Privacy? What Privacy?
February 26, 2013 7:46 AM Subscribe
Clapper v. Amnesty International USA
And here I thought we were in "the land of the free and home of the brave", but I guess that does not extend to privacy...
The Supreme Court on Tuesday said plaintiffs cannot challenge a federal law that allows eavesdropping on international conversations involving Americans, a case touching on government efforts to fight terrorism. By a 5-4 vote, the country's highest court said lawyers, journalists and human rights groups including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch did not have legal standing to sue because they could not show they had suffered any injury. (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel and Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Howard Goller and Eric Beech)
And here I thought we were in "the land of the free and home of the brave", but I guess that does not extend to privacy...
The Supreme Court on Tuesday said plaintiffs cannot challenge a federal law that allows eavesdropping on international conversations involving Americans, a case touching on government efforts to fight terrorism. By a 5-4 vote, the country's highest court said lawyers, journalists and human rights groups including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch did not have legal standing to sue because they could not show they had suffered any injury. (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel and Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Howard Goller and Eric Beech)
This post was deleted for the following reason: It may be a good idea to do this over as more of a "here is a thing on the web" and less of an editorial? -- jessamyn
« Older The Miami Herald’s Carol Rosenberg on How to... | Did the piggy have a mens rea? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments