Surely that makes sense, though? You've got a confidential source, like a wire or a snitch - you don't want to expose, so you create a reasonable second source of information.
Lets see, entrapment, illegal search and seizure, malicious/targeted prosecution, the right to face your accuser. Am I missing any of the big reasons why this doesn't make (philosophical) sense?
Sure, that maybe makes the trial slightly less fair, but lots of things do that.
Well, if lots of things already do that, then why does the government need yet another dirty trick to swing the advantage in their favor? As I recall, the system is supposed on the presumption that it is better to let the guilty walk free than it is to wrongfully convict someone. In fact, I thought that was pretty much one of
the liberal cornerstones seeing as how it falls under human rights and all.
Obviously, if the US system prohibits this then don't do it right now.
So if it is legal it is just. Is this what you are saying? I've heard that same argument from fundies when it comes to morality only they are using God for their basis of who decides what is right. You have simply substituted the state as your supreme being that all must bow down and accept as being the final decider without any thought or question.
But should US law do so? This seems like something reasonable people might disagree on.
No, I am afraid that
reasonable people won't find much to disagree on. The U.S. was doing just fine without this and would continue to do just fine without it. There is no credible new threat to society that can justify this intrusion and outright disregarding of the civil liberties. If you want to talk about how it is justified to use it to prevent terrorism, then there is reasonable something to discuss.
corruptissima re publica plurimae leges
-Tacitus
