3 ms·
It isn't! In fact, in this very case they are being given the opportunity to obtain evidence from the government to establish standing. Of course, you're right
by pdabbadabba 11y ago
It isn't! In fact, in this very case they are being given the opportunity to obtain evidence from the government to establish standing. Of course, you're right that these efforts may fail, but if they do it will (probably) be because the government invokes the state secrets privilege to refuse to hand over the evidence, not the more kafkaesque problem of being unable to demonstrate standing because you lack standing.
- btilly 11y agoNo, actually it is correct in the court system. And therefore the government will make this argument whenever they can. Because if they win on standing, their life becomes easier. In fact this is what the government won on for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clapper_v._Amnesty_International_USA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clapper_v._Amnesty_Internation.... That said, if you meet the standing bar, you still have an uphill battle through the inevitable invocation of the state secrets privilege to avoid giving you access to the facts that would be required to actually have a chance to win the court case...
- joe_the_user 11y ago..invokes the state secrets privilege to refuse to hand over the evidence, not the more kafkaesque problem of being unable to demonstrate standing because you lack standing Your claim that the either approach is less "kafkaesque" or less Orwellian seems without merit and deplorable.