Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
As for your need to explain the benefits of the 4th Amendment, given your opposition to the Exclusionary Rule and your lack of a reasonable alternative to enforcement of the 4th Amendment, I think the question is a rasonable one.
|
1) We are the only western nation that employs the exclusionary rule. If you believe that our country is the only country that effectively protects individual rights (and effectively protects our citizens from unreasonable searches) then you could take this position. But if you don't, then clearly there are other nations that use other methods besides the exclusioniary rule to effectively protect their citizens from an over intrusive government. In my opinion the exclusionary rule does not do a good job of protecting us. It penalizes the wrong people (the victim of another crime instead of the perpetraitor of the crime in question) so it is not an effective tool.
2) So during a war, do you think our troops need to get a warrant before they search a house in a war zone? Should the NSA get a warrant before it monitors communications in Pakistan? Do you think that the CIA should be given the power to deal with counter-espionage in the United States (instead of the FBI) like the KGB had in the Soviet Union. If the constitution applies to all humans anywhere on the globe, why would you need two different organizations to deal with domestic intelligence and foreign intelligence? The answer to these questions are so obvious, I can't even believe that I have to bring it up, especially among a bunch of lawyers.
