Alito sayd people could sue if they had been surveilled. Now how are they

[Skidmore]

supposed to do this when these are secret searches. Take the glue tube away from that fool.

[liveoaktx]

1. I liked it that Leahy brought up just that point...

if it's all secret, no warrants, how is the person to even KNOW if he or she has standing to bring forth a case.

[Tace]

2. Of Course, That's Part Of Why They Want To Keep It Secret

[warrens]

4. Not only that, if someone told you

They'd throw HIM in jail and throw away the key. This sounds like, well, if we violate your rights by throwing you out of a helicopter, you could always sue us, so we would NEVER do that.

[insane_cratic_gal]

3. lol is he kidding?

So why he could rule with the Bushes on it?

[Sydnie]

5. It is going to back up the higher profile cases for years

trying to find out if they got their evidence by spying instead of legitimate detective work. We are going to need a division just for this type of case, those that are looking to find out if they are being prosecuted with evidence that was obtained illegally. Lots of otherwise strong cases are going to get thrown out.

[Frustratedlady]

6. Another Unnecessary Expense

If * hadn't ordered secret, illegal surveillance, we wouldn't be in a position that "we" could be sued. I'm sure some of the names will come out - Christianne A., for instance, and the taxpayers will be responsible for paying for another tantrum by GW, just because he couldn't wait to follow procedures. Right?