Let’s say the government has a program that involves secretly listening in on US citizens involved in international phone calls. Nobody knows which US citizens have been listened in on, as it is secret.
Let’s say you think this is unconstitutional, so you or your organization sues to stop it. What might happen?
According to a federal judge (a Republican appointee, but I digress), you have no standing as you can’t show that you were subject to the surveillance, and the suit is dismissed.
Catch-22.
How would you even know about the program if it was secret?
How would you even know about the program if it was secret?
Welcome to the US.
That’s some catch, that catch-22.
That wasn’t a catch-22. I say it’s catch 112. We all agree then that it’s catch 112.
Great quote though Vitus. Shows your smarts and love of fine books.
That’s some catch, that catch-22.
“It’s the best there is”
Book? What book? That was from a movie with Alan Arkin.
Book? What book? That was from a movie with Alan Arkin.
(veering into left field)
Hey, I went to high school with his son, Matt. Didn’t know he was in movies, though.
If you aren’t a terrorist, you can assume that you weren’t subject to the government eavesdropping.
If you are a terrorist, and they were listening, they wouldn’t tell you (for good reason), and if they weren’t listening, they are now.
I am pretty sure you are wrong about this since rundhc told me what would happen a couple of months ago.
“He proclaims complete certainty that the government’s actions are 100% constitutionally valid, and that all court actions back him up. If you’ve been around here long enough, you know that he did this when he defended the administration’s right to suspend habeas corpus (we’re talking Gitmo, Padilla, etc). He talked about how the law was on Bush’s side – that is, until one ruling after another came out of the Supreme Court blowing Bush/Cheney’s positions out of the water. As for the warrantless wiretaps, one federal judge has already ruled it unconstitutional. ACLU v. NSA is now sitting in an appeal’s court and a decision is expected soon, and then it could move to the Supreme Court, where, if the pattern holds, the court will disagree with Art’s expert legal opinion.”
I am sure you must have misread the case and that Bush actually lost, seeing as how his positions are completely indefensible.
On the other hand, maybe your mistake is that there has been no ruling. If there had been, it would be on the CNN website for sure.
They wouldn’t blow it off since they are fair and balanced.
Kahuna just opened a thread about the case and the 6th Circuit ruling.
On the other hand, maybe your mistake is that there has been no ruling. If there had been, it would be on the CNN website for sure.
They wouldn’t blow it off since they are fair and balanced.
Yes, no such ruling. What was I thinking? http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/nsa/aclunsa70607opn.pdf ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. The United States National Security Agency (“NSA”) appeals from the decision of the District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan that granted summary judgment against the NSA and imposed a permanent injunction. The plaintiffs are a collection of associations and individuals led by the American Civil Liberties Union, and they cross-appeal. Because we cannot find that any of the plaintiffs have standing for any of their claims, we must vacate the district court’s order and remand for dismissal of the entire action.
I think you and the commodore are missing Art’s point.
Is the news of this ruling, which favors Bush, up on CNN’s website yet? It oughta be, seeing as how CNN is so fair and balanced, right?
Shall we start a pool to see how long it takes them to report it?
What do those law journals know? That is just disinformation.
I count on CNN to report fairly and accurately. Something like this is pretty important and they certainly wouldn’t ignore it. A search of their site shows me nothing.
Your law journals must be wrong.
I guess this stuff needs to be in pink. I hate pink.
I am sure it will go up once they get the Democratic talking points.
They can’t just report, you know, the news.
It’s up on their poltiics page right now.
Wow, that only took four hours.
I am really glad it is on their politics page instead of the main page, since such news is just not important enough for the main page. That is reserved for important stuff, like Britney Spear’s apology from four months ago, the person who got Paris Hilton’s old cell phone number and Miss NJ who won’t quit because of compromising photos or something.
I wonder if the original ruling against the administration was relegated to the politics page?
I am guessing not, that it was front page news, but I don’t know.
You just can’t please some people. God forbid someone take an entire 4 hours to research and write a news article. They must be closet communists or maybe aligned with al Qaeda.
By the way, it’s not on Fox News’ front page either.