Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nephythys
*finding link*
apparantly some analysts think this will be overturned as the people bringing the case may not have had standing to bring the case at all. Meaning they could not show that they had been harmed, or would be harmed in the future by the program.
|
The standings issue is certainly a grounds on which the ruling might be overturned and has nothing to do with the legality or constitutionality of the program itself.
However, since the government refuses to identify who has been the target of wiretapping it would be ironic that the government could make what would otherwise be considered unconstitutional de facto legal by making sure it is impossible to establish standing. (Well, in rereading the standing section of the decision I see that the judge made exactly the same point.)
I suspect the government will find it hard to win cases when their defense is "we can't make a defense because it would require sharing secrets."
The opinion does address the issue. To read the judge's take on the standing issue it is pages 15-24 of the PDF I linked above.