Experts say Bush's warrantless electronic surveillance could jeopardize current terror cases if the evidence against them is derived from illegal interceptions.

How would a defendant know? How about a request under 18 USC Sec. 3504?

(a) In any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, or other authority of the United States—

(1) upon a claim by a party aggrieved that evidence is inadmissible because it is the primary product of an unlawful act or because it was obtained by the exploitation of an unlawful act, the opponent of the claim shall affirm or deny the occurrence of the alleged unlawful act;

(b) As used in this section “unlawful act” means any act the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device (as defined in section 2510 (5) of this title) in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or any regulation or standard promulgated pursuant thereto.

I suspect there will be a lot of motions filed under this section, not just in terror cases, but in other cases in which the defendants are foreign-born. They will seek to have the Government affirm or deny that they were subjects of Bush's warrantless surveillance. I'm not encouraging the filing of the motions, TalkLeft does not give legal advice, it's just an interesting thought.