[nostromo]

There's plenty of anger to go around, but my understanding is that it's more productive to direct your efforts at legislators who approved the bad laws and the executives who take full opportunity to abuse them -- and not the judges who have a narrow role in this whole saga.

For example, if you live in California, perhaps you could call Dianne Feinstein, who when asked about this program today said, "It's called protecting America."

[wl]

Feinstein is a long-time advocate for the national security state. She is up for reelection in 2018 in a state where she will not have a credible challenger from another party in a general election or her own party in the primaries.

You can contact her if you feel better. As for me, I have a folder full of form letter responses from her office explaining why it's so important that our civil liberties and privacy be curtailed to ensure our security. I don't think adding another letter to my collection will help anything. And I doubt her responses will do anything other than enrage you further.

The only sensible response at this point is to work to get her out of office in 2018. But I don't have hope for that, either.

[e40]

100% agree here. I loath that she is has no challengers. I had heard that she was going to retire and not run in 2012. I was so looking forward to that primary and when I saw her name on it my heart fell.

Unfortunately, the best we can hope for is that she retires in 2018.

[wissler]

Your understanding is wrong. It is a very good thing to both go after the legislators and those who actually tactically implement injustice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_at_Nuremberg