Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

How it should be:

- "Let's challenge these theories in the courts"

- "the courts have decided that the application of the law is too broad and we're going to add clearly defined limits so as to protect the rights of our citizens"

How it is:

- "the courts can not review or speak about what may or may not be a problem because of FISA orders."



How it is:

- Since our legal advisor claims that it is possibly legal, I will do the thing. In the case that someone has grounds to challenge the thing, I will face no penalty because I acted in good faith based on legal advice.

If a normal citizen tried that shit, they'd be rotting in jail.


I've been wondering about the "good faith" assumption that law enforcement, and some other government employees get.

Is that just a by product of the courts and law enforcement basically being two heads of the same beast or is there something else at work?


FISA orders are completely unrelated to this.

These cases take a long time to trickle up to the Supreme Court. And you would have to either convince one of the 4 solid left-wing judges to side against the administration (hah -- and before downvoting, look at the voting records) or have a unanimous opinion on the right, which was difficult even when Scalia was alive, and obviously not helpful now, since a split enforcing a lower court decision doesn't set precedent.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: