that the NSA has made the decision for us.
rayiner 13y ago
No you're not reading it correctly. The question is: what is the basis for the challenge? The quote in the article is in response to an argument that there was a statutory basis for the challenge. It says that its inconsistent to find that the statute creates a basis for the challenge in this case. It does not say the conduct cannot be challenged on another basis.
tomelders 13y ago
"But marge, I swear I thought you'd never find out" That's a Simpsons quote. That it's relevant in this discussion is cause for dismay.
fleitz 13y ago
Read Brandeis decisions, think about how much sense they make and then realize he was usually in the minority.

Zigurd 13y ago

> thats a horrid peace of law It isn't law. It's one judge's tortured (Nah. Blackmailed?) logic. He isn't reading the law. He is stuffing caulk into a big crack, and inferring that the flaw should never have been there. The logical consequence of this is that all the cases from targets that can infer they are targets based on the Snowden documents will have to result in courts that simply ignore the crime. That goes way beyond Gonzaga.

malandrew 13y ago
I would love to see someone take the speculation of blackmail further. It's obviously speculation and not fact, but it's reasonable speculation that is entirely possible and no longer in the realm of tin-foil hattery and that's why it matters. We no longer required a tortured conspiracy theory to consider blackmail a likely explanation of why this horrific judgement was made, and that's frightening in and of itself.
rossjudson 13y ago
How do we know this judge hasn't been blackmailed, by the way? The honest protestations of a security agency that genuinely believes the ends justify the means? The public statements of the NSA imply that there's no choice in this matter -- that this kind of surveillance is mandatory. What hasn't happened is an honest debate about whether the public is willing to trade away whatever remains of their privacy for a fractional increase in "security". I think the public ought to at least have the opportunity to make a voting statement on that matter. Secret privacy invasion programs make the debate impossible, until they're not secret. What's happened is that the NSA has made the decision for us.

rayiner 13y ago

No you're not reading it correctly. The question is: what is the basis for the challenge? The quote in the article is in response to an argument that there was a statutory basis for the challenge. It says that its inconsistent to find that the statute creates a basis for the challenge in this case. It does not say the conduct cannot be challenged on another basis.

tomelders 13y ago

"But marge, I swear I thought you'd never find out" That's a Simpsons quote. That it's relevant in this discussion is cause for dismay.

fleitz 13y ago

Read Brandeis decisions, think about how much sense they make and then realize he was usually in the minority.