I've learned never to stick by a bad analogy. So, thanks for the correction. Even though I said cigarettes and you went the asbestos route, I do understand your point.

An asbestos story.

I did go to the local unemployment office right after high school and I did sit in chair with a bunch of other young people and a man came in an asked me to follow him to the back and when I sat down he asked me if I might consider a job in the fast-paced, high-tech world of asbestos removal (for real, no kidding). I told him that I had heard that asbestos kills you and would I be at risk? He didn't say another word, but escorted me back to the front and got the next person.

Standing is fine. But if you have to prove a crime on the part of the government after the fact with no access to the facts of their crime (no right to discovery) other than their prior admission of guilt and whatever circumstantial evidence associated with your having suffered from the crime you can clump together, how do you hold the government accountable for their crime?

It's as if a person walked up to you in a bar and said, "I've killed people. I'm going to kill even more people." Supposing you're crazy enough to engage that person in conversation. You might ask, "Who did you kill? Who are you going to kill?" The person responds, "I'm not telling." So you go to the police and tell them your story. They ask you, "Did the person tell you who they killed?" You say, "No, but would you please do something about this, please?" They say, "OK." So you take them to the bar to meet the killer and they ask the killer a few questions and leave. The killer says that was really gutsy of you and asks you if he (or she) can buy you a drink and get your phone number. The next day there's a notice in the paper asking anyone who has been killed to report their deaths to the police, because the police have reason to believe there is a killer who may have killed them, but all they have is the killer's face, name, address, occupation and phone number and a general purpose confession. Since the killer is not being specific enough and refuses to tell them who he (or she) specifically killed, and even though the killer readily admits to killing people and promises to kill more people, they really can't do anything.

At least, that's how this seems to me.

BTW, I have a number of lawyer friends. They've given me a lot of good advice over the years. One of them said to me, "The law is whatever people agree to, and that includes the Constitution."

I think he pretty much nailed it. There is not much agreeing going on right now with regard to torture, detention, spying and related activities by our government.

I can't believe it's gone this far. I didn't know the government got to plead the Fifth.

From SouthPark:

Cochran: Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, you must now decide whether or not to reverse the decision for my client, Chef. [next to a display stand] I know he seeems guilty, but ladies and gentlemen, this... is Chewbacca. [pulls down a picture of him] Now think about that for one minute: that does NOT MAKE SENSE! Why am I talkin' about Chewbacca when a man's life is on the line? Why? I tell you why. I don't know. It doesn't make sense. If Chewbacca does not make sense, you must acquit! [produces a monkey] Here, look at the monkey. Look at the silly monkey. [a juror chokes, then his head explodes]

Sorry. I'm not saying that the legal discussions in these comments don't make sense. What I am saying is that in the case of illegally spying on citizens it appears that in order to acquire the evidence necessary to establish standing on the part of a plaintiff, it will first be necessary for someone to commit the crime of publicly exposing the "top secret" and illegally obtained government information resulting from the crime of illegally spying on US citizens.

I'm not yelling. I'm just boldfacing.

I am reminded of another comment from my lawyer friend. In the course of a discussion about something or other (probably a lot like this discussion) I blurted out, "But it's not fair!"

His response, "The fair comes in October."

They lied because their lawyers told them to; it all comes down to protection from liability. I think they ought to have that protection even if they tell the whole truth, but in this legal climate they just do not.

This sounds like the closing argument for the Bush/Cheney/Gonzales/Rumsfeld/Rice defense at the Hague.

And that's one of the things I like about you.