I never bought the argument that disclosure of a shift in legal policy caused a shift in methods of hiding communications.
BUT, I would buy that disclosure of the program put political pressure on the President to the extent he unilaterally decided to stop it. Might as well blame the leaker for the stopage. OTOH, if the program is effective and legal, it would be irresponsible to stop it. Since the administration is dug in on the "it's legal" point, the only way it can stop, and safe face, is to assert "no longer effective."
Therefore, all of this arguing and posturing, will be more for the "future" and the definition of Presidential powers as written in the Constitution, or it should be..IMHO.
The Constitution is brief, so the legal parameters are fleshed out in case-by-case decisions. See the old cases on habeas, now coming out of the woodwork for use in the war against terrorists. There's a whole body of case law waiting to be written for this new kind of war.
"Theres a whole body of case law to be written for this new kind of war"....
Boy, is that right....and it should be interesting, while maddening at times as well.
Do YOU think that the POTUS has the Constitutional right to wiretap the foreign calls to or from the USA??