The Carpetbagger points out the ridiculous nature of this ruling:
Indeed. I have never had any reason to question Ms. Gibbons' performance as a jurist before now; maybe I haven't been looking closely enough at her writings. THAT needs to change.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars, and lawyers who argued the program made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They have international contacts they speak with regularly by phone, and these contacts are likely targets of Bush’s NSA program.
To the two Republican-appointed judges on the 6th Circuit, it apparently didn’t matter.
Looking at the big picture, today’s ruling is a setback, not only for the specific litigants, but to getting any kind of answers. Is the surveillance program legal? The court didn’t say. Were the plaintiffs’ calls monitored? The court didn’t say.
Who does have standing to challenge the legality of the program? Not only did the court not say, but it leads to a deeper problem.So how is it even possible for anyone to challenge the legality of the program?
To hear the 6th Circuit tell it, you can’t file suit unless you know you’ve been subject to the surveillance. And how do you know if you’ve been spied on? You’d have to get that information from the Bush administration, which keeps all of that information secret.