Gary Nunn wrote:
>
> 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?
Without thinking too long or too hard about it, I'll say:
Sure.
But if they had any sense whatsoever, they'd ask to be kept in
protective custody for the rest of their natural lives. If they were
merely released, they'd be alive for less than a week. Probably less
than a day. Heck, probably less than an *hour*.
Flame away at me if you like, but I think I'm being realistic here. The
reality of what will probably happen if they are released makes me not
want to argue that they shouldn't be released.
Julia
