Quote:
|
Originally Posted by stevo
So I got one (1) response saying "yes, it was unconstitutional and he should be freed" and everyone else danced around the question. So lets try again. Should the admitted terrorist that admitted to plotting with al-qaeda to BLOW UP the brooklyn bridge be freed because the survaillance used to gather information on him was 'unconstitutional'??
|
To get somewhat back on track, and this is gonna surprise you guys, but I'm going to answer this with a very firm "I don't know"
I haven't had time to study this case enough, but i can tell you what I think based on what the facts are:
Did he confess after being faced with the evidence gathered through the surveillance?
If so, then yes, in order to preserve our constitution, he should be released. If we keep him in jail we've effectively killed the constitution, because we are admitting that it can be flaunted any time we want. Stripping the constitution of power would kill it. We may as well pack up and ask England to take over again.
If, however, he confessed when he was caught and before they told him about the surveilance, then keep him in jail. He independently confessed to the crime, and we don't even have to use the surveillance evidence.
However, find the guys that put him under surveillance, and the guys that gave the order, and put THEM in jail for flagrant abuse of power and violation of constitutional rights. Actually we should do that whether the terrorist stays in jail or not.