Skip to main content

View Diary: Motion to Dismiss: Courts already ruled against Warrantless electronic surveillance - pt. 1 (25 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This is really interesting. (none)
    My understanding of the law (and of course, IANAL), is that you cannot bring a suit unless you can demonstrate harm, and that's the problem with the two suits that are currently working against the illegal spying.

    Now, in this case, we get people who can clearly show harm.  If they can clearly show that this harm is a result of the illegal spying, then whoosh, we're looking at the Sumpremes ruling on this in the not-too-distant future.

    No wonder he picked Alito.  And if this isn't fuel for a filibuster, I cannot imagine what would be.

    I'm going to recommend this just to try to increase traffic; I'd like to know what peopel with more expertise think.

    Thanks for the diary.

    -9.25, -7.54

    Who's a guy got to deny having sex with to get impeached around here?

    by Marc in KS on Sat Jan 28, 2006 at 12:15:44 PM PST

    •  Exactly right (none)
      I think it is the cases of men like Aref and Hossain and of course, Jose Padilla, that will bring the administration to it's knees. The evidence and precedent is abundant and clear. Their actions are illegal and unconstitutional on many grounds. They are the definition of grounds for impeachment.
      •  The administration could avoid a court test (none)
        of the legality of their warrantless surveillance if they drop charges against all defendants who raise this claim and survive a motion to dismiss for failure to have standing to make the claim (or otherwise avoid a trial, for example, by offering a generous plea bargain.)  Failing that, I do not see how courts faced with this sort of claim can avoid ruling on the legality of the surveillance.
        •  Yeah, (none)
          that'll be interesting if they go that road.

          They can, of course, just stop bringing people to trial and disappear them whenever they want to.  That way the courts wouldn't have a chance to rule on what they're doing...

          Fucking freaky that we're talking about this happening here.  Argentina, Peru, El Salvador, Russia, sure.  But here?

          -9.25, -7.54

          Who's a guy got to deny having sex with to get impeached around here?

          by Marc in KS on Sat Jan 28, 2006 at 02:50:56 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  So far... (none)
          the Judge in this case has avoided dealing with any of the big issues. He isn't going to be able to much longer. His case is full of issues that go the heart of the administrations actions and he is going to have to bite the big one and make a ruling in favor of the Constitution and precedent or against the Constitution and in favor of an Imperial President.
    •  Right. But a ruling by the Supremes (none)
      is worth what?

      What needs to happen is that the people who carry the guns and make arrests and haul people off to jail realize that the instructions they are being given are illegitimate.

      This is actually a tough row to hoe for the simple reason that there have been decades of propaganda to vitiate the authority of the courts in the law enforcement arena.  The guys with the guns have been taught to expect that the judges are not on their side.  It's going to take a significant effort to turn that around.

      Forget "GOD, GUNS, GAYS, GIRLS & GETS"

      by hannah on Sat Jan 28, 2006 at 01:16:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, I don't know. (none)
        Call me naive, but it seems to me that if the Supremes ruled that the spying is unconstitutional, then that would mean that the President is violating the constitution, which is a direct violation of his oath.

        You're right that the repubs have been laying the groundwork for a dissing of the court for a long time (except, of course, in Bush v. Gore), but I still wonder if there are not enough moderates and dems in the land to bring articles of impeachment and kick his sorry ass out of there.

        You're also right that the ones with the guns are the ones who'll decide what's what.  But I really sort of don't want to think about revolution or martial law or things like that -- so I'll wait and see what happens.

        -9.25, -7.54

        Who's a guy got to deny having sex with to get impeached around here?

        by Marc in KS on Sat Jan 28, 2006 at 02:49:40 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site