David Buchanan wrote:
> David L: I agree with your distinctions. I can see the point about
> perjury, but illegal and unethical behavior was required to produce that
> perjury. There was Tripp's tape, there was co-ordination between Starr's
> office and Jones' lawyers and with members of the House, there was the
> large number of dollars and people spent in the pursuit of some reason,
> any reason, to prosecute the President.
DL writes: Ahhhhh.....wonderful point. Was the impeachment process
moral if illegal means were used to gather evidence against Clinton.
A quick thought - entrapment. If a cop comes up to me and offers to
sell me drugs, is this moral? If I buy the drugs (break the law) is
that immoral? (There's a saying....."You can lead a horse to water,
but you can't make him drink") On one hand, regardless of HOW the
evidence was gathered, he still deceived the public. So, it seems
you've added a third moral issue - that of the tactics/means used to
gather evidence. Does it change the moral question of deceiving the
public?
Shalom
David Lind
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
