is evidence collected from spying admissable in court, or is it enough to take someone to court on terror accusations?
135001
The evidence collected by the NSA, for example, when monitoring traffic from an enemy in some other country contacting some one here had better be admissible in court or we are all in danger of the next 9/11. The patriot act gives us the tools necessary to (hopefully) prevent terrorists\nfrom doing us any more harm here or abroad. Had Clinton had that available the first time the twin towers were attacked, we may have prevented 9/11 from ever happening.
236242
I don't think there's any doubt that our calls are being tracked.  It shocks me that people don't seem to care.  The logic seems to be, "well, I don't do anything wrong and I'm not a terrorist and I don't want to be blown up by terrorists and I don't have anything to say anyway, so let 'em listen."  \nWhat I don't think people realize is how easy it is to take selective records and conversations and make it appear that a person is guilty of any accusation thrown at them. None of the post-9/11 legislation includes anything like a well-sculpted definition of what behaviors, actions, or beliefs constitute a "terrorist." In the wrong hands, it could be used much as the "witch" accusation was used three hundred years ago.  And listen, kiddies, thanks to the Patriot Act, if the government decides to label you a terrorist, they can send you to an undisclosed location without legal counsel for an indefinite period of time.  THAT's why you should be concerned. (Remember Bush fans--he's only going to be in office for a couple more years, but these laws don't leave with him.  Even if you trust Bush--and lord knows why you would--are you sure that you can trust the next guy? (Or gal? Could be that Hillary Clinton will end up with these massive dictatorial powers next.)  By casting such a big net in its search for terrorists, the government is effectively assuming that we're all guilty--it's a lazy man's game and there's no proof that it will be any more effective than good intelligence work.
503530
Government records of who they listen in on are labeled secret information but yes they are supposed to be only calls in which at least one party is on foreign soil as far as not having to get the court approval.actually I think it could be two way American calls if one is already being investigated for possible terrorism. But it is really kinda moot who the hell would know? They don't have an overseer and its national security ya know. and if your not guilty you don't have anything to hide...right? Stupidest argument in the world I apologize for repeating that nonsense.... just_curious if they pass a law where they can put your grandmother in a consentration camp it would be legal!
407162
Yes, but it might be difficult to prove. It is called...i think slander or public defaming or something like that. Despite this, proof of the action(s) might be very difficult to prove, and the cost of the suit might not be reasonable.
486289
There is a good chance that they do not have enough evidence to convict them.  \n\nTony Blair has the same disposition as George Walker Bush: they do not respect the law unless it is convenient.
235574
I found this information, but it was in regards to Tennessee. I would imagine that most states have a law likened to this one, which is based on the federal statue. I'm in Louisiana and know that as long as you are a party in the conversation, then it would be admissable.\n\nEvidentiary issues. Individuals and businesses that make surreptitious recordings often do so with the expectation that the recordings will be useful as evidence.  Under Tennessee law, an undisclosed recording you might make would be admissible into evidence so long as a court finds it relevant to issues at hand in the case, and it would also be admissible to show that a witness either lied on a particular point of testimony or made a prior inconsistent statement, or has a bias in the case.  The one requirement is that the "tape recordings (or) transcripts... (are) presented in evidence by (a) witness who was present during their recording or who monitored the conversations, if he was so situated and circumstanced that he was in a position to identify the declarant with certainty."  State v. Jones, 598 S.W.2d 209, 223 (Tenn. 1980).  Now, you can't admit a tape into testimony just to show that a witness is a lowlife, but there are generally a number of ways to get the tape into evidence, though they will require an attorney to know the right way to do so.
209283
Is it fair no, but if someone was plotting another 9/11 and a family member of yours was in the place they were going to blow up, wouldnt you want them to do that.  I would rather have them monitor those things, and besides the government picks up on buzz words and phrases once that buzz phrase is said then the government can listen in.  It is not a total loss of privacy.  It is resonabile and logical, but not fair.
308037
Yes it is illegal to withhold evidence. As a defendant you are allowed to bring whatever evidence to show your innocence. A laywer could supoena the evidence. I'm not a 100% sure how that works. But if they won't give it to the defendant than they should get a lawyer to help them or there are groups out there that try to help get people out of jail who are innocent.\n\nThey only way that I know of that evidence is can be withheld for a trial is if the prosecutor obtains the evidence in an illegal way.
287798
Absolutely not.  First of all, that would be far too much power for the judiciary to have.  No one branch is to have peremptory oversight over the other.  Second of all, judges might easily see things differently.  Some judges think that not Mirandizing a suspect is constitutional while others don't.  You might easily run into a problem where the justices overseeing the President disagree and then you have gridlock - like we need more of those in our government.  Also, just because those overseers say it's constitutional or not doesn't mean the SCOTUS will agree, so they're a moot entity.  Finally, the President has a chief legal counsel who advises him whether or not something is constitutional - don't you remember Alberto Gonzalez claiming that torture was constitutional?  You say that the judges would report the Prez if he executes an unconstitutional action, but who's to say they're right?  It must be left to the SCOTUS.\n\nMy  biggest point is saved for here though:  you cannot politicize the judiciary.
56291
The Patriot Act did not create any new laws, only consolidated existing ones, so terrorism has nothing to do with it.  The government, with reasonable premises and a sometimes a court order, can pull IMs and phone logs for a number of reasons, just being that they believe you or her were involved in any crime they are investigating.
365671
You need to get a lawyer so they can find out what evidence the police have.
366584
The FISA courts can't keep up with the real-time flow of actionable intelligence.\n\nThis is why the NSA's monitoring program is so vital
419964
If they have a warrant, or reasonable cause, to search the house then they can search all of it.\n\nIf they actually admitted they needed to go get a warrant then anything they have already found is inadmissible in court, due to illegal search.
632335
You would have to present evidence that you were detained without probable cause in order to have a case. You don't need to prove beyond reasonable doubt, just a preponderence of the evidence as this is a civil matter. It's hard to tell precisely if you would have a case based on your details, but I would guess that you have an uphill climb if it boils down to your word versus theirs. It might be advisable to consult a lawyer about this, but only if you truly feel that this was a case of police abuse of power.
304684
Of course! The criminal administration mantra of "do as I say and not as I do", and if you do, then you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If I (Bush) do it, it's all part of the war on terror. I want some of what Bush and his criminal administration are smoking.
341580
No, there are some Conservatives, like me.  Habeas Corpus is one of the most important parts of our legal system, it leads to innocent until proven guilty.  It was one of the reasons I voted for a moderate democrat.  I agree with part of the legislation that enemy combatants should not be tried publicly, but this suspension of habeas corpus is a violation of individual rights.\n\nHow about this scenario?  If you are associated with someone that the government merely suspects of terrorist activities, they can use the law to imprison you, until you produce evidence that indicates your associates of the activities.  It can be used as a new form of McCarthyism.  Until you produce they evidence we want, right or wrong, you can be held.  Guilty until you prove yourself innocent or prove someone else guilty.  Basically, unconstitutional.\n\nAnd some people say, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, but that is not a good comparison.  The Civil War would have ended, sometime, but the "War on Terror" is indefinite.  They have suspended one of our rights, indefinitely.  And the reason I am against it is I am a conservative, who believes in the Constitution, unlike some Republicans.
277736
Warrantless searches, phone trolling, torture, kidnapping, indefinite imprisonment without charges, denial of legal representation, you name it. It's all legal. Just ask Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. If the president says it's legal, it's legal. When we're at war, the Constitution, the Congress and civility are out the door. \n\nBush always plays the fear card, telling us he's "protecting" us from al-Qaeda as he takes us on our national plunge into fascism. He seizes power with impunity, and the Republicans in Congress are willing accomplices as they abrogate the fundamental responsibilities of their branch of the federal government to a power-crazed madman. \n\nAs America sleeps, basic rights, especially privacy, are under assault. The concentration of claimed authority in the Executive Branch -- removed from congressional authorization and outside the scope of judicial review -- is dangerous and frightening. \n\nThe Busheviks are not conservatives -- they are neo-fascists with an agenda aimed at protecting a privileged elite and using the unbridled power of an authoritarian government to enhance and protect their wealth. \n\nThey're not wearing black shirts, boot-stomping down Pennsylvania Avenue in the style of the more theatrical of their ilk. But their insidious threat is real and chilling.