I don't know for sure either, but the last case: Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court recognized the power of the U.S. government to detain enemy combatants, including U.S. citizens, but ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the rights of due process, and the ability to challenge their enemy combatant status before an impartial authority.
If the accused can challenge their unlawful combatant status, I don't see why they then couldn't be tried via military tribunal. Once in that system, the rules of evidence: 'Military commissions evidentiary rules therefore do not require that physical evidence was obtained pursuant to search authorizations. However, the accused is entitled to the suppression of evidence that “is not reliable or probative” and evidence “the probative value of which is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the members; or considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”
So no FISA req'd, all NSA acquired evidence would seem to be admissable. They got game chat logs after all. What do you think they snagged before Q?
I also believe, based on reviewing the Collyer 4/2017 release at the time, that FISA is enforced via MIL and I always considered the means for entree therein + thereby. TBD + WWG1WGA :)
I think they snagged it all before Q. If it goes this route will have to see what can be used. Not sure if the public gets to see a full MIL Tribunal or not.
Mark