The ACLU just tried to sue the NSA over this whole spying thing. You know that whole spying thing? How every time you use your computer or phone someone is just keeping a record of it? You and like, everyone else? That thing. The ACLU was trying to prove that’s not a good thing while the NSA probably showed the ACLU pictures from online that they thought they deleted. And then a judge weighed in.
U.S. District Court judge, Justice William Pauley, has said that Congress never intended for victims of the NSA spying to know they were being spied on and had it not been for the unauthorized actions of Edward Snowden, no one would know. This is very important because, according to this judge, it means that the ACLU has no case, because they never should have known they were being spied on. If not for Edward Snowden, none of us would know we were being spied on. If none of us know, then none of us are unhappy about and that’s how it was supposed to be, until Snowden ruined it. So he’s the one who did something wrong. So the ACLU can’t sue. It’s kind of like forcing blissful ignorance into law.
[[contentId: 2558117| | style: height:540px; width:434px]]
This is the most amazing interpretation of law, possibly in the history of ever. You need to hop on this now, you and a lawyer friend with very murky scruples. Before this gets clarified and stomped into the mud by a judge or judges with good sense, use this as precedent. How? I have some ideas!
- Rob a bank. Keep the money at home. Get arrested. Your defense? Had it not been for the people who saw you rob the bank, you would have taken the money and no one would have caught you.
- Burn down the Staples Center. Explain that, had it not been for the people at Bic putting that lighter together, fire never would have been in your hands and therefore nothing could have been burned at all.
- Move into some celebrity’s mansion. Cite the complex and historical confusion between differing theories of property and ownership as a basis for that home being yours and, had so many different philosophers and legal systems not attempted to define the precise meaning of property and how to attain ownership of it, it would have been much clearer that the home was yours all along.
- Anything you can think of that follows this simple formula – After something happens, if what happened never happened, then nothing would have happened, so nothing should have happened, therefore nothing legally happened.
Judge Pauley’s full explanation is as follows –
[[contentId: 2558118| | style: height:490px; width:764px]]
It’s kind of brilliant in its obtuse understanding of how a real world should work. Targets of spying were never intended, by Congress, to be allowed to sue. That’s like saying you never intended for a kid on the schoolyard to punch you back after you punched him for no reason and now he’s the one doing something wrong. And Snowden’s actions qualify as illegal since he’s not allowed to share state secrets, so nothing he did should be allowed to alter the way Congress and the NSA conduct themselves, all of which means, pretend you don’t know what you know. If you pretend that hard, what are you really complaining about? Obviously nothing, because you pretended the problem away. The problem being that you and everyone you know is constantly under surveillance.