home

Could Bush's Warrantless Surveillance Taint Current Cases?

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.

< Thursday Open Thread | Portrait of a Blogger >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Could Bush's Warrantless Surveillance Taint Cu (none / 0) (#1)
    by Punchy on Thu Dec 22, 2005 at 12:47:04 PM EST
    An article in the USAT puts a crimp on this stream of logic, I think, albeit unfairly. It implies that because all of this is "top-secret" and "confidential", that the Bush Admin. will claim "national security" and prevent any court from seeing the information. This sickens me that the executive seemingly has this power to prevent the judicial from acting merely by claiming "national security", but that's the gist of the USAT bit. I'm no lawyer, so perhaps I've interpreted this wrong. If true, however, then I've surely spotted an enormous imbalance of checks and balances in favor of the executive branch. Honestly, if the exec. branch can continue to obfuscate investigations into its (unlawful) behavior by claiming sensitivity of the material, they've really got carte blanche to do..well...really anything they want. Please, someone, tell me where I'm wrong.

    Re: Could Bush's Warrantless Surveillance Taint Cu (none / 0) (#2)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 22, 2005 at 12:47:04 PM EST
    And when the admin.'s law breaking leads to potentially dangerous suspects being released....they will blame "liberals".

    Democrats.com has an interested excerpt about George Bush's buddy, Karl Rove, from the new book, "Rove Exposed: How Bush's Brain Fooled America", by James Moore & Wayne Slater. You can view it at: http://www.democrats.com/node/7161

    Re: Could Bush's Warrantless Surveillance Taint Cu (none / 0) (#4)
    by Dadler on Thu Dec 22, 2005 at 01:10:22 PM EST
    Ultimately, it depends on the judges deciding the cases. And, more ultimately, the Supreme Court. Which should make all of us play hardball with the court until Bush is gone.

    Re: Could Bush's Warrantless Surveillance Taint Cu (none / 0) (#5)
    by swingvote on Thu Dec 22, 2005 at 01:13:03 PM EST
    I've seen several claims that the issue of whether the president has the authority to do this is a settled issue via court cases. If this is the case, how are these acts illegal? And if they are not illegal, how can anyone filing such a case have any case at all?

    Taint what Cases? The Buffalo Yemeni, Padilla, or the Brooklyn Bridge Welder? Being the Radicals they are; not just Muslims but anyone they considered a serious threat their regime will be rendered to another country or disappear into the invisible American Gulag. Sooner or later, without the rule of law, if you go against the Bush Administration, pray that your Mother will stand in the Square asking where did you disappear.

    What Bush did is clearly illegal. As GEORGE WILL pointed out the other day, Bush violated clear statutory language saying that to do this you have to get a warrant, even in emergencies. I think lots of people should file motions because lots of cases have probably been tainted by this illegality. And if the government refuses to provide the information because of "national security," they may well lose some of those cases as a result - it's happened before. A MSNBC poll today reported that 87% of people support impeaching Bush. It's about time!

    Re: Could Bush's Warrantless Surveillance Taint Cu (none / 0) (#8)
    by Patrick on Thu Dec 22, 2005 at 02:19:10 PM EST
    A MSNBC poll today reported that 87% of people support impeaching Bush. It's about time!
    I'm not saying this is untrue, but 87% of the people agreeing on anything is suprising. Do you have a link because I couldn't find it at the MSNBC website?

    "A MSNBC poll today reported that 87% of people support impeaching Bush. It's about time!" Gablin, either someone's been lying to you or you're just making stuff up! Good for a chuckle, tho...

    Re: Could Bush's Warrantless Surveillance Taint Cu (none / 0) (#10)
    by MikeDitto on Thu Dec 22, 2005 at 02:33:04 PM EST
    I think it is an online (unscientific) poll, but I did see a poll (I believe it was WSJ) that said something like 61% supported impeachment if the president is found to have lied about Iraq being an imminent threat.

    Re: Could Bush's Warrantless Surveillance Taint Cu (none / 0) (#11)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 22, 2005 at 02:43:21 PM EST
    Patrick: Do you have a link because I couldn't find it at the MSNBC website? You won't find it there, Patrick. It's not on their site. But a quick google search on 'impeach + bush + "msnbc"' turns up an article titled "'Impeachment' Talk, Pro and Con, Appears in Media at Last" with this in it:
    John Dean, who knows something about these matters, calls Bush "the first President to admit to an impeachable offense." ... And one of those thoroughly unscientific MSNBC online polls found about 87% backing the idea through late Wednesday.
    It's not much, but it's a small crack in the dike...

    Re: Could Bush's Warrantless Surveillance Taint Cu (none / 0) (#12)
    by Patrick on Thu Dec 22, 2005 at 02:46:35 PM EST
    It's not much, but it's a small crack in the dike...
    Very small indeed. Kinda like saying 87% of people at this site support his impeachment just because. But thanks for clarifying.

    Hey, I didn't say it was a scientific poll... Still, I liked the idea that maybe, just maybe, people are starting to wake up and smell the creeping fascism...

    Mike Ditto, I don't think so. Even Barbara Streisand has it at only 53%. "Only" admittedly being a funny word to use in this context...

    Yes, Gablin, most thoughtful, intelligent people are starting to wake up to what a criminal Shrub is, but not good ole Patrick. He drank deeply of the Kool-Aid and found he wanted more.

    Here's the link to the MSNBC poll: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904#survey

    Re: Could Bush's Warrantless Surveillance Taint Cu (none / 0) (#17)
    by Sailor on Thu Dec 22, 2005 at 05:37:25 PM EST
    ShermBuck, while I rarely agree with Patrick's POV, he is not like other posters who always spout the rnc talking point of the day. And in this case the comment was fair because the online poll was freeped. (I know because I helped;-)

    Re: Could Bush's Warrantless Surveillance Taint Cu (none / 0) (#18)
    by cpinva on Thu Dec 22, 2005 at 07:03:14 PM EST
    They will seek to have the Government affirm or deny that they were subjects of Bush's warrantless surveillance.
    the simple solution, per ocham's razor: lie. why not, it's worked so well for this administration so far (two elections worth), and the "liberal" press (should there actually be such a thing) will certainly go along. the judge won't know, defendent's counsel won't know, and we have clear evidence that the current DOJ personell have no particular use for the truth. it's a win-win for the admin.

    Re: Could Bush's Warrantless Surveillance Taint Cu (none / 0) (#19)
    by Dadler on Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 11:04:29 AM EST
    Patrick, Numbers are numbers, we both know that. I'm just curious why YOU, of all people -- who seems to have a good deal of integrity -- are essentially defending this administration. I am truly lost as to your motivation. Do you think what we're doing is GOOD? Do you not see the utter lack of IMAGINATION and INTELLECT behind it? As well as the deceit? And the f'd up daddy/son relationship and history behind Dubya's psyche? I mean, imagine you're interrogating Dubya, you HAVE to realize what a BS artist he'd try to be. He's such an easy read a schoolkid can figure him out. There's no THERE there. I like you, I just don't get it.

    Re: Could Bush's Warrantless Surveillance Taint Cu (none / 0) (#20)
    by Patrick on Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 11:26:47 AM EST
    Dadler, Fair question. And thank you for the compliment. I think the answer is I find disingenuous and inaccurate attacks as bad or worse than the mistakes and lies politicians on both sides of the isle have told and made forever. I'm a conservative (although in this company, I'm a ultra-neocon-rethuglican) and IMO it's better to have a bad conservative in power than not. Of course I'd rather have a good conservative in power, but we don't have that option now, and based on the choices we had in the last election, I would have to vote for Bush again. I appreciate, to a point, the balance of power as it works. Opposition (No matter which side you are on) is a good thing to keep one side from getting too powerful. The true power lies in the middle, not at the extremes of either party. I would like to see a third party and perhaps even a fouth, since I don't always agree with the republicans and they are not always conservative. Until then I'll support the party which tries, and all too often fails, to meet the goals which are closer to my own.