6 ms·
That was my explanation for awhile, but at some point the logic of the security arguments started to seem patently flawed. Also, judges seem to be ok with all s
by hf8665 6y ago
That was my explanation for awhile, but at some point the logic of the security arguments started to seem patently flawed. Also, judges seem to be ok with all sorts of judgments against domestic (state and federal) entities. It's almost as if when national security is mentioned, everything is thrown out the window. It's like a magic codeword or something and I don't understand the legal basis for it.
You make a good point re: investigatory capacity, but it seems even that is fuzzy and could maybe be handled through other means (aggregating time periods or using some kind of required delay).
- bladegash 6y agoI think the issue is we’re trying to explain something irrational (a fear that something might happen) with logic. Judges make similar judgements in protective/restraining order cases. They would rather err on the side of caution, because as someone else mentioned, the downside to allowing the invocation of national security has a perceived minimal downside (minor inconvenience), vs. the downside of a terrorist attack taking place is much more catastrophic. Anyways, don’t think anyone is wrong here, just some theories.