Until we can find a better way to enforce civil liberties, the striking of illegally obtained evidence in the prosecution of terrible criminals is necessary. That they get to walk free is the point first as a penalty to the state (that now a monster remains at large) and second as a penalty to the public for allowing the state to let its agents abuse their power.

If neonazis and terrorists aren't protected by our Bill of Rights, then you aren't either. And it informs how the massive extrajudicial surveillance state got formed in the first place, as the US state believes national security (in all its ambiguity) is valued more than American lives.

How ironic that "First they came for the Nazis" makes sense here lol.

There was probably a whole bunch of Jewish lawyers that wanted to represent these people. Mandala, shaking their hands.

Perhaps we should put you in charge then. At the end of the day you are innocent until proven guilty. Also the first amendment covers freedom of speed and belief. As long as they aren't breaking the law by harassing someone or disturbing the peace they are protected. With that being said there are lots of ways that being racist or discriminatory will hurt the offender. They are likely to lose there job and to be banned.

These same Democratic principles apply to anyone with any view. You can't stop a black lives matter protest because you think black lives don't matter. Democracy means we all get a voice and that we have systems in place to resolve issues and to find justice. It isn't perfect in the least but you can be heard.

That's also what makes mass surveillance and warrantless data collection to identify suspects so dangerous. It doesn't just affect a small group of people. It targets us all and keeps the public in fear of the government. Only evil thrives in darkness. Anytime something happens behind closed doors the chance of corruption and abuse skyrockets. We need people to be informed of the processes and to understand the system so that they can participate in it.

This is the best summary I could come up with:

In communications with a federal confidential informant, the pair allegedly planned to “coordinate to get multiple [substations] at the same time.” Clendaniel pleaded guilty to conspiring to damage or destroy electrical facilities in May of this year.

But in a court filing, the ACLU attorneys say Russell has “reason to believe” that the government “intercepted his communications” and subjected him to a warrantless “backdoor search” by querying the Section 702 databases.

And less than a month after that initial query, we disrupted that US person who, it turned out, had researched and identified critical infrastructure sites in the US and acquired the means to conduct an attack.” The defense’s motion to compel the federal government to provide notice of use of Section 702 surveillance of Russell includes both the Politico report and Wray’s speech as exhibits.

The ACLU’s response, filed this Monday, notes that the government “does not dispute that Mr. Russell was subject to warrantless surveillance under Section 702” but instead claims it has no legal obligation to turn over FISA notice in this instance.

Legislators’ attempts to rein in the controversial surveillance authority failed, and multiple amendments requiring the FBI to obtain warrants to search or access Americans’ communications under Section 702 were voted down.

“Especially as recently expanded and reauthorized by Congress, this spying authority could be further abused by a future administration against political opponents, protest movements, and civil society organizations, as well as racial and religious minorities, abortion providers, and LGBTQ people.”

The original article contains 915 words, the summary contains 246 words. Saved 73%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

Why didn't the ACLU defend Ross Ulbricht? What about all the whistleblowers that have been imprisoned lately? Seems like there are better candidates than this guy.

It's a shame that the ACLU has to defend horrible people.

Is this really the best use of the ACLU's limited resources?