Lawyers for a west suburban teenager charged with plotting to set off a bomb outside a downtown Chicago bar accused prosecutors Friday of dodging questions about whether the investigation was sparked by a massive government surveillance program. The surveillance programs — including one that collects U.S. phone records and another that tracks Internet use by foreigners with possible links to terrorism — were exposed earlier this month by Edward Snowden, a former National Security Agency contractor who leaked details to news organizations. “Whenever it is good for the government to brag about its success, it speaks loudly and publicly,” lawyers Thomas Durkin and Joshua Herman wrote in their motion. “When a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights are at stake, however, it quickly and unequivocally clams up under the guise of State Secrets.” 
 
 If the government acknowledged that it had used evidence derived from the FISA Amendments Act, Daoud would have standing to challenge the law’s constitutionality. Between July and September, an undercover FBI agent met Daoud in Chicago and helped him plan the attack. Daoud was arrested in September after he attempted to detonate a bomb placed in a jeep outside a Chicago bar with a remote-triggering device. If it can avoid giving proper notice to defendants, as it seeks to do here, the government can avoid a challenge to the [FISA Amendments Act] altogether.” 
 
 U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman has set a trial date for February.
– Adel Daoud is a Chicago 19-year-old accused by the feds of trying to detonate a bomb outside a Chicago bar in 2012. His case, however, could serve as the first constitutional challenge to the government's sweeping surveillance techniques, reports the Washington Post. In a court filing yesterday, attorneys for the terror suspect demanded to know whether federal authorities used their expanded powers under a 2008 amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to nab him. “Whenever it is good for the government to brag about its success, it speaks loudly and publicly,” they wrote, as per the Chicago Tribune. "When a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights are at stake, however, it quickly and unequivocally clams up under the guise of State Secrets.” Federal prosecutors say they're not obligated to say whether they used the law, and a judge will have the final say, reports WLS-TV. So did they use it? Here's a hint: Last year, when the Senate was debating whether to renew the 2008 law—it's formally known as the FISA Amendments Act—Dianne Feinstein made her case in favor by asserting that it had helped stop "a plot to bomb a downtown Chicago bar." If the judge rules that the government must acknowledge it used the FAA, Daoud's attorney's would then be able to challenge its constitutionality.