Quote:
Originally Posted by Dowaco
In the balance is the death of possibly millions of innocents and the destruction of an entire city. Replace the atomic bomb with a packet of anthrax spores, still too scary? Replace the anthrax with a computer disk holding an internet virus that would bring banking to a halt. Where do you draw the line on what is too scary to allow this person to go free on bail or to even let him talk to another person unsupervised?
|
While I see your point - it is an extremely sticky subject..
My position is:
While theres a 'possibility' of saving millions of lives by illegally detaining and torture..
To start adding exceptions to our constitution without amendment - is NOT a possibility - but certainly, affects the freedoms of millions, potentially billions.
So on one hand we have 'possibility' on the other, we have 'certainty'...
Morally - I have no problems with illegal detaining / torture - but its the legal ramifications that scares me most. So I side with the constitution.
edit:
The question starts becoming - whats worse - potential mass genocide - or potential mass human 'enslavement'. And thats prolly something that could go on debated for ages.
additional edit:
By letting one free - doesnt mean law enforcement needs to 'stop investigation, surveillance of the suspect etc.. BUT, by letting them free , *could* lead to new clues/evidence - when we already know, such prisoners don't reveal too much pertinent info (sure, some maybe??) - thats also assuming they have such info... Which I also suspect, they do not. If I were a terrorist leader - I would not let all my minions know any details they do not need to know for this reason alone.