Agreed. The burden of proof should be on the government. The court should have requested the government to identify the safeguards in place to protect citizenry which should include some form of independent monitoring.
The burden of proof is (and should be ) on the plaintiffs in our judicial system. But it is disconcerting that we have to wait until the government actually violates rights until the court will entertain arguments on the FISA expansion.
They had no standing. This isn’t a victory for big government, plus we’re naive to hope some judge will protect our rights. The burden of proof should be on the government and the American way is via legislation.
Let’s elect the right people. Why aren’t we pulling back to pre-9/11 security levels if we’re pulling back out of Iraq and Afghanistan?