Thanks for the Memory to The LlamaButchers.
The camelloids link today to an article at NRO addressing ther latest NSA kerfluffle. Go read it before you form an opinion on this issue and the Fourth Amendment. Interestingly enough, I popped into the comments at the LB's and made a comment myself, before reading the NRO article, only to find it makes the same argument I do. In fact, I have been surprised all along that so many people have overlooked Smith v. Maryland (1978) regarding the wiretap issue in general.
Whether you agree with the scope of the data collection or not, it is irresponsible of senators to go on TV screaming about violations of the Fourth Amendment when it is clear this data does not commit such a violation. The NRO article concludes with the following, and I can't agree more:
The camelloids link today to an article at NRO addressing ther latest NSA kerfluffle. Go read it before you form an opinion on this issue and the Fourth Amendment. Interestingly enough, I popped into the comments at the LB's and made a comment myself, before reading the NRO article, only to find it makes the same argument I do. In fact, I have been surprised all along that so many people have overlooked Smith v. Maryland (1978) regarding the wiretap issue in general.
Whether you agree with the scope of the data collection or not, it is irresponsible of senators to go on TV screaming about violations of the Fourth Amendment when it is clear this data does not commit such a violation. The NRO article concludes with the following, and I can't agree more:
Of course, the fact that a government action is legal doesn’t settle the case: There may still be ample room to oppose it. But there is a rush among broad sections of the Left to declare illegal any Bush-administration policies with which they disagree without being troubled by such trivialities as what the actual, settled law says. Here, this reflexive reaction appears dead wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment