Пытаюсь понять

[birdwatcher]

Пишет Илья Шапиро:

A motley crew of plaintiffs – who also included the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), journalist Christopher Hitchens, various lawyers, and others – cannot demonstrate that they have been harmed in any but a generalized, speculative way by the TSP. They simply have no idea whether their international communications had been monitored.

While the plaintiffs previously argued that they were denied the opportunity even to find out about possible violations of their civil liberties because the relevant evidence is classified, the lower court correctly ruled that the government’s “state secrets privilege” prevented the dissemination of this information that, if disclosed, could compromise national security.
[...]
Much like disputes over high tax rates, immigration enforcement, earmarks, and a host of other issues now being debated by the presidential candidates, the TSP presents a classical political (not legal) question. The plaintiffs were not more affected by the policy than other Americans, so their recourse, as ACLU legal director Steven Shapiro (no relation to me) correctly noted, is to petition Congress (and the executive).

Похоже, корень проблемы в том, что подслушивание само по себе не преступление. Проникнуть на телефонную станцию - преступление, подключить жучок к чужим проводам - преступление, а просто так стоять в общественном месте и слушать, либо улавливать радиоволны неизвестным способом - нет. Вот владельцы телефонных компаний могли бы подать в суд, если бы схватили агентов с поличным на своих объектах. А в данном случае как будто вообще ничего не произошло, не о чем судиться.

При чем тут "the plaintiffs were not more affected by the policy than other Americans," впрочем, до сих пор не понимаю.