There was a time in the US when we were told that the government couldn't open our mail without a real warrant based upon real probable cause. Now they don't even hide it that the Constitution is looked upon as no more important than toilet paper.
The US Court will ignore the Constitution just like flushing it down with excrement. The judge washes his/her hands, turns out the light, and leaves without giving it another thought. Meanwhile, his blasÃ© attitude about civil liberties and due process is causing the whole nation to hemorrhage. Will it be to death, or will we fix this mess?
As far as I'm concerned, it's grounds for impeachment and removal. I don't look to have such judges punished, but the mundane, secular law calls for enforcing the privacy laws the most important of which is the requirement for a warrant that is neither a rubber stamp nor issued by a secret court and especially isn't some mere so-called National Security Letter from the FBI or some other agency demanding the content of our communications and claiming the power to gag the letter's recipient. Are people still being given such letters and falling for them? I hope not.
Now, it is my understanding that the info being sought was for data that was not the actual content of the communications, but even that we talked to someone should be private information that should only be given up where there is probable cause. In this case, there is not probable cause.
The reason for this is to preclude government abuse. History is replete with government abusing authority.
WikiLeaks was a publisher at the time of this fishing expedition against it. WikiLeaks was/is targeted by fascistic elements within the US government because WikiLeaks exposed literal war crimes. Of course, the attacks on both Afghanistan and Iraq were technically illegal. We all know that huge deliberate lies were told by the Bush-43 neocons, including George W. Bush, who even admitted that he authorized torture (waterboarding, which America said was reason to execute Japanese soldiers in WWII -- how times change when the neocons are doing what the Japanese did).
So, WikiLeaks was acting as a free press (protected under the First and Fourth Amendments of the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution and various international laws) and was exposing US government illegalities, which is proper and legal behavior for a free press, which being free need pass no litmus test.
Every blog on the Internet is a free press under the First Amendment. This blog has as much right to full protection as a free press as the New York Times or Washington Post. It also has the added protection of being a religion-based blog. It doesn't matter that this blog covers many areas that many people might not view as religious matters. How the world is being run is a religious matter in my religion, and there's nothing anyone can do about that because my God defines my religion as my God moves me.
Birgitta Jonsdottir, Jacob Appelbaum, and Rop Gonggrijp, were involved with WikiLeaks in a completely legal endeavor. Their communications with via various social and other media should remain private from the government for the reason I've cited: protection against government abuse.
Ruling Allows U.S. Government Warrantless Access to Users' Data
San Francisco - A district court judge in Virginia ruled against online privacy today, allowing U.S federal investigators to collect private records of three Twitter users as part of its investigation related to Wikileaks. The judge also blocked the users' attempt to discover whether other Internet companies have been ordered to turn their data over to the government.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) represent Icelandic parliamentarian Birgitta Jonsdottir in this case. Jonsdottir has appealed an earlier ruling with fellow Twitter users Jacob Appelbaum and Rop Gonggrijp.
"With this decision, the court is telling all users of online tools hosted in the U.S. that the U.S. government will have secret access to their data," said Jonsdottir. "People around the world will take note, and since they can easily move their data to companies who host it in locations that better protect their privacy than the U.S. does, I expect that many will do so. I am very disappointed in today's ruling because it is a huge backward step for the United States' legacy of freedom of expression and the right to privacy."