“Court documents showed that Ben-Ami Kadish, who was fined $50,000 but spared prison time, reported to the same handler as Jonathan Pollard, an American who spied for Israel in the 1980s and triggered a scandal that rocked U.S.-Israeli relations."
"Kadish pleaded guilty in December to acting as an unregistered agent of Israel. He was arrested in April 2008 on four counts of conspiracy and espionage. The spying charge, dropped under a plea deal, had carried a possible death sentence.”
"[U.S. District Judge William Pauley] said he gave a lenient sentence due to Kadish’s age and infirmity, but said Kadish had committed 'a grave offense' and had 'abused the trust' of the United States."
This is part of this judge’s ruling. Now we need to connect some dots on this judge:
“As the September 11 attacks demonstrate, the cost of missing such a threat can be horrific,” he wrote in the ruling. “Technology allowed al-Qaida to operate decentralised and plot international terrorist attacks remotely. The bulk telephony metadata collection program me represents the government's counter-punch: connecting fragmented and fleeting communications to re-construct and eliminate al-Qaida's terror network.”
It gets worse from this judge:
Judge Pauley said privacy protections enshrined in the fourth amendment of the US constitution needed to be balanced against a government need to maintain a database of records to prevent future terrorist attacks. “The right to be free from searches is fundamental but not absolute,” he said. “Whether the fourth amendment protects bulk telephony metadata is ultimately a question of reasonableness.”
Did the judge really say that The Constitution needs to be balanced against national security requirements?
He is not interpreting The Constitution. The judge is saying that he thinks it shouldn’t apply here.
Then what is the point of The Constitution?
Does a federal judge really have the ability to ignore The Constitution when he deems it ‘getting in the way’ of national security?
Who is this judge? Who does he represent?
The Constitution was written precisely to ensure that judges and politicians are not able to do this. The right to privacy is fundamental to any democracy. The fourth amendment does not permit searches and seizures without suspicion of illegality. That is the law of the land and should be obeyed. If those in power want to do something different they need to make their arguments and get the consent of the people to change the constitution.