For those that are curious, the full opinion can be found at:

http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/067427.P.pdf

The dissenting opinon begins on pg 78. It, in all seriousness, reads like a legalesed-up version of a Bush political speech, breaking up references to 9/11 and Al Quaeda (which to me seem entirely spurious) with citations of precident. The precident cases all appear to be poorly decided war-on-terror cases of the last three years, with no eye towards the previous 200+ years of habeas corpus precident.

It is also remarkably but unsurpisingly short, as there are not many pro-martial law arguments one can make.

Wow.

"The laws of physics work forward in time and backward in time equally well."

Ah, no. No they don't. Some do: Newtonian equations, for example, and some parts of quantum. But, there is this thing known as "Entropy." It, and the other laws of thermodynamics make it pretty clear that even if the equations seem to work forwards and backwards in time, it turns out that the universe actually doesn't. To paraphrase Tom Stoppard, once you stir something together you can't stir it apart again.

Second, the weak anthropic principle is a nice tool, especially if you combine it with the multiverse priciple. It gives an idea of how the laws of physics developed in a way that makes sense based on local observations: If there is a large enough pool of random variations given long enough time, any arbitrary set can emerge (basically, evolution with the selective pressure in this case being life or not life, cause the not life universes don't get observed). This does not answer the question of how this particular set of traits actually arose, but neither does it discard this question. I can explain the emergence of multicellular life from single celled life by the blanket of eveolution/natural selection, but I can ALSO go back and propose an explanation for the individual steps along the path actually taken. The weak anthropic principle allows the same thing.

here, "...in the strong anthropic principle, the observers are in the central position. They are the ones dictating how the universe is put together. And that seems too much for people to swallow. It gives mind and consciousness a central place in the great scheme of things." No, sorry. Science does not reject this because its too much to swallow, but because it is not valid as a scientific theory. It is certanly as valid as any other philosophical or religious beleif--but the problem with it as far as "science" is concerned is that it is not a testable theory with predictive power, thus fails the citerion for science vs. philosohpy. Saying the universe is this way because I observed it to be this way is a circular argument.

All together, this idea seems to be based on a common misunderstanding of the uncertanty principle. To observe something, you must change it. Therefore you cannot know both the position and velicity of any object precisely. At its simplest level, it means for me to observe the position of a particle, I have to bounce some other particle off of it. These photons impart energy and change the vector velocity of the thing being observed. The uncertanty principle is not magic...things don't exist in countless states until I notice them, thus bending them to my will and making them something else. No matter how long I look at it, my mouse won't become a blintz, and the cat in the box isn't literally dead and alive. Invoking the uncertanty principle to attribute magic powers of creation to concious minds is the teensiest bit completely absurd.

And "Dude, what if the universe is like, a giant comupter! And we're like, all just progams?" Is this whole book best described as the "Theory of Colledge Undergraduates in the Dorm Lounge at 4AM?" Come on.

Seriously, first the great moonanite scare and now this? Circuit boards are evil now? People have to realize that real bombs aren't covered in blinky lights, right?

This girl clearly has a light up LED sweatshirt that is in the shape of a star. Cause thats her name. its a cutesy-nerdy MIT undergrad thing to do. And they nearly shot her?

The university better defend this girl. What she was wearing wasn't threatening in the least. While i don't know her personally, I'm sure we've a ton of mutual friends, so i will look into this myself and find out what I can.