So, one has to break the law to participate in modern business? I have suspected that for a while now...

What does that have to do with US law? HP broke US law. They should be held to account for that. If your point is that HP couldn't do business in these countries without breaking US law, then perhaps HP shouldn't do business in these countries. However, from what I read, they broke the laws of these other countries as well. So it seems that this is not simply how business is conducted. I understand that you can't get a building built on Staten Island without the okay from the local boss. But that doesn't make it right, and it doesn't mean we should just accept it as business as usual.

Kind of makes Fredrated's point, eh?

No, it would not. Others would take their place. And if enough were killed it would bring the power of the state down on you.

Of course, one of the purposes of a corporation is to limit liability. That way, if you start a business and fail, the creditors can't come after you personally. This is often seen as a good thing, encouraging risk taking without the fear of personal ruin. I might generally agree with that. But we are now seeing this limit on liability being used to shield decision-makers from the consequences of their decisions. This is especially true if the company is politically connected. What large company isn't these days? I'm starting to think the best way to commit crime is to start a corporation and have the "company" do it.

Yes, I do see the difference. I think the exclusionary rule is important for keeping the state and its law enforcement honest. As you acknowledged in your original post, it's hard to get the cops to go after other cops. So keeping their ill-gotten evidence, even if it is factual, out of the courtroom helps to keep them on the up and up. Letting them use such evidence places a value on their law-breaking. We're basically saying, "What you did was wrong, and you will be punished, but we'll still use what you got." That's why I said earlier that it sends a mixed message. It's like saying it's wrong to rob a bank, but we'll help you spend the money. See what I'm saying?

I know this is just a thought experiment, and that you understand that there are problems with having fruit of the poisoned tree allowed as evidence. I think that as this has played out we have seen why that is not a good idea. Law enforcement must play by the rules. And if they don't, their efforts should be in vain. The exclusionary principle exists for a very good reason. If I rob a bank, I should not get to keep the money as long as I do jail time. Likewise, if an officer of the law breaks the law to obtain evidence, they should not get to keep that evidence.

You never specified what illegal things the cops might do to obtain evidence against a person. I understood your position to be that if evidence is obtained illegally, it should still be admissible at trial. I think that is a really bad idea, so I came up with a scenario that seemed to fit your position (police obtaining evidence illegally) that would show it's absurdity. I think I accomplished that. Not everyone brought to trial is guilty. Evidence obtained illegally should absolutely not be admissible for the very reason that it was obtained illegally, regardless of the punishment to the officer.

I see. So you think if you are falsely accused of murder and the police beat a confession out of you anyway, that confession should still be allowed as evidence at your trial. Interesting.

So we should use the evidence but punish the person who obtained it. At least we won't be sending a mixed message.

All of them? Yeah, I know for sure that not all Muslims are terrorists.

It's pretty clear that we don't know who all of the hijackers were. A number seem to have used false or stolen passports (since those people have turned up alive). The FBI seems happy to stick with the story they've got though.

Isn't that the way it goes though? Those of us interested in the inner and hidden workings of the government will always be considered paranoid, because people still seem to assume that if some spokesperson says it's not true then it's not true.

I don't really understand why anyone trusts the CIA at all with anything anymore. I mean, they have lied so often for their own purposes. Talk about tinfoil hat, I still firmly believe the Company has agents stationed throughout the media to monitor and control the message. That kind of bullshit was supposed to have stopped after the Church committee hearings. But why should I believe that? Wouldn't the CIA just continue the program under a different name and just not tell anyone? How naive are we?

The CIA does what it wants. Stuff only comes out if they fuck up so badly they can't hide it, or when it's useful to someone's agenda. We get called tinfoil hatters, but end up being right a lot of the time.

How is this relevant to our actions? Do we judge our actions only against those of others, or do we have standards of our own that we should strive to uphold? It is indeed a mean world out there. I'd like to try to make it less that way, rather than contributing to the problem. It's only a mean world because people and nations, including our own, make it that way.

And if the Media did, how would they portray that person? Would they describe them as a legitimate revolutionary, or as a freedom-hating terrorist? Besides, who knows what would happen after we started shooting politicians? I'm not sure it' a good idea.