Well, simple guy, let me try at least one more time, then I'll give up.
I figure that since we're at war, I would treat any US citizen providing aid and comfort to the enemy as a traitor (eg: John Walker), trying them on charges of treason and/or spying.
I have no problems with that way of stating the problem. I'm not certain just what category Walker falls into but bringing charges, etc. is not a problem for me. It's two things. Which locations in the justice system decide whether a given case belongs in a military tribunal or in a regular court of law. For the moment, that's not a judicial act; rather some place like the attorney general. The second problem is the procedures for such trials. As I understand it, two-thirds of those members of the jury present and voting are all that's needed for a guilty verdict. You could, hypothetically, have less than a majority, as a result, voting guilty.
Hawk, I think part of your problem is that you think I'm opposed to all forms of judicial punishment in these cases. Or that opposition to Ashcroft's version of a system is tantamount to opposition to any form. Not so, at least not in my case.
Your turn,
John |
