A key point that needs to be established is that a substantial risk of actual injury (i.e. being subject to an indefinite warrantless detention) constitutes a sort of injury in and of itself. This general concept has been recognized in Canadian fraud law in R. v. Théroux, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 5. Risking another person’s property without consent (even if no actual loss occurs) still constitutes fraud.
Anyone who is theoretically open to the detention provisions in the NDAA (controversial writers, for example) should have a good argument for standing. There’s certainly no guarantee that they’ll be in a position to make such an argument after being subject to indefinite warrantless detention.
