Quote:

the G-man said:
Quote:

To summarize: it looks like evidence obtained from wiretapping without a warrant or judicial approval may not hold up in court. This could lead the acquittal of terrorists who are brought to trial because their lawyers can claim that the evidence against them was improperly gathered, and they can be set loose to strike again.




First off, there is a great deal of suppostion in both their analysis and your summary: "looks like," "may not," "could lead to", etc.



Of course there's supposition, because this isn't absolutely guaranteed to happen. This article is presenting a possible scenario to consider and presenting it as a possibility instead of as a certifiable fact. I am doing the same, because it would be wrong to claim this is 100% certain to happen.

This is what some people do during debates - consider "what if" scenarios, regardless of their likelihood to happen.

Quote:

But more importantly, sometimes, the question isn't "do we win a court case", it's "do we stop these people before they maim or kill someone."



Right...and hypothetically speaking, if a terrorist who is brought to trial is acquitted and gets off because his lawyer, isn't it possible that he might take advantage of his acquital to plot another attack? If that terrorist is convicted because proper procedure was followed, we can keep that terrorist behind bars and keep him there so that he won't strike again.

Besides, why do we have to choose between obeying the rules or following proper procedure, and protecting American lives? Why can't we figure out a way to do both instead of stalemating over "either-or" scenarios?

Quote:

It's the "WAR on Terror," not the "lawsuit against terror."



Wow...nice way to twist and distort my comments.

I wasn't talking lawsuits, genius, and screw you for manipulating my comments to claim that I was. I was talking criminal court. We arrest people who not only commit crimes, but also attempt to do so (attempted murder is a crime, is it not?) And again, if we convict a terrorist who plots to commit such a crime, we keep them behind bars where they can't do any harm. If, however, the legal analysts' hypotheses are indeed correct and a case against a suspected terrorist falls apart because a wiretap without a judge's approval is considered grounds for dismissal, then said terrorist would most likely be free to go and plot and maybe even commit more terrorist activity.

We could have had a reasonable debate on this if you hadn't decided to toss in that last comment, which I found to be belittling, manipulative, and in all honesty, idiotic. If you want to debate with me, debate with me about what I actually say, not about your manipulations of what I say.

Last edited by Darknight613; 2005-12-22 5:46 AM.
"Well when I talk to people I don't have to worry about spelling." - wannabuyamonkey "If Schumacher’s last effort was the final nail in the coffin then Year One would’ve been the crazy guy who stormed the graveyard, dug up the coffin and put a bullet through the franchise’s corpse just to make sure." -- From a review of Darren Aronofsky & Frank Miller's "Batman: Year One" script