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?
>
> I thought that this was a stupid question at first, but it turned out to be
> very thought provoking among my coworkers.
> ____________________________________________
>
Personally, I don't believe that pertinent evidence should
ever be withheld with the caveat that those caught
collecting evidence in an illegal manner should be severely
punished - including minimum mandatory jail terms and
permanent banishment from law enforcement. I don't think a
criminal should ever go free because of a bungled
investigation or an incompetent DA.
But of course, that's not how the system works. It doesn't
matter what I or millions of others may think. If a court
deems that evidence is inadmissible, and that decision is
upheld on appeal, nobody's personal opinion matters. If we
don't like it we can change the law.
In the case of a national emergency, the President has
sweeping powers as was illustrated during the Civil War, but
although we may be on the brink of such a declaration -
further acts of terrorism may push us over the edge - I
don't think we are there yet.
--
Doug
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.zo.com/~brighto
