This would make it very hard for me to vote for Kerry..., page 4

Originally posted by Eastern_Diamondback

Are you freakin' kidding me? As dreadful as the prosecution was, the DNA proves OJ's blood was at the crime scene, and the victims blood in his Bronco. Unless you're an idiot, you can't believe that some other random person bled at the scene and then the blood just miraculously turned into OJ's.

The prosecution has to prove their case Beyond Reasonable Doubt. They did not do this. If you would have read my statement, I said that I personally thought He was Guilty. I does not matter whether Furhman Plantged evidance, his credibility was destroyed and rendered his testimony Questionable. The glove did not fit In Court. A mistake on the part of the Prosecution. They left to many things open for doubt. Tus I believe the right verdict was reached.

Again this goes to my point about the Legal System in The United States. The defense only has to prove ONE Flaw in the prosecutions case. Having the ability to claim things under the PA would totally break apart the entire legal system, "If it is used against citizens not involved in terrorism". I'm not saying it is destroying the Legal system right now. If used the wrong way I believe it could.

Here is something to ponder:

Jurist-Pitt-Law

The USA Patriot Act allows surveillance of U.S. citizens under standards more like FISA than Title III, and allows powers permitted under Title III to be employed even where there is no probable cause and minimal judicial involvement, as in FISA. FISA warrants may now be used even if intelligence is not the primary purpose of an investigation. �Roving wiretaps� are a good example of how the powers under Title III have been extended. The Department of Justice argued to the public that revision of existing wiretap law was necessary to keep up with modern technology � to allow a roving wiretap that would allow a person�s conversations to be intercepted even if the person carried a cell phone, or moved from phone to phone. Why should an investigation be limited to wiretapping one particular telephone, the argument ran, when modern telephone users frequently have access to several phones? The authority to issue an order for a roving wiretap already existed under Title III, for investigations where probable cause has been demonstrated. (The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether this blanket permission to intercept a person�s conversations on any telephone is a refreshing modernization of an antiquated notion that a telephone is a physical place, or a violation of the Fourth Amendment�s requirement that any warrant describe the �place to be searched� with particularity.) The USA Patriot Act extends the roving wiretap authority to intelligence wiretaps, which are authorized secretly and are not based on probable cause. The authorization may be nation-wide. Once additional telephones that a target uses (perhaps in someone else�s home) are being monitored, other users of that telephone will also be subject to continuing surveillance.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Even if someone else uses your phone, or a target already under surveilance even misdials your number, you become part of that investigation. Your privacy can Leaglly be invaded.