[BikerNYC]

Intelligence gathered through an emergency provision may not be admissible in court, but they don't have to be.

Unless the evidence was unconstitutionally (illegally) obtained, then why, as long as the evidence was otherwise relevant like any evidence has to be, would there be any problem with admitting it in court?

[Steel Wolf]

Unless the evidence was unconstitutionally (illegally) obtained, then why, as long as the evidence was otherwise relevant like any evidence has to be, would there be any problem with admitting it in court?

Intelligence collection isn't law enforcement. Say a Pakistan based Al Qaida facilitator calls someone in New York and passes the message 'I sent you the money by the normal way, continue with the preparations, and be careful'. The FBI would certainly want to know about that, and would submit a warrant through the FISA court to get the recipients phone tapped.

Now, suppose he had instead left the message 'Today is the day. Launch the attack, and kill as many infidels as you can'. The FBI would still want to know about it, but probably not so they could do long term electronic surveillance.

This program appears to exist to cover the gray area between intelligence collection and law enforcement. Trying to view it through only one lens won't give you the full picture.