U.S. court rules that evidence seized in IDF raid is inadmissible

The racism is so deeply entrenched in you that you don't even realize what you are saying: Israelis (what you call "Jews") killing Arabs is OK because they "defend themselves" but Arabs commit "murder" when they do the same? Bullets, Apaches and bulldozers - paid for by US taxpayers' money - do more damage, are more lethal than the paltry arms Palestinians can put their hands on...come on. Who would chose to blow themselves up if they have the luxury to push a button and go back to sleep in their own bed at night? BIG news: Palestinians are just as human as Israelis. Stop treating them as subhumans and peace will have a chance. By the way, barring evidence gathered illegally by an occupying force is the right thing to do.

I wonder if a new administration will change this? They might find it comfortable to keep the current status quo. Nothing corrupts like power. It would be kind of funny if the new admin decides to revoke all of bushes pardons. Libby would go to jail. State of war and all. Well I hope for the US`s sake that things will change.

Ignoring the openly stated goal of Muslims, both in print and verbally, to claim that anything that supports that must be an IDF/Mossad conspiracy. Gosh, I guess the Arab League declaration of war, Hamas' Covenant and Fatah's Charter were also IDF forgeries, eh?

and why support to LEGITIMATE resistance to illegaltion occupation, as prescribed by GENEVA CONVENTION, is not okay??

As best as I can remember and after a quick scan or the articles. The nine counts were what the jury hung on. The plea agreement had him admitting to one of them. He was sentenced to 57 months, with credit for pretrial time served, leaving 18 months.

Lynn, Here's a link: http://www.sptimes.com/2005/webspecials05/al-arian/index.shtml The refusal to testify was ruled as contempt of court. I think federal procedure is for the contempt sentence to run until testimony is given or the grand jury expires. What is surprising is that he has not taken the path of least resistence. If called to incriminate himself, he still has fifth amendment rights. For everything else, there's always the Gonzales defense. Pardon my cynicism.

Lynn, Here's a link: http://www.sptimes.com/2005/webspecials05/al-arian/index.shtml The refusal to testify was ruled as contempt of court. I think federal procedure is for the contempt sentence to run until testimony is given or the grand jury expires. What is surprising is that he has not taken the path of least resistence. If called to incriminate himself, he still has fifth amendment rights. For everything else, there's always the Gonzales defense. Pardon my cynicism.

and you can provide strict proof of this in a court room mr know f all ! you are a total idiot, why would the idf care one jot if 4 terrorists are convicted in the usa ? the value of anything you write is decreased by the use of a psuedonym because you cant be honest !!

amined in court? that is the point of a trial TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE!

your attempts to comment out of context are laughable. the issue is not one of provenance but as to whether documents are admissible .more laughable is that israel would go to forging documents before the event and that at the time of capture have no relevance but later they fit a case brought in the usa .the upside down world of the irish would find this a normality!! please give a definition of the enforcement of " international law " against a major power

What choice do I have? I guess the president (Bozo) does have certain rights, even if it is an abuse of laws passed by congress. This particular trial still smells a bit with whiffs of salem. It's the implications that are troubling, and one you already mentioned - which is taking things to extremes based on political expediency alone. As you said - like equating hamas - which tactics aside - has a specific goal of liberating what they see as their homeland with al-qaida, which has different goals entirely, such as they are. This does compromise the credibility of the 'war on terror" if it hasn't yet, and gives much succor to those radical muslims who cast doubt on the US system of justice. I'm also wondering what's next on this ever-expanding lists of 'terror groups". Am finding the possibilities more than a little troubling - given a desparate administration and a very strident israel + friends.

"And political prisoners and democracies really don`t mix. You can`t have both at the same time." - Ting Agreed! But. given it's postulations that the government has all rights and the people have none; as well as it's stated beliefs that the administration is exempt from any legal constraint while a state of war exists. Thus any pleading must be void.

in the first place? Duh. The Court's authority arises from the Constitution. (Even a State Court's authority arises from the constitution.) You should review your copy of the constitution about authority of Judges and rights reserved to the states. All of these rights are monitored and validated under the constitution by the Federal Government for Bill of Rights violations. Owe, and the Bill of Rights, is another authority related to evidence. Evidence that is unreliable is simply not constitutional under the US and State Constitutions, it violates the Common Law rules of evidence, etc.

Hello Dana, The issue discussed in the trial is described in the article; the accusation that some US Islamic charities were channeling money to Hamas. Bush has the authority to designate organizations and people as supporting terrorists, and then all their helpers can have their money blocked. The authority and related powers are based on laws passed by the Congress, so it is legal. I have no quarrel with designating Hamas a terror organization. After all, they use the means of terror, and Israel is a friend of the US. But I object to treating Hamas as no different from al-Qaida. You don't negotiate with people who want to kill you, but Hamas has national liberation in mind, etc. Each group should be treated as is prudent, not lumped into the same ideological sack. As far as the IDF evidence being used, nothing wrong with it. Prison guards testify against inmates every day. As long as you have a jury to pass judgement based on what they consider credible evidence, this is fair.

Is that not called contempt of court? Particularly after pleading guilty to some charges. 9 of them I think.

Your failure to see what the trial is about doesn't make it moot. Try reading about it. Oh, and please, by all means, read a lot.

who declared Hamas a terrorist group. In case you are wondering whether or not it is legal for American citizens to contribute funds to the Hamas terrorist group, please send your contribution sheet to the feds. If you are truly interested in the aspects of this trial, documents have already been entered in as evidence demonstrating the Hamas supporters here in the US intent to derail Oslo, ie, derail the peace process between Arafat, the Palestinians, and Israel, thus denying the Palestinians their state. Lovely champions you have chosen, Dana.

Don't you just love the Law? As uncivilized as we are and with a frontier mentality.

Aside from the rules of evidence regarding IDF, I fail to understand what this trial is all about. Bush running around designating one and all ""terrorist"" groups (just yesterday the idiots added the Iranian army to the list) doesn't mean they are so. By what right are these people even tried? or is it the same rules that used to apply to the IRA? Trouble is this trial smells like a witch hunt to many - Hamas' crime being that of resistance groups from times immemorial - and certain right wing aipac-affiliated groups pushing for this prosecution. That the IDF - which has no credibility on these matters (being part of the campaign to prosecute and defending the occupation against the resistance) - is even allowed to introduce anything is a travesty. Kind of like the prison guards testifying against the prisoners.... Or - the prosecutor testifying for the prosecution...

No apology necessary.

We're talking the Gonzales Justice Department. You're not supposed to be able to figure that out. Only 16 more months of Bush!

then I deeply apologize.

The problem with his case is that they can keep calling on him to testify in more unrelated cases, and he can refuse, and hence spend the rest of his days in prison. As far as i know his plea bargin included the fact that he need not testify in any cases. However they don`t appear to be uppholding their end of the deal. He fits perfectly with my idea of a political prisoner. Mordechai Vanunu is another example of a political prisoner. And political prisoners and democracies really don`t mix. You can`t have both at the same time. Heres a link to the documentary i saw http://www.usavsalarian.com/ Thats George and Laura with the al-aryans on the front page....

That's ok for you to say, but can you prove it?

You seem somewhat confused. You wrote---"They`re murderers. They just haven`t had the chance to carry out their disgusting crime yet and the `occupation` is stopping them from doing it." 1, It is cause and effect, or if that is too complicated for you, try, "it,s the Occupation stupid". 2, How can they be murderers and still not have carried out their disgusting crime. You too are a deep thinker I see.Quite remarkable really.

My post, pointing out ZOG's double standard, that got deleted was not anti-Semitic. It asked why the leaders of AIPAC weren't hauled-in after the JDL tried blowing up Congressman Daryl Issa's office. I also mentioned the AIPAC-DoD spy case, and Israel's murder of 34 American sailors on the USS Liberty. Oy vey!

I'm sorry if you missed the first paragraph of the article Victor, but the evidence that was thrown out was obtained by the IDF occupation forces. The documents taken from Palestinian resistance groups by the IDF were thrown out because the IDF has no credibility what so ever and this is just one more example of why that is. I'm sure that doctored documents like those produced by Israel may pass muster in the Apartheid Israeli legal system in order deny the political and human rights of Palestinians and other non-Jews, but in a real legal system they have no merit. Once again, I'm sorry you are confused.

The usual pontificators have arrived, trying to twist whatever news appears on these pages to their own agendas. I'm happy the pages of Ha'aretz are so full of experts on Rules of Evidence in US Federal Courts.

Big-OT scribbled---"the idf have nothing to do with the case which is being brought by the justice dept. documents incriminating the terrorists were captured by the idf." Big-OT read Mark Lincoln,s #1 "Provenance is the ability to trace a chain of ownership or responsibility. There is no evidence that the evidence was not manufactured." What part of no do you not understand? the "N" or the "O".Are you totally illiterate or what. Here is another example of Big-OT,S Legal prowess. He scribbled on another thread. "The term international Law was invented by the liberal press as a means to punish Israel and constantly push their antisemitic agendas." Wow. am I glad he is on their side.

What nonsense! As far as I know, there is no evidence that Jews have killed babies and used their blood for ritual purposes. But can you prove that no Jew has ever done so? Of course not. Try using reason (unless it offends your zionist tenets).

your post is along list of spurious complaints, which have nothing to do with the talkback ! the idf have nothing to do with the case which is being brought by the justice dept. documents incriminating the terrorists were captured by the idf. what is amazing are your unsupported accustaions of which you have not shown one iota of proof ! as usual your posts border on the idiotic !

Margie You wrote---"Look up `emptinesses` in a search engine and you`ll be surprised at the response. By the way, you spell it `emptiness` and not `emptyness`. Just a little culture for you: as much as you can absorb." Margie, the following words do not exist in "Cultured and intelligent discussion" Willingnesses,Friendlinesses,hopefulnesses,crazinesses, oh and "Emptinesses". Next time, use a credible source,ie oxford or even Merriam-Webster, and not what you found in some "blog". Is it any wonder your contribution to this site is so full of "emptinesses". Regards

Margie has not, and neither have I for that matter have condemned or made a pronouncement over here. You're drawing a line in the sand here for some reason despite frequent requests to dialogue. I don't accept being put in the position of needing to defend a position that I haven't taken. I'd rather you contact her and look to moving forward instead. margieintelaviv@yahoo.co.uk

Big-OT in Belfast wrote---"the documentary evidence was not obtained in the usa so that rule does not apply, the prosecution is alleging that the offence took place in gaza or similar territory , so any evidence from gaza is admissible". 1, Can you elaborate,"In Gaza Or Similiar Territory". 2 ,Can you provide legal precedence for your claims. BTW, The 1922 Palestine mandate does not qualify. That did not create a "Jewish State" and was never intended to. Slan agut.

"Codemning a charity because some of the money may have been distributed by Hamas or Hezbellah is in my view "barking up the wrong tree"." Fortunately the United States thinks otherwise. If you know of any other charities in the US that funnel funds to any Islamic terrorist groups, please make sure to list them.

Peter, The Bush Admin has created a huge hysteria since 9-11. Enough to start a war in Iraq that has cost countless lives and wasted lots of US dollars. Sami Al Arian is a good example of the hysteria. He is still in jail even though he was innocent on the charges leveled against him. Codemning a charity because some of the money may have been distributed by Hamas or Hezbellah is in my view "barking up the wrong tree".

This issue is certainly a constitutional one in the form of the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment, which is an expression of the common law hearsay rule as developed after the sir walter Raleigh case. For those who are interested, simply search the net for federal rules of evidence. There you will find the rules applicable to this instance, particularly rule 104, 801 et seq. and 901 et seq. Generally, documents taken from an accused?s residence can be authenticated by the seizing agent (chain of custody for fungible items is important). If a document can be authenticated by the agent, objections generally affect only the weight of the evidence, not the admissibility. In this instance, the article implies that secret agents will be allowed to testify. Without more, I can only assume that the secret agents will not be identified and thus not cross examined. the issue is that the authenticating agent is not available for cross examination.

You're barking up the wrong tree in your statements here, on the one hand assuming innocence until proven guilty while on the other hand attributing guilt by association. As a product of your American roots you should be aware that while Margie's South African origins can be used by you to demonize her, the callous disregard for her individuality is what you're expressing instead. Have the courts not ruled against some Arab charities for having links to terrorism? Has the USA not cut off funding to Arab terrorist groups? You know they have and this just another case. I don't see where Margie has accused anybody of anything, yet you are putting her in the position of defending herself for some reason. Pick your battles, she is one you should contact, I gave you the address yesterday and hope you have contacted her.

"However, if I was an African American, I might not agree." - Ibrahim What if your name were Marion Barry or OJ Simpson?

"The rules of evidence do not allow accepting IDF material as genuine on their say so." - Tosefta So it is. Tell me Tosefta, do you suspect that the right would be so hostile to the rules of evidence if the trial were for the murder of Arlosoroff?

You make sweeping accusations about Israelis which would have you breaking out in hives and screaming racism if the same accusations had been made about Arabs. Palestinians who would give up their lives tomorrow to blow me and my family to smithereens are not innocent. They're murderers. They just haven't had the chance to carry out their disgusting crime yet and the 'occupation' is stopping them from doing it.

"Maybe some are stealth Constitutionalists?" - Mark of Lewiston I hope so. Seems lots of folks have trouble with the idea that 'evidence' has to have an unbroken chain of possession available to confirm that it is what it is purported to be. The Judge doesn't.

The al-Arian is full of misinformation on all sides. The government charged things it could not prove in court. But had some evidence that made the jury uncertain. The jury found him not guilty on many counts and was unable to agree one way or the other on the other counts. A retrial on the undecided counts was in the offing. Rather than go to the retrial, al-Arian admitted some guilt in a plea deal, and was sentenced accordingly. That sentence has been served. The government then ordered him to give evidence they think he has in an unrelated case and he refused. He may be standing on principle or he may have no information or he may be unwiling to say what the government wants him to say or. . . Nobody really knows. He is currently being held for not talking.

Ibrahim all people are considered innocent until proven guilty unless they are being tried in France where you are considered guilty until proven innocent. I find that you are very callous towards my feelings and judge me unfairly.

Even if they get acquitted the US government/senor Gonzales will find a way to ruin their lives. Check out Sami Al-Aryan: http://www.freesamialarian.com/home.htm I saw a documentary on his case(made by a norwegian i think). I don`t remember the details. But the case was based on guilt by asociation. Even after he was acquitted, the government found a way to keep him in jail. I think he is still in jail. As for the US justice system I find it severly lacking. The fact that you have to pay for your own defence, or settle with an overworked public appointed retard, means justice is for those with money. Also the fact that the US has private prisons which makes money from crime is rather farsical.

The US Judge was correct in excluding evidence obtained by the IDF, as it has been proven time and time again to be unwilling and incapable of telling the truth about anything. As the armed thugs of Israel's illegal, immoral and unethical occupation of Palestinian lands, nothing obtained by the IDF can not be believed, nor should be allowed given the criminal nature of how they were obtained in the first place. The true terrorists are the IDF itself, and the World should begin arresting and prosecuting IDF members and leaders for its many war crimes, crimes against humanity and acts of terrorism that it has used to suppress the political and human rights of millions of innocent Palestinians. Once again, Israel is calling the pot black.

You do realize, don't you, that FBI agents are also testifying against the accused, don't you?

"The US judge did absolutely the right thing by declaring IDF testimony as inadmissible, just as he would have of an underage and/or an immature witness or a `professional` witness." - Tbora I don't know where you take this "news" from. The inadmissible evidence are some documents, undated or unsigned, and therefore suspicious on their face. The judge allows testimony by Shin Bet people (Israeli Internal Security). As in every trial, the jury hears all witnesses, the defense tries to discredit them, and the jury has to decide. Nothing special here, and nobody is considered a habitual liar. Note that the documentary evidence will not be claimed as having been in one agent's hand at all time. The IDF seized it, and the Shin Bet received. A number of people were involved.

In addition testimony by an Israeli agent has been allowed. Just to clarify for those who seem to think otherwise.

acting as an expert witness on the IDF without the benefit of even being sworn in or, to tell the unvarnished truth without having even met a single member of the IDF. That's what the media will do for you. He expects to be believed too and those who were already convinced will swallow it with relish. The rest of us will just, rightly, mutter 'prick' and continue reading.

Let's see. Israel stole our atomic secrets and sold them to the USSR (traitor Jonathon Pollard, may he die in jail), attacked US military vessels (USS Liberty), fed us bogus intelligence on Iraq, sold top-secret US military technology to Communist China...No, Israel would never fabricate evidence. No way! Israel is a pure as the driven snow! Using Israeli evidence shows who's really calling the shots in this trial, and it ain't the USA. But Israel lost in Sami al-Arian trial. Hopefully, it will lose again here. This entire trial is nothing but Bush doing Israel's bidding.

Well obviously the judge doesn't think so.

Mark, I agree our system in the US ( a jury of your peers) is in general, very fair. However, if I was an African American, I might not agree. The same goes for Israeli courts. They are culturally inclined to presume an Arab guilty. As far as I know, they don't have a jury system there. And frankly, accepting evidence from an organization like the IDF, is simply put, not very sound judgement.

Margie, In general, I do see a certain callousness in your posts. You are more concerned with defending Israel than finding the truth and seeing the point of view of the other side. Perhaps it comes from your South African background, I am not sure, but to make this statement that not all Arab Americans are innocent, I am sorry, goes against my general belief that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Maybe I am a product of my American roots...but to this day, there not a documented case of an Arab American being involved in anti-Occupation violence.

"The US judge did absolutely the right thing by declaring IDF testimony as inadmissible," Except he didn't. He declared SOME, not ALL evidence inadmissible.

'Tell it to the US marines' is the standard response when a lie is being told, for the marines will believe anything and everything they are told. The IDF not only will believe anything that is put into its ears but will spew forth from its oral orifice anything it is asked or required to----IDF in all this is one better on the US Marines. The US judge did absolutely the right thing by declaring IDF testimony as inadmissible, just as he would have of an underage and/or an immature witness or a 'professional' witness.

YOU CANNOT APPLY US LEGISLATION TO AFOREIGN COUNTRY !! THEREFORE NO CAN PLEAD THAT THE MATERIAL WAS OBTAINED WITHOUT ASEARCH WARRANT ! ITS WHOLLY IRRELEVANT ! FURTHER THE CHARGE IS THAT THE DEFENDANTS LAUNDERED MONEY FOR ATERRORIST ORGANISATION SITUATE IN ISRAEL !

His honor Fish is not related to me.

I think the video, in the defendent's own voice, clearly establishes the mindset of a defendent who supports Hamas, and the murder of Jews. As you say, guilt or innocence is all up to the jury.

Tosefta interesting comment: "Israel is an interested party and not an innocent witness, and the possibility exists that some evidence it provides will be manufactured. Nothing special." That's precisely the opinion many of us have of the sort of proof you offer to support your imaginary enchanted forest: much of it is the flimsiest of evidence gathered together and spun into a judge's wig and robe.

No individual juror is perfect. No jury is perfect. But the system works pretty well. The record of convictions based on IDF evidence and Shin Bet evidence is mixed. Just because the jury hears it or sees it does not make it instantly credible. OJ got off because Fuhrman and his partner destroyed the credibility of the government's case. Look at the cases of al Hussayen (Idaho), al-Arian (Florida) and Saleh (Chicago). Two of these were Hamas support cases and neither had a jury finding of guilty.

The rules of evidence do not allow accepting IDF material as genuine on their say so. Israel is an interested party and not an innocent witness, and the possibility exists that some evidence it provides will be manufactured. Nothing special.

"Secret" Israeli agents who are gicving testimony in this trial are still " Identitifed " in court. Meaning that the accused does not know who the accuser is. I am glad that the judge upheld the inadmissability of some evidence that the Israelis presented due to sloppy " chain of custody" issues . Watch and see that the defendents in this case will be convicted on a " secret" evidence which is allowed under the federal court rules under this Bush regime. We , Americans , are all violated if the rights of any defendant under such rules is violated.

That would depend on the entire body of evidence for me. What matters is what the jury believes after hearing all the evidence. I sat on the jury on one case where a policeman lied for the government and then the defense introduced facts that the government would have been barred from introducing. In that case, the defendent also took the stand and lied. The defendent was found guilty of only one of the two charges in the case. Collectively, juries get it right more often than not. Juries aren't perfect, as the Innocence projects show. But they are the best thing we've found so far.

get it nitwit !! the documentary evidence was not obtained in the usa so that rule does not apply, the prosecution is alleging that the offence took place in gaza or similar territory , so any evidence from gaza is admissible!!

Hi Lynn, My response to Gerald traced the history of Common and Constitutional Law from Magna Carta to the US Constitution to the Canadian Constitution. The basic Rules of Evidence, from provenance to Miranda, to Mapp, to Gideon are all part of this body of law. These cases and rules are also part of every basic ConLaw course.

Go the the counterterrorism blog. Just Google.

of an Israeli agent. Where have you been?

"Any evidence from the IDF is therefore tainted." And yet the American judge has ruled some of the IDF evidence admissible, as well as the testimony from an Israeli agent.

Just because the judge allows the jury to see or hear something does not make it a fact in the US system. Juries determine the facts based on what they see and hear and what they believe after seeing and hearing what both the government shows them and what the defense shows them. It's not a perfect system, but it works pretty well. The government invariably also charges more than they can prove. Sometimes government witnesses lie, sometimes defense witnesses lie. The jury's job is to sort it out.

This actually has been a pretty narrow ruling. Only a limited amount of the evidence has been barred. What will be key is whether or not the jury believes the testimony of the IDF and whether the financial records are credible and actually show what the government says they show. This isn't the first case and won't be the last where the Bush Justice Department has tried cases using the IDF or Shin Bet agents in disguise under admitted false IDs. The record is mixed, but does not favor the government here. One of the lawyers for the Defense is Linda Moreno, who got Sami al-Arian a hung jury last year. In the recent Chicago case, the jury just didn't believe Shin Bet and acquitted.

Your father's case sounds very unfair and should be taken to court. I made a general statement and you immediately turned it into a specific incident about your father that I have no knowledge of. What I said is that you can't say that every Arab American is innocent and I can't say that every Israeli is innocent. Each case needs to be investigated on it's own merits. You're an intelligent person but in your answer to me you're turning the whole thing into 'I said' 'you said'. Read carefully what I say and don't get into a temper without seeing that I'm agreeing with you in general but when you imply that I'm callous you're misreading & insulting me.

"Proscecutors still have to prove their cases using admissable evidence." So what do you think of the admissible evidence of the video where on tape Mufid Abdul Qata states that he is Hamas and that he wishes to kill Jews?

Your opinions are not evidence either. Your "facts" are irrelavent in the case.

Ruled Admissible is a video where Mufid Abdul Qata makes the statement, "I am Hamas and I'm going to kill Jews"?

As I said, (a) the same rules of evidence prevail here and elsewhere, but (b) they are not in our constitutions. That proves logically that they cannot and so do not arise from any constitution. I accept that this part of your constitution - or this interpretation of it - arises from, originally, the evidentiary rules of the common law, as you say. But that is the exact converse of saying, which some American posters say, that those rules of evidence arise from the constitution. "A caused B" and "B caused A" are not exactly the same. It is just sad to see the usual "everything good in the world comes from something in America" thinking. Read the House of Lords decision in the torture-evidence case a while back and tell me if you have seen anything as enlightened from the US Supreme Court in the last three decades.

I practise humility. Jesus teaches us about the evil of pride...So you go on being proud as much as you like (and inhospitable as well). I want nothing more than to see a Palestinian State living side by side with Israel. Peace and Justice for both peoples. I stand by my notion that the IDF can't be considered an objective source of evidence. Similarly, Mark Furhman could not be considered as an objective detective in the O.J. case after tapes emerged showing him using the "N" word repeatedly. The U.S. is a country of laws and we live on the assumption of innocence. The IDF lives on the assumption of guilt.

So of course any evidence seized in an IDF raid should be inadmissible. The IDF deliberately murders far more civilians than Hamas. It is a horrific murderous organisation. Like Hamas the IDF pretends that murdering civilians is justifiable.

Margie, Please, you are the first to accuse Arab Americans of violence against Israel. Sorry to inform you, my 80 year old father has never had anything to do with violence of any kind. Yet, he was informed by Israel that he could not return for 1 year (even though he doesn't go to Israel, he only stays in Palestinian areas). Now, I understand you very callous towards the suffering of Palestinians, and doesn't mean much to you that Israel is denying people entry to visit loved ones in Palestinian areas. But, at the very least, if you are going to accuse Arab Americans of committing violence against, can't you at the very least, bring me 1 documented case? Just 1? I don't lump all the IDF into one group...I understand many are doing their job and don't like it...however, Israeli policy is very clear: isolate, impoverish, humilliate the Palestinians as much as possible.

But the terrorist holy land charity is going down with some of its henchmen.

Will you still congratulate the American judge when he convicts these criminal terrorists? If he thought there was no case he would have thrown it out of court long ago. These tribal Arab terrorists owe no loyalty to the USA and you owe no loyalty to Canada. It's all Arab pride, shame and humiliation to you. You should come to the Middle East and learn to be quiet and behave like a real woman here.

the admission or non-admission of your family has absolutely nothing to do with this trial or any evidence submitted during this trial. When in Rome........

the judge also stated that US search and seizure laws do not apply to other countries. which is why some of the evidence was admissible.

I think you're doing what you accuse us of doing. To you all the IDF is a single construct: a sort of cardboard cut out figure - a demon if you like - and you talk of the whole army and everyone in it as if it were that demon. Do you really think that? Some of the evidence was thrown out because of US rules of evidence, but the article goes on to say that some was still retained. But nobody bothered to read that. Can you really talk for EVERY Arab in the USA and say that they are all innocent of violence against Israelis?

see reality. Having no respect to the Jewish people and its state of Israel, he continues to exhibit is arrognat attitude towards individual Jews. Perhaps he can be his writings and post them at the Arab Free Press, either the North or South Poles departments.

FEDERAL Court. Civil Court is quite different.

Thank you. Before I read your post, I made the same comment to Mark of Lewiston. BTW, yours is the only post which makes any sense.

All evidence is subject to judicial scrutiny. Some stays in, some goes out. I would like to remind you that the rules of Law are not based upon the Constitution but on English Law.

You seem to have more problems with terrorists then the US does. Latest were Dr.'s bombings.

These rules or evidence ARE a constitutional matter, and have a long, respected history from the English Common Law which formed the original basis of all U.S. (and Israeli) law. Without them, one has no litigatory protection against false or distorted statements.

Do you honestly believe IDF edvidence can come with any sort of objectivity? Do you realize since Hamas was elected in Parlimentary elections, Israel has been barring Arab Americans, Christians and Muslims alike, from entering the West Bank or Gaza either thru Tel Aviv or the Allenby bridge. Even though, there has not been a single documented case of an Arab American being involved in violence against the occupation. My own elderly parents were harrassed at the border and my ailing uncle in Ramallah was left without care. Israel is on a crusade to stifle the Palestinian economy and society. Any evidence from the IDF is therefore tainted.

"exactly how can the judge who has no knowledge of arabic decide that the documents are false?" I can't believe someone would really make such a silly argument! Do you think American interrogators at Guantanamo have any knowledge of arabic? Have you heard of interpretors, Mr hardman??? The law says that if evidence was obtained without a legal search warrant then the evidence is INADMISSIBLE! That's the law, get it?

exactly how can the judge who has no knowledge of arabic decide that the documents are false? further would a forger forget to date and sign his documenmts ? i am sure that if the prosecution appeal his decision the documents will be restored as evidence !! your usual anti semitic stance is pure libel !!

Otherwise Israel would fabricate evidence in all sorts of court cases to get it's own way. For instance the appeals currently being made to get arms export licences from the UK which have been refused.

Lets not forget the Islamic Muslim Koran reading folks who crashed 4 jets into buildings. This is Muslim mendacity...murdering Americans in the name of a "prophet" and then trying to use that American justice system to spread their poison. Filty.

If the judge in this case were to accept the testimony of a bought-and-paid-for zionist agent, it would be grounds for a retrial for the defendent. Everyone knows that these zionist agents, IDF in this case, will do and say whatever for tribal interests. It is seldom that I congratulate an American judge, but in this case, he was correct to throw out the IDF testimony.

...Israel Defense Forces soldiers during raids of Palestinian organizations... Why should a civilian court of justice considers evidences that was being seized by soldiers from other country illegally? Except, of course, this was a political matter.

I see that several people have answered a non-existent post. What is this? Are posted message deleted as an afterthought? Is this a new Ha'aretz policy? This is not the first time this has happened, and it is somewhat disconcerting.

Duh!

Why not inviting the KGB to a truth-finding comitee?

It's only some of the evidence that was blocked for lack of provenance. I wouldn't go dancing on the rooftops and handing out sweets just yet.

...why would one believe anything they say if there remains even a shred of doubt about their evidence?

'The defendants are charged with aiding a terrorist group, conspiracy and money laundering. They could be sentenced to life in prison if found guilty and if deaths resulted from their actions.' I wonder what the penalty is for supporting the more extremist pro-Israel groups? What's the possible sentence for giving funds to Kach?

Don't be so parochial. Much as I - unlike the majority of Americans and the vast majority of American politicians - love and admire the US constitution, this is not a result of that constitution. The same result would be reached in England, where there is no constitution as Americans use that term, and in Canada, which now has a constitution but whose constitution is quite unlike America's. The legal principle that compelled this result is a product of (universal) clear thinking and a lack of bias, not a product of the American constitution. Not that I know what actually motivated this Judge. His rulings to date, as reported in the US press that i read, seem manifestly designed to ensure that the defendants have no chance of a fair shake.

The Constitution protects even you Foxie. If you throw out the rule book now for these defendents, where is the need for a rule book if you or somebody you care about needs it? As the Innocence projects have shown, the rules matter.

Despite Gonzales and everybody else, it looks like not all federal judges have become loyal Bushies. Maybe not even all the proscecutors. Maybe some are stealth Constitutionalists?

Despite the best efforts of the current administration, guilt does not attach by association. Proscecutors still have to prove their cases using admissable evidence. This is an ongoing case that may surprise many people before it is over. The proscecution tries to push the envelope. We'll see how much the jury buys.

People who do not understand terrorism confuse a Jew defending himself with an Arab committing murder. Such people will only understand when the saif is to their own necks. Such people will experience exactly that and no one will miss them, or the lies they told about us.

Too bad terrorists do not always sign or date their work. Take it as it comes, judge it as it is. Block it and you commit a lie by omission.

Provenance is the ability to trace a chain of ownership or responsibility. There is no evidence that the evidence was not manufactured.