A few years ago he wrote an opinion letting Chicago put its Red Squad back in business. Lately he's defended torture in print. He's more libertarian than many GOPsters, but he's getting less so. I will say that after 911, in my experience, some version of this happened all across the judiciary, even with very liberal judges. OF course they had further to fall than Posner. None of that cancels out anything I've said about Judge Posner's brilliance, the fertility and inventiveness of his mind. his lovely prose, and so forth. I'm disappointed, but nor surprised.
Btw, the 4th Amendment only kicks in, practically if you are talking about a criminal investigation, wherethe remedy is suppression. Judge Posner is right that historically the spya gencies whose job is NOT law enforcement have had a much wider scope abroad. What is alarming _constitutionally_ is the that they should be allowed, as Bush has permitted them in violation of a whole bunch of laws, to extend that scope here, and if the info is shared for use in criminal prosecutions as permitted under the Patriot Act or for executive detentions.
--- Miles Jackson <cqmv at pdx.edu> wrote:
>
> 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
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com