So if I'm reading your other posts correctly, they set precedent for you saying this ACLU case and Hitchens case should be thrown out.
The posts I linked to outside of this thread don't discuss the notion of "standing."
I don't know the allegations made in the Hitchens and ACLU cases, and in this thread I am speculating that if the plaintiff doesn't allege (and later has to prove) that he was the target of warrantless surveillance, the case goes away - wrong plaintiff.
Otherwise, all anybody has to do is make some wacky claim in order to force the government to defend itself. Millions of surveillance suits - millions of "I was abducted" suits, etc. That doesn't mean nobody was abducted and held (see Padilla, Hamdan, Hamdi, etc.), just that abduction cases coming from people who haven't been can't be tolerated.