Referring to my earlier post and the whole warrantless domestic spying issue, I have a question.

Suppose that this spying DID lead to the arrest of a terrorism suspect. Couldn't the suspect or his or her attorneys just argue that the evidence was obtained improperly and illegally? Would such a suspect even be indicted, much less convicted?

Clearly there's not a lot of concern on the part of the current administration for due process for terrorism suspects. And it's likely any evidence would be presented to a secret court anyway, which has less to worry about public scrutiny or oversight.

I do think it's an interesting question. What's the point of abrogating the law if it makes any evidence inadmissable anyway? Seems like they're just cutting off their noses to spite their faces.