Vick has reportedly pocketed more than $US60 million from his dazzling six-season career in the National Football League, which began when he was the league's No. 1 pick in 2001.

He is expected to be sentenced next week and faces up to five years' jail and $US250,000 in fines. He is tipped to spend about a year behind bars.

Vick's lawyer, Billy Martin, said the player had accepted a plea deal after consulting his family. Mr Martin said Vick would accept full responsibility for the mistakes he has made.

"Michael wishes to apologise again to everyone who has been hurt by this matter," he said. Vick's decision to accept a plea deal from federal prosecutors came as a Grand Jury was hearing evidence against him.

The hearing could have decided to lay harsher charges against the player, including racketeering and gambling. Vick's career, endorsements and reputation are now in tatters. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has already banned Vick from Falcons training. He faces a lifetime ban from football under the league's personal conduct policy.

The dynamic player, who was the No. 1 NFL pick in 2001, has already suffered a backlash from sponsors, with Nike suspending the release of a new Michael Vick shoe and Reebok withdrawing his jerseys from sale.

Three co-defendants of Vick had already agreed to plea deals that required them to provide statements against Vick, who initially denied having any involvement.

Vick is accused of bankrolling the "Bad Newz Kennels" operation on Vick's Virginia property. The investigation into his alleged dog fighting activities began in April when dozens of pitbull dogs and dog-fighting equipment was found on the property.

The court documents say the search found about 54 American pitbull terriers, some of which had scars and injuries appearing to be related to dog fighting.

Forty-eighty-year-old Thomas Montgomery of Cheektowaga pleaded guilty today to first-degree manslaughter in the killing of 22-year-old Brian Barrett of Lockport.

Barrett's body was found in his vehicle in the parking lot of the suburban Clarence company where both men worked.

Montgomery admitted to shooting Barrett three times last September. He and Barrett had been involved in an Internet relationship with a middle-aged West Virginia woman who was using her daughter's Web page information to pose as an 18-year-old.

Montgomery -- who was charged with murder in late November -- faces sentencing at the end of October.

Deputy Solicitor General Gregory Garre, representing the government, argued that letting the case go to trial, "would reveal the sources, methods and operational details" of government intelligence activities. The alleged monitoring is part of more rigorous surveillance practices put in motion after the terrorist attacks of 11 September, 2001.

After a two-and-a-half hour hearing, the US Court of Appeals for the 9th District, in San Francisco, said it will consider the dismissal motion as well as a one in a second lawsuit also challenging the NSA programme.

But Appeals Court judges Michael Daly Hawkins, Margaret McKeown and Harry Pregerson, peppered Garre with questions, challenging his argument that the state secrets privilege trumps the right of the plaintiffs to have their case heard.

Pregerson asked Garre how a court is to decide whether something the executive branch claims is a state secret is a secret, if the executive branch won't reveal what it claims is a secret.

"Who decides what's a state secret? Are we just a rubber stamp? We're just supposed to take the word of the executive?" Pregerson asked.

Garre responded that the court should give "the utmost deference" to the executive branch's claim that something is a state secret, but acknowledged that it is not an "absolute deference".

The EFF says that AT&T, at one of its offices in San Francisco, diverted internet traffic, including emails and Voice over IP (VoIP) phone calls, to a separate room in which NSA-authorised people monitored the network traffic. Robert Fram the attorney for EFF, said that just the act of diverting that traffic into a room controlled by the NSA proved their case against AT&T and that they would not have to try to risk violating the state secrets privilege by trying to disclose what was done with the information.

But Garre, in rebuttal, argued that if the surveillance done in that room was approved by a warrant, then there is no violation by the government or AT&T in diverting internet traffic to that surveillance room.

The second case is that of the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation versus President George W. Bush, which claims the government engaged in warrantless surveillance of their organisation, in violation of its constitutional rights.

The appeals judges gave no indication when they might rule on the motion to dismiss. Lee Tien, an EFF staff attorney, said given the notoriety of the case, the judges could render a decision soon, but at the same time, given the gravity of the issues, they might take more time.