[Cboldt]

I don't really know what to make of all this. I thought GW had the authority to do this, but if the courts rule against him -- that's not good news.

I don't see a court taking the case, absent a showing that the party to the case can surmount the burden of proof that he was surveilled in a way that is arguably contrary to the 4th amendment. The party must "be injured," not "think I might have been injured."

As a bit of a sideline, the argument of 4th amendment violation can also be made by a plaintiff (or defendant, in the case of an indictment involving evidence gathered by FISA-related authority), in the form of "the statute itself is unconstitutional because it goes beyond what the 4th amendment permits." I point this out mostly to illustrate that lawsuits are a dime a dozen.

Back to the "must be injured," that doesn't mean there has to be a showing of damages, only a showing of unconstitutional surveillance. Without that, I would expect the Court to rule that there is no standing.

[johnmecainrino]

The congressional authority after 9/11 gave the executive branch the authority to go after al queda.

So it can't be illegal for something congress knew about also.

Wouldn't the defendant have to be someone that was affected by this?

[patj]

Has the statute of limitatiions run out for us suing Clinton over Echelon and Carnivore?

[USNA74]

I tend to agree with you -- I'm not sure how a plaintiff will demonstrate that they have "standing" to bring the suit. They'd have to show that they were "spied upon" and that the "spying" was the result of the President's specific order.

But I also wonder how the fact that other Presidents have issued similar orders would factor in to a Court's decision to hear the case as a general violation of the 4th Amendment.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Methinks he's trying to get some judge to advocate a fishing expedition.