Today we learn that some of the high profile “terrorists” our country has
captured are now seeking defenses based upon the use of illegal wiretaps.

WASHINGTON, Dec. 27 – Defense lawyers in some of the country’s biggest
terrorism cases say they plan to bring legal challenges to determine whether
the National Security Agency used illegal wiretaps against several dozen
Muslim men tied to Al Qaeda.

The lawyers said in interviews that they wanted to learn whether the men
were monitored by the agency and, if so, whether the government withheld
critical information or misled judges and defense lawyers about how and why
the men were singled out.

The expected legal challenges, in cases from Florida, Ohio, Oregon and
Virginia, add another dimension to the growing controversy over the agency’s
domestic surveillance program and could jeopardize some of the Bush
administration’s most important courtroom victories in terror cases, legal
analysts say.

The question of whether the N.S.A. program was used in criminal
prosecutions and whether it improperly influenced them raises “fascinating
and difficult questions,” said Carl W. Tobias, a law professor at the
University of Richmond who has studied terrorism prosecutions.

“It seems to me that it would be relevant to a person’s case,” Professor
Tobias said. “I would expect the government to say that it is highly
sensitive material, but we have legal mechanisms to balance the national
security needs with the rights of defendants. I think judges are very
conscientious about trying to sort out these issues and balance civil
liberties and national security.”

View complete article

here.

Throughout Bush’s fight to get the Patriot Act reauthorized, we heard time
and time again how it was a invaluable tool to capture these terrorists. Was it
truly the Patriot Act’s use that helped capture these individuals or was it the
use of warrantless spying or even a combination of both? If the answer falls
into the realm of the last two options then we could be facing a serious battle
in the war on terror.

Not only are warrantless wiretaps illegal, but they also are not allowed in
court. A prosecutor can not enter evidence which was illegally obtained. Further
more, that could let the “terrorists” end up walking out free of conviction.
Bush possibly just handed them their ticket to freedom by using illegal wiretaps
and that is a crime in and of itself.

Bush has said time and time again that we are a country of laws. That is one
of the few moments in his Presidential career when he has spoken the truth.
Those laws are not created, enacted and interpreted by one branch of our
government though, If that were the case we would be living in a autocracy. Our
constitution gives us a precise method of enacting new laws. They are authored
and approved in the Legislative branch then signed to law by the Executive
branch. Once they are law they are interpreted by the Judicial branch. This is
how we guarantee a balance of powers in our nation.

I bring this up because of the simple fact that if these cases do get
dismissed because of tainted evidence (ie. illegal wiretaps), then Bush will
most likely try another approach. That could come in the form of being a
prisoner of war or through renditioning. In other words, these people will in
all probability never be freed unless someone can protect them from this
government. Bush feels he can write the laws, enforce the laws and interpret the
laws through such people as Alberto Gonzalez and Harriet Miers.

Bush went out of his way to insure the American people that Tom Delay is
innocent until proven guilty. Any American citizen arrested and charged is also
entitled to that very simple notion of our democracy. If illegal wiretaps are
being used in the prosecution of these suspects then the prosecution needs to
have the case dismissed and go after legal evidence. If that evidence is not
obtainable then they go free. If one of them happens to conduct an act of
terrorism after that then the blood lies on the hands of George Bush who tried
to capture them by illegal means.