Letters to the Editor
GlennGreenwald
Published Letters: 2221 Editor's Choice: 18
-
Arne:
[Read the article: Various matters]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Aside from the typo ("unrecepective"), I think you meant "administration was voluntarily complying"....
Yes on both counts. I have a horrible head cold today (hence the light posting) and my comments, I see, are replete with typos of that sort (I wanted to write about Fred Hiatt's editorial atrocity in the Post this morning but couldn't summon the focus or energy - the anger was mixing poorly with the cold medication to create one blindly raging mix, so I thought it best to wait until tomorrow).
-
More AIPAC non-evidence
[Read the article: Various matters]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]From their website, the lead story - on the top of the first page:
Iran and Hamas Reaffirm Shared Commitment to Israel's Destruction
During a visit to his sponsors in Iran on Tuesday, Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal emphasized that his terrorist group, which controls the Palestinian Authority, will not recognize Israel's right to exist, the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth reported. "Hamas after the Mecca agreement is the same Hamas as before," Meshaal said. Hamas' charter says that Israel will exist "until Islam eliminates it." Echoing Meshaal, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that the Palestinians "must prepare the ground for the removal of the Zionists from the holy land of Palestine until not a single piece is occupied." The State Department consistently lists Iran as the world's leading state sponsor of international terrorism.
But they haven't come out and publicly and officially said they favor war on Iran, so none of us can suggest that this is what they are pushing for.
-
AIPAC's peace hunger
[Read the article: Various matters]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]They have this item at the top of their ISSUES page:
Iranian Nuclear Activities Rapidly Advancing
The International Atomic Energy Agency's latest report officially details Iran's rapid uranium enrichment advances and Tehran's continued defiance of the U.N. Security Council. Learn more about Iran's dangerous pursuit of atomic arms.
Their nuclear activities are "rapidly advancing," AIPAC warns. Wow. We better do something about that, and quick. What can we do?
-
Standing/Discovery
[Read the article: Various matters]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Arne:
I understand the reasoning behind this, but shouldn't this be regarded as a factual issue to be decided on the merits, rather than a way to prevent the discovery of the very evidence that could establish standing?
This is a really good question (a couple other people asked it earlier) and I honestly don't know the answer. I was hoping someone who did would chime in.
Actually, now that I think about it a little bit more (and having fought through the cold fog), I think I do know the answer:
At the outset of a case, a federal plaintiff is not required to be able to prove with evidence that there is jurisdiction, but they must be able to allege the facts which establish jurisdiction. Prior to discovery, the court will assume that all the facts about jurisdiction alleged by the plaintiff are true, and then ask: "if these allegations are true, is there jurisdiction here?"
In the FISA cases, virtually all plaintiffs cannot even allege that they were subjected to surveillance, becasue they simply have no good faith basis for that allegation. They and their lawyers would likely be sanctioned if they allege it. Thus, all of these complaints are missing what the Government says is a pre-requisite for standing to challenge surveillance activities: namely, that the plaintiff be able to allege that they were subjected to the challeneged surveillance.
If a plaintiff could make that allegation in good faith, then you could have discovery to obtain the relevant evidence and see if that alleagtion is true. But you can't run into a court and tell the court: "We don't know if there is jurisdiction here or not, but we would like to have some discovery to find out." The whole point of jurisdictional requirements is that a case should not proceed unless there is a clear basis for believing the court is constitutionally empowered to adjudicate the case.
I know it's a horrible dilemma. I hate even having to summarize the argument because the outcome is so plainly, glaringly and horribly unjust. But process matters, and constitutional limits on a court's jurisdiction definitely matters.
There may be ways to get around this. The ACLU had some creative arguments for how you can have standing anyway. And this case written about by Singel might provide the way through. Or Congress could get to its FISA investgigations, find out the identity of the parties on whom the administration eavesdropped, and then find a way to empower them to challenge that eavesdropping.
There are solutions here. But if I had to bet, I'd bet (based on the Argument and the law) the Sixth Circuit will reverse on standing, but nobody can predict these things and I've been wrong many times.
-
JAO:
[Read the article: Various matters]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Perhaps this legislation could be resurrected if the appeal of that case fails for lack of standing. (Of course, legislative barriers such as overcoming a veto still would obtain.
I've been trying for a couple of weeks to get confirmed an interview with Sen. Feingold on these issues (an interview his office has confirmed, but not yet scheduled) in order, primiarly, to find out what, if anything, they are genuinely planning to do about these FISA issues.