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? > Such a simple question can cause so much noise?
Suppose you capture one terrorist - and you have no doubt that he is a terrorist, and that he is planning some evil action. Should the state torture him to extract information about the attack? Alberto Monteiro
