Gonzales just admitted that Americans have the right to challenge the administration's domestic spying in court

I was just remembering this paragraph from yesterday's USA Today story:

The Supreme Court ruled last year that the congressional resolution implicitly authorized the administration to seize and hold a U.S. citizen as an enemy combatant, an action that Gonzales called more intrusive than electronic surveillance. The detention power was upheld in the case of Louisiana-born Yaser Esam Hamdi, who was captured while fighting in Afghanistan.

Now, let me walk you through why Gonzales just proved our case:

1. Gonzales says that the Supreme Court said the congressional resolution going to war in Afghanistan clearly authorized the Bush administration to hold US citizens as enemy combatants.

2. Gonzales' argument is that eavesdropping on an American is MUCH less intrusive than seizing that same person as an enemy combattant, therefore, he argues, the Supreme Court also ruled that the congressional resolution authorized domestic eavesdropping without a warrant.

3. So Gonzales is saying that Supreme Court cases and the congressional resolution apply equally to holding enemy combatants as they do to spying on Americans.

Ok then. But, let's revisit what Gonzales just admitted:

1. The Bush administration is saying that the same Supreme Court cases, and same congressional authorization for war in Afghanistan, cover both nabbing enemy combatant Americans and eavesdropping on Americans inside the US.

2. But those Supreme Court cases found that the congressional authorization for war, while permitting the government to secretly nab American enemy combatants, still includes a requirement that those nabbed citizens be given the right to challenge their nabbed status in court.

3. Thus Gonzales is admitting that those Supreme Court cases, and the congressional authorization, provide American citizens the right to challenge in court the government decision to intrude on their civil liberties.

4. So Gonzales admits that the Bush administration must notify every American spied on so that those Americans can exercise their constitutional right to challenge the administration's domestic eavesdropping in court, and the administration is acting unconstitutionally and in violation of the Supreme Court rulings and congressional authorizations if they do not notify those who were spied on AND permit them to challenge the spying in court.

So, thanks Alberto. If you want to use those Supreme Court cases to hang your hat on, go for it. So where is the list of names and when do you plan to contact the people you spied on?