Defense says NSA likely illegally spied on cleric

[Aguila Blanca]

The defense has a free pass to lie or obvuscate. Remember when the defense said "if the glove does not fit, you must acquit"? It does not matter what the defense says about the Constitution or if the Congress passed the FISA act. The Constitution has not been ammended by 2/3 of states ratifying a reduction of the President's powers in time of war (that congress voted for). The US government can intercept communications between the enemy and anyone else NO MATTER WHERE THEY ARE.

Being the pedantic type that I am, may I remind you that the United States is not in a state of war. In fact, we have not been in a state of war since the termination of World War 2.

Congress did not issue a declaration of war against "terror." Congress also did not issue a declaration of war against Iraq, for that matter. They did authorize the use of force, but the President declared the mission accomplished from the deck of an aircraft carrier about two months after the invasion. So we are not at war with Iraq, we are enforcing peace in Iraq.

Ergo ... since we are not at war, any presidential powers during time of war are of only academic interest, because they do not apply. Further, IF we were at war, you still need to be careful to differentiate between the President's authority as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, and his powers as President of the republic. Being in a state of war does not suspend the Constitution.

 

[Master Blaster]

How do you know?

If they presented evidence gathered from a secret, probably illegal, wiretap, they wouldn't introduce it as "Exhibit F, Transcript of Secret/Probably Illegal Wiretap." They'd introduce it as part of the body of legally gathered evidence.

At this point, the program is still mostly secret, which means no one has any idea whether the illegally-gathered evidence has been used in court under false pretenses or not. That appears to be what the defense in these cases is trying to find out via these motions.

If it was read, shown or hinted at to the Jury or the judge at the trial the defense lawyer would have heard or seen it then. He could have objected or questioned its source. If not then it was not presented or considered by the jury or the judge when they decided guilt or innocence.

It had to be either a transcript, a recording, a signed affadavit, or a witness who heard the call.

In any case the time gathered, location, person who heard it testifying, warrant issued to gather it, had to be part of the presentation of evidence in court. The lawyer had the oportunity to see the affadavit, transcript, hear the tape, or question the witness.

If it was secret evidence and threre was no source, witness or warrant, the defense lawyer if worth a spoon of warm piss, would have objected and made a motion to have it struck from evidence. The judge would have had no choice but to strike it from the record, or a mistrial would be a slam dunk. Thats how a trial works.

 

[GoRon]

I suspect the Democrats know this isn't going to go anywhere.

The idea is to attack and smear. Even if the administration, Tom Delay, Scooter, Frist and whoever else all were exonerated the damage is done. The charges and accusations are front page news for weeks/months, the exoneration front page for a day or two.