Posner's op-ed in the Washington Post caught my eye, given previous discussions on the list. Here's a choice snippit:
"The goal of national security intelligence is to prevent a terrorist attack, not just punish the attacker after it occurs, and the information that enables the detection of an impending attack may be scattered around the world in tiny bits. A much wider, finer-meshed net must be cast than when investigating a specific crime. Many of the relevant bits may be in the e-mails, phone conversations or banking records of U.S. citizens, some innocent, some not so innocent. The government is entitled to those data, but just for the limited purpose of protecting national security."
I love the language there: "entitled". Of course, government officials would never misuse this entitlement, because they will--without any oversight--only and diligently use these powers to protect national security. And of course, their definition of "national security"--again, with no oversight or debate--will obviously coincide with the definition the rest of us support.
In short, a pretty appalling argument from a purportedly "sharp" legal mind. Justin, as a lawyer who's held P. in some respect, what do you think?
Miles