Catch-22

Sometimes things get so out of whack that there's no way to paper over profound, glaring contradictions. In the legal world, call them meta-contradictions. One such popped up last week: The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that plaintiffs had no standing to challenge the government's warrantless wiretap program because they couldn't prove they were the subjects (victims) of it. Case dismissed. But when, in an unrelated affair, the government accidentally released documents demonstrating such surveillance against particular individuals, the government — once it realized what it had done — declared possession of such evidence illegal. Kafka wrinkles! You can't bring a case because you can't prove you were victimized, but if you can it's illegal for you to possess the proof. As things stand these days the establishment probably will strenuously avoid resolving this either way, but if left unresolved it becomes a shining testament to the collapse of our political system.