The ACLU are savvy litigators and picked a client our Supreme Court might be sympathetic to

Well, on one-hand, fuck this asshole, who cares?

On the other hand, if this isn't challenged, it will happen more and more, and to anyone for any reason.

Making sure nazis have protected liberties is part of what makes us not nazis - but it doesn't guarantee asshats like that a platform or societal tolerance.

Whatever actions are taken should be within the law.

This is an odd test case. Not only is the defendant unsympathetic, the circumstances seem to be exactly what section 702 was intended for.

Whatever information was obtained through FISA (if it was), wasn't used as evidence against this guy. So they can't even prove that the Nazi was subject to a FISA search, much less that it harmed him.

I get a kick out of lawyers doing the right thing despite their convictions or moral objections.

Actually, I was just watching Philadelphia last night. That's the one where Tom Hanks is gay and has AIDS and Denzel has to defend him for getting fired even though he is morally opposed to "homosexuals" (the 'in' term back in the day). Obviously defending a gay and sick man for discrimination is entirely different from defending Nazis, but still, it's a tangible illustration of Blind Justice.

Best of luck, Nazi shitbag!

Hard cases make bad law. Make sure the Nazi's rights weren't infringed 😬

This is the best summary I could come up with:

In communications with a federal confidential informant, the pair allegedly planned to “coordinate to get multiple [substations] at the same time.” Clendaniel pleaded guilty to conspiring to damage or destroy electrical facilities in May of this year.

But in a court filing, the ACLU attorneys say Russell has “reason to believe” that the government “intercepted his communications” and subjected him to a warrantless “backdoor search” by querying the Section 702 databases.

And less than a month after that initial query, we disrupted that US person who, it turned out, had researched and identified critical infrastructure sites in the US and acquired the means to conduct an attack.” The defense’s motion to compel the federal government to provide notice of use of Section 702 surveillance of Russell includes both the Politico report and Wray’s speech as exhibits.

The ACLU’s response, filed this Monday, notes that the government “does not dispute that Mr. Russell was subject to warrantless surveillance under Section 702” but instead claims it has no legal obligation to turn over FISA notice in this instance.

Legislators’ attempts to rein in the controversial surveillance authority failed, and multiple amendments requiring the FBI to obtain warrants to search or access Americans’ communications under Section 702 were voted down.

“Especially as recently expanded and reauthorized by Congress, this spying authority could be further abused by a future administration against political opponents, protest movements, and civil society organizations, as well as racial and religious minorities, abortion providers, and LGBTQ people.”

The original article contains 915 words, the summary contains 246 words. Saved 73%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!