| Opinion/The Review

Larger text Larger text Smaller text Smaller text | Order Photo Reprints

The NSA ruling: Some fresh air

Email Newsletters

Click here to sign up for one of our email newsletters.

Letters home ...

Traveling abroad for personal, educational or professional reasons?

Why not share your impressions — and those of residents of foreign countries about the United States — with Trib readers in 150 words?

The world's a big place. Bring it home with Letters Home.

Contact Colin McNickle (412-320-7836 or

Daily Photo Galleries

'American Coyotes' Series

Traveling by Jeep, boat and foot, Tribune-Review investigative reporter Carl Prine and photojournalist Justin Merriman covered nearly 2,000 miles over two months along the border with Mexico to report on coyotes — the human traffickers who bring illegal immigrants into the United States. Most are Americans working for money and/or drugs. This series reports how their operations have a major impact on life for residents and the environment along the border — and beyond.

Tuesday, Dec. 17, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

It could be shaping up as the case that will either affirm one of America's sacred Founding precepts or keep America traveling ever faster down the slippery slope of constitutional relativism.

“Could be,” of course, is the operative phrase.

A federal district judge in Washington, D.C., ruled Monday that the National Security Agency's practice of systematically collecting telephone call data — without a warrant — in the name of “security” to thwart would-be terrorist attacks is an “almost Orwellian” violation of Americans' Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

“Indeed, I have little doubt that the author of our Constitution, James Madison, who cautioned us to beware ‘the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power,' would be aghast,” wrote Judge Richard Leon.

But before anyone takes to toot-tooting any horns of victory in the centuries-old debate over the wisdom of giving up an essential liberty for a little security, there's this sobering reality:

This ruling comes from a single district judge who's attempting to not only overturn a 1979 Supreme Court ruling (as antiquated as it is, given modern technology) but more than a dozen other judges' rulings on more than 30 occasions that such “metadata” collection passes constitutional snuff.

Translation: The odds are long that the ruling, as important and refreshing as it is, will survive on appeal.

Nonetheless, it is an important ruling that can only enhance one of the greatest legal debates of our times.

Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.



Show commenting policy

Most-Read Editorials

  1. Intrepid salute
  2. The Thursday wrap
  3. Medicare @ 50: Sick, getting sicker
  4. The Export-Import Bank: The Senate’s shame
  5. Sunday pops
  6. Regional growth
  7. Yes, the IRS targeted conservatives