Timothy McVeigh has paid for his monstrous crime. While his execution can never atone for the suffering of the victims and their families, society has held him accountable. Now, we Americans need to ask, will our premier law enforcement agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, be held equally accountable for its irresponsible behavior in this case?

We may not have much sympathy for Timothy McVeigh. But, what if you or I, or one of our children, were accused of, let's say, espionage, a crime bearing the death penalty? What if the FBI withheld files that would prove our innocence? Maybe they wouldn't be so lucky as to find them just before the penalty was carried out, but only after an innocent person had died.

It's not any individual who is now on trial; it is our system of justice. It is our top law enforcement agency, the FBI. That the FBI could behave in such a callous manner when someone's life was at stake ought to frighten all of us. Because, if the FBI could withhold evidence in Timothy McVeigh's trial, they could do the same to any one of us, anywhere, anytime, for any reason whatsoever.

We Americans have every right to expect that our law enforcement agencies will, themselves, obey the law. And, in most cases, they are highly professional, courteous, courageous and fair. In this case, however, the FBI, for whatever reason-indifference, incompetence, arrogance-simply didn't obey the law it is sworn to defend. The FBI is not alone. Remember how, recently, the Los Angeles police framed innocent people in a number of drug cases.

It's not that these accused people are wonderful citizens. Most of them have been in trouble with the law before. But, in our country, you can only be convicted of a crime you committed, not one which the cops wish you had committed. There must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Framing someone is not only blatantly illegal, but a threat to our system of justice. It is a threat to the rights, freedom and safety of every one of us.

In the O.J. Simpson trial, as Alan Dershowitz has pointed out, a pair of bloody socks presented as evidence clearly had been doctored. In addition, the defense successfully attacked the credibility of a key detective in the case. Even jurors who believed Simpson was guilty had trouble voting to convict a man when they believed the police themselves had violated his rights in defiance of the law.

Years ago, the Miranda decision required police to advise us of our rights when we are arrested. A whole network of laws limits police power, from illegal searches to abuse of prisoners. Our system of justice is based on the theory of innocence until you are proven guilty, on the right to a speedy and fair trial and the right to be judged by one's peers. It works well if everyone, including law enforcement agencies, obeys those laws.

We criticize China and other countries for not respecting human rights. In China, as in many countries, once arrested, you could reasonably expect the police to manufacture evidence, to torture you into a confession or to withhold documents that would prove your innocence. Fortunately, we are not China. Fortunately, we have a system of justice that is designed to protect the innocent. What we do not always have, it seems, is a law enforcement structure that follows the laws it swears to uphold and defend.

Our law enforcement agencies must always respect the law and the Constitution. Whether it's free speech or protecting the rights of the innocent or ensuring the safety of someone in their custody, these are essential protections in a democracy. That the nation's top law enforcement agency ruthlessly ignored its responsibility in the Oklahoma bombing trials should be an outrage to all of us. And it should frighten all of us. If they could do this in one case, they could do it to any of us. The FBI needs to be held accountable.