so how will the legal challenges to the torture bill work? . . .

[OneBlueSky]

theoretically, if someone is detained under this law, they would have standing to sue over its constitutionality . . . unfortunately, however, the very nature of their detention will likely mean that they have no access to an attorney . . . their detention probably wouldn't even be confirmed by the government . . .

now, I suppose some other group could challenge the law, but who would have standing? . . . the ACLU? . . . the American people as a whole? . . . and what would be the basis of their claim if they can't even prove that anyone's been detained under the law? . . .

anyone know enough about constitutional law to comment? . . .

[Daphne08]

1. The American Disappeared? n/t

[MrCoffee]

2. I've been trying to figure out who has standing to sue...and i've got

nothing. I cannot conceive of a potential plaintiff. And i'm a lawyer (and did ok in con law).

[GetTheRightVote]

3. You are scary me even more, I was hoping something would come up ?

It can not be right for us a nation of law be taken down this street, help !!!

:kick:

[wagthedogwar]

4. Hey don't worry

someone will get a great lawyer to make an airtight case and Scalia will say: 'well, it's the unitary executive, they can do what they want'

sorry suckers!

[annabanana]

7. Not if we get it in before anyone dies. .

The nut jobs don't have a majority yet

[Justice Is Comin]

5. I can't see why the ACLU could not bring the case on

behalf of the constitutional preservation interests on behalf of the American citizen. Or for that matter, making themselves the plaintiff.

The constitution clearly does not provide any present justification for suspension or removal of the provision as written. We are certainly not under invasion and there is no organized rebellion. Barring those two exceptions, it requires a constitution amendment to alter the Habeus right.

The ACLU butts heads with the constitution abridgements all the time. That's it's sole existence.

I think the Supreme Court would have a hell of a hard time finding law based justification to deny petition. It's black and white, even Specter said so.

[annabanana]

6. But they do it on behalf of a plaintiff...

They argue FOR someone's rights. I really would like some high powered information on this particular point.

[Justice Is Comin]

9. That's my point. The organization could step in as the plaintiff.

There is no law that I'm aware of that the ACLU could not petition as the injured party. Their long and many times effective history has always been de facto challenge to constitutional guarantee.

The court would have to deny the petition on solid legal case law. There is no case law that has ever suspended Habeus Corpus. And the constitution specifically and categorically forbids it, except for the two rare and extreme circumstances. Both of which are patently absurd to apply here.

[mmonk]

8. The Center for Constitutional Rights says they will

challenge, but they don't indicate how.
http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/reports/report.asp?ObjID=3in4Yl9iUG&Content=848