Replies

I'm sure that the defense attorneys will use that reasoning, as they should, but I just don't see it going anywhere post-Patriot Act.

Plus, it is really tough to build an argument of the wiretapping being an "unreasonable" search or seizure when you're receiving phone calls from known Al Qaeda agents abroad. To me that falls well within the bounds of a probable cause argument.

it is really tough to build an argument of the wiretapping being an "unreasonable" search or seizure when you're receiving phone calls from known Al Qaeda agents abroad. To me that falls well within the bounds of a probable cause argument.

I think that's a slam dunk winner. Or even getting calls from suspected (not known) terrorists (not just al Qaeda) abroad.

I suspect any issues will relate to "probable cause" as to how the government concluded (in the first place) that the "foreigner" (could be a US citizen overseas, in a global sense) is apt to engage in a conversation that represent a foreign intelligence interest. If it reached that conclusion in the first place based on secret surveillance, the case is a harder one to get past a judge. It resembles "precrime," where any and all surveillance is justified, based on the "successes" where surveillance is the only activity that creates the reasonable suspicion.