Well it looks like the Supreme Court won't make their ruling on the constitutionality of the NSA's phone call, sms and toilet cam traps until someone directly affected by them brings a suit directly before the Supremes. And in that case the NSA can continue stealing information as long as they don't use it in anyone's prosecution. If the calls happen to snag a terrorist they can try to find a different way to get evidence and foil the plot and if they fail, they can just not mention it and even use the "secret - undiscovered" plot as an excuse for MORE surveillance. In the meantime they can use the info they gather any damn way they please ie industrial espionage, an administrations enemies list, blackmail etc. (People at NSA ask for "trust? You don't get what you've ALREADY broken.) What I'm wondering is whatever happened to the phrase "slippery slope"? Wasn't that always supposed to be an unofficial guiding principle for the courts and even the police and prosecutors? Something to remind them of when they crossed the line and something they respected? Or has the concepts of shame, common decency, respect for the American people and their constitution completely eluded Mr. Keith Alexander et al.?
WORDS ARE NOT BULLETS. I grew up listening to a line that became a cliche from overuse. - "I may hate what you say but I'll fight to the death to defend your right to say it!". That was THE American anthem. What happened? What was done to this man is OUTRAGEOUS! It's what the old Soviet Union used to do to political dissenters - have we forgotten that already? Have we completely abrogated our rights as American citizens? When is enough going to be enough? Wake up people. (Somewhere Thomas Jefferson's body is spinning so hard it's likely to pop up in Tienanmen square.) For starters, how about a detailed, exacting, legal definition of what actually constitutes an act of terrorism as opposed to whatever offends some LEO (law enforcement officer) or bureaucrat's delicate sensibility?
Huge fan of your column. In this case though I have to say that Ms. Taymor has a point. The Shakespearean plays were not changed because of the audience?s rather vociferous remarks. Focus groups are a risky proposition at best. To change the specific details of a production by trying to make sense out of a chaos of random comments is ridiculous and arbitrary. Any work should follow the focused vision of it's creators. If it sucks then it sucks. I'm glad ole Bill didn't change Lear or Hamlet because some Elizabethan thugs
got their codpieces in a knot.