The congressional authority after 9/11 gave the executive branch the authority to go after al queda.
So it can't be illegal for something congress knew about also.
Wouldn't the defendant have to be someone that was affected by this?
And that turns on the meanings (Congressional intent) of "go after" and "member of al Qaeda." IOW, is it "congressional authority" if the president steps outside of majority intent?
So it can't be illegal for something congress knew about also.
Sure "it" can. But at this point, we only have hints as to what "it" is, so the scope of speculation is quite large. Keep in mind the principle that courts can render opinions on government actions that are outside the law (not always finding the action to be unconstitutional), and inside the law (sometings finding the "legally/Congressionally authorized" action to be unconstitutional).
The term "illegal" is taken different ways by different listeners - some posters here take that to mean "violation of 4th amendment," for example.
Wouldn't the defendant have to be someone that was affected by this?
Plaintiff is the term for the person bringing the case, but yes - without being a target of surveillance, the party has no case. I don't think there needs to be a showing of "damages" in order to reach the conclusion that the party was affected. The government is forbidden to act outside of the Constitution - see removal of 1o Commandments from Judge Roy Moore's Courthouse, for example. Who had "damages?" Nobody, really. Yet the Courts found the display to be a violation of the 1st amendment and ordered it removed.