Because freedom can't protect itself
I agree, it doesn't seem reasonable to allow such a mass intrusion into e-mails and telephone calls. In light of the Supreme Court's jurisprudence, people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in those media (esp. telephone conversations). We conduct all sorts of business over the phone, from ordering things to conversing with friends, family, and significant others.
With such a mass collection of telephone calls, there is essentially no determination of whether a particular intrusion into someone's privacy is based on probable cause. This just doesn't seem worthwhile, when we view of the government's interest in preventing terrorism (which, as opposed to preventing a specific terrorist threat, is pretty general) in light of our interest in keeping these communications (which could include everything from credit card numbers to intimate conversations) private.
All in all, I hope your suit works out well.
Opposite day? Aside from the fact that lefties didn't like Ashcroft's religious character, there wasn't really a lot to complain about him from a civil liberties standpoint. If anything, one of the reasons you didn't like him was that he was willing to defend the civil liberties you *don't* like.
Repeat after me: "Just because I don't like somebody doesn't mean they're bad on civil liberties."
To be followed by, "Just because I like somebody doesn't mean they're good on civil liberties."
More information about formatting options
Get breaking news on issues you care about
Congress: Restore the Voting Rights Act
Sign up for the ACLU Action newsletter.
Chip in to help protect all of our rights and liberties.
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor, New York NY 10004
This is the website of the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation.
Learn more about these two components of the ACLU.