I have been kicking this question around in my head all week, but I didn't
post it as I simply have not been in the mood to be flamed or shredded - as
does tend to happen here.
Anyway, this spawned a rather heated and surprising debate at work today,
with many opinions exactly opposite of what I predicted they would be.
This question is aimed mainly at the "Preserve Civil Liberties At Any Cost"
crowd.
So here goes....
Suppose that the terrorist cell that was actually responsible for the WTC
attacks and the hijackings were caught. Also suppose that irrefutable
evidence was found with them to tie them to the attacks.
Now suppose that it was disclosed that the terrorists were under illegal
surveillance and the evidence collected without a warrant or proper
procedure.
Based on the US law and precedent, should the evidence be declared
inadmissible and the terrorists released? Should the same civil liberties
and protections cover the people that were responsible for killing 6000+
people and billions of dollars of property damage?
I thought that this was a stupid question at first, but it turned out to be
very thought provoking among my coworkers.
____________________________________________
Gary L. Nunn
Delaware Ohio
"...speak your mind - even if your voice shakes..."
- Maggie Kuhn
