Before District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor could rule on the merits of the "NSA Spying case" she had to find that the plaintiffs had standing to even bring the suit. To do that, the plaintiffs had to show that they had been harmed by the program in real terms, not theoretical terms.
To quote law professor Dale Carpenter
The Supreme Court has held that, to establish standing, the plaintiffs must allege an injury that is concrete and particularized, not hypothetical and conjectural.
The plaintiffs in this case included journalists who claimed that some of their contacts were afraid to talk to them now because of the fear of being overheard.
The plaintiffs alleged their communications with parties outside the country were being monitored by the NSA's wiretapping program. The complaint said the NSA's surveillance disrupts "the ability of the plaintiffs to talk with sources, locate witnesses, conduct scholarship and engage in advocacy."
Judge Taylor argued
These cases constitute acknowledgment that substantial burdens upon a plaintiff’s professional activities are an injury sufficient to support standing. Defendants ignore the significant, concrete injuries which Plaintiffs continue to experience from Defendants’ illegal monitoring of their telephone conversations and email communications. Plaintiffs undeniably have cited to distinct, palpable, and substantial injuries that have resulted from the TSP.
This court finds that the injuries alleged by Plaintiffs are “concrete and particularized”, and not “abstract or conjectural.” The TSP is not hypothetical, it is an actual surveillance program that was admittedly instituted after September 11, 2001, and has been reauthorized by the President more than thirty times since the attacks. The President has, moreover, emphasized that he intends to continue to reauthorize the TSP indefinitely. Further, the court need not speculate upon the kind of activity the Plaintiffs want to engage in - they want to engage in conversations with individuals abroad without fear that their First Amendment rights are being infringed upon. Therefore, this court concludes that Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirement of alleging “actual or threatened injury” as a result of Defendants’ conduct.
So who exactly were these people talking to and why were they so afraid that their conversations might be over heard?
Might they be terrorists?
Now I don't know for a fact, but I suspect that the plaintiffs didn't call any terrorists to the stand to testify that yes, indeed, they would not talk to the plaintiffs because of this program. I mean, wouldn't that be necessary to meet the “concrete and particularized” standard?
I think that when this case is heard in the 6th Circuit, the plaintiffs should have to call their terrorist friends to the stand and have them testify that yes indeed they are terrorists and that they are afraid to talk on the phone because the NSA is listening in in order for the plaintiffs to prove harm. Of course, terrorists might be unwilling to testify on behalf of the plaintiffs. But thems the rules, it seems to me.
And haven't the plaintiffs been hurt more by the revelation of the program than the program itself? I mean, they didn't seem to have this problem before it was a front page news item. It appears that terrorists would talk to them freely as long as they didn't know the NSA was listening.
Right?
So why aren't they suing the New York Times for the harm they caused.
Having terrorists talk freely about themselves and their plans is better than having them clam up, especially when the NSA is listening.
So maybe, the rest of us should be suing the Times as well.
Ya think?
