Friday, July 06, 2007
The 2 Republicans on the 6th federal appeal court overturned a ruling in a lower court against Bush's domestic wiretapping program, outvoting a democrat on the panel. Their argument was really stupid when it comes to common sense.
They argued that the plaintiffs had no right to sue because there was no proof that they were victims of being spied upon.
Let's walk through this logic. We can't decide if spying on Americans is illegal unless the Administration actually reveals somebody who they spied on. If they spy on 300,000,000 americans, but don't spy on 1,000,000, that would mean that if you sued, there would be a 1 in 301 chance that you were one of the lucky duckies, and therefore you had no legal standing.
This logic likely makes plenty of people who graduated from law school, but makes none when it comes to common sense. Eventually a whistle blower will come forward with a list of names, but this could take years. In the meantime, these numbskulls say that almost everybody can be spied upon because we can't rule on the constitutionality of the issue until we know which citizen of this country had their rights violated.
Well let's take this further then. How about President Bush gets to pass a law that says he can get the FBI to assasinate political disssonants and make em look all like accidents or random violence.
Let's wait until we get proof about which people he had ordered murdered before we rule that the law passes that good old fashioned muster. It's either illegal to spy on americans without warrants or it isn't. This ruling to use the technical term is bullshit.
If the court feels we have to know who got their rights trampled upon, then they should order the Bush administration to reveal who doesn't deserve the protections of the constitution. They could then sue. Of course they aren't doing that. They are being suck ups to state power, and using a circular argument to justify their agenda.