Because the “relevant authorities” didn’t have the legal right to give that permission.
No one is allowed to decide to torture people - it’s illegal even if your boss says it’s okay.
So in your mind, as soon as someone is accused of being a terrorist, no proof is needed. You can just proceed straight to torture.
Oh boy, I wonder if such a system could even be abused? You are basically supporting Gulags and because you think it can't possibly happen to you.
> Why would you prosecute people who were given permission by the relevant authorities?
Nuremberg trials, just following orders?
When has the ACLU stopped defending free speech? They defend convicted terrorists or alleged terrorists?
2: ACLU is not a strong proponent of individual gun ownership, according to the article this has been true for at least 30 years.
3: Article makes far reaching claim in headline but mostly focuses about a single issue, the changes to title IX. Clearly the author disagrees with the ACLU, but the article doesn't give any context on the issue. It's hard to tell if it really is an uncharacteristic position for them to take. I think the heritage foundation has hated the ACLU for a very long time, so that's consistent.
>No, they never said that it was illegal. And Jack was always very careful in saying: "We're not saying what the government has done is illegal. We're just saying we can't find any legal basis for this." And there's a difference. There is a difference.
>I did it because I wanted to protect the president. That's why I signed that document. And I felt that there was a legal basis to sign that document. I thought it was necessary to provide that signature.
Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez explaining why he signed his name to an order that had no legal basis.
>The call-tracking effort began without court authorization under President George W. Bush following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.<
So the PotUS gave them the authority.
>A similar program was approved by the secretive FISA Court beginning in 2006 and renewed numerous times, but the 9th Circuit panel said those rulings were legally flawed.<
So in this instance the IC was still operating under the authority of the FISA court. Whether the court came to the right conclusions or not is irrelevant to whether or not the agencies were bound to following those conclusions.
>The metadata program was officially shut down in 2015 after Congress passed the USA FREEDOM Act, which provided a new mechanism where phone providers retained their data instead of turning it over to the government. The revamped system appears to have been abandoned by the NSA in 2018 or 2019.<
So the programs being discussed have already been terminated. What more would you have done? Are we going to prosecute judges for making rulings we disagree with?
>The American Civil Liberties Union hailed the decision as "a victory for our privacy rights," though the left-leaning group said it was "disappointed that, having found the surveillance of Mr. Moalin unlawful, the court declined to order suppression of the illegally obtained evidence in his case."<
As an aside, it's wildly funny to me that the ACLU won't defend free speech anymore but they'll defend terrorists and their supporters.