[Welcome Carpetbagger readers, and thanks for fixing the typo. I was so busy fondling my check from Soros that I wrote in haste.... And welcome, Washington Monthly readers.]

Er, can anybody see a flaw in the court's logic, here? AP:

The 2-1 ruling by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel vacated a 2006 order by a federal judge in Detroit, who found that the post-Sept. 11 warrantless surveillance aimed at uncovering terrorist activity violated constitutional rights to privacy and free speech and the separation of powers.

U.S. Circuit Judge Julia Smith Gibbons, one of the two Republican appointees who ruled against the plaintiffs, said they failed to show they were subject to the surveillance.

The dissenting judge, Democratic appointee Ronald Lee Gilman, believed the plaintiffs were within their rights to sue and that it was clear to him the program violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.

So, how am I supposed to ever have standing to sue? It's not like this is the Soviet Union, is it, where you pick up the phone in your hotel room and hear the heavy breathing of KGB agents. This surveillance is digital, done at the central servers with the connivance of the telcos, and there's no way for any one of us, personally, to know that our data's been mined by these guys.

This is huge, a genuine Friday horror. Because the decision they're dismissing, though you wouldn't know it from the AP story, is ACLU vs. NSA, where the judge ruled--and there's no issue of fact here, only of standing--that Bush committed over 30 felonies by violating FISA in the course of his warrantless surveillance program.

So, again, just as we've seen over and over again, there's no law under Republican rule. Just the arbitrary exercise of tyrannical power.

Because they can.

NOTE Here's my original post on ACLU vs. NSA, Don't pop the cork on the champagne yet. The theory that the ACLU based their case on is the one that the Republican judge, as we would expect, rejected:

[JUDGE TAYLOR:] Plaintiffs maintain that their claims regarding the [warrantless surveillance program] are based solely on what the Defendants have publicly admitted. … The court is persuaded that Plaintiffs are able to establish a prima facie case based solely on defendant’s public admissions

To grossly oversimplify:

Bush regime: "We're going to secretly surveil all green people without a warrant, because we don't need no steenkin' court system."

The ACLU says: "Fine! That gives Kermit the Frog, here, standing to sue to get his Fourth Amendment rights back!"

Bush regime: "Oh, no you don't! Kermit may be green, but he still has to personally prove he was spied on!"

The ACLU: "It's a secret program! Kermit can't do that!"

Bush regime: "And your point is?"

Republican judge, pretending to cogitate deeply: "The regime is right!"

[Rimshot. Laughter, followed by broken glass, laughter. Hey, I just crawled in from Gitmo, and boy, are my shackles bloody!]

NOTE Looks like Gibbons is helping out on Republican voter suppression efforts too. Busy lady!

UPDATE Adam Liptak of the Times notes:

Because it is extremely difficult to show concrete injury from the highly classified program, the effect of the ruling was to insulate the program from judicial scrutiny in ordinary federal courts.

Of course, we could appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, which, in the immortal words of the Good Doctor, "is probably good advice, if you have shit for brains." After all, the Republicans, via Bush v. Gore, stole election 2000 precisely to bring about decisions like these. So, why would anybody imagine that a decision by the court in this matter would have any legitimacy?

NOTE Ruth has more.