"The Supreme Court has essentially ratified the Bush Administration position that no one has standing to sue for having their electronic communications monitored illegally, i,e., without a warrant, unless they can show that their communications were in fact monitored -- which is classified information that the Bush Administration refuses to divulge.
You can't sue us unless we tell you that we were breaking the law, and we can't tell you that."
7 comments:
Hmmm, I am trying to find a copy of the decision. Standing is required in all cases and is sometihng that 1st year laws students learn, so the case may very well be correct.
Even paralegals know about standing, heh. My layman's understanding is that the proper remedy under the law for situations like this isn't private citizens suing, so much as Congress getting off its ass and doing its job overseeing the executive branch. I tend to see their general lack of concern for democracy and the public welfare as a larger problem than individual citizens being unable to achieve this particular kind of result. Standing makes our legal system possible, by limiting the sheer volume of cases that any given court is required to process.
I can see the point about standing, but think that Leighton is right here. As I told someone in a side conversation, I can see the court decision more than I can come close to fathoming the retroactive immunity thing. It makes no sense to me at all. No one has come close in convincing me that it is good policy at all.
What?
Huh?
Hurry and put a Liberal spin on these items lest the Liberal delusion that America is bad be discredited by more truth.
Do I smell a troll?
Dude- you're a troll magnet!- BB
"Hurry and put a Liberal spin on these items lest the Liberal delusion that America is bad be discredited by more truth."
WTF, this post and discussion was actually pretty neutral. If you are going to make some unsubtantiated rant, pick a different post.
Post a Comment