Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jttmab who wrote (8158)	12/4/2001 6:23:30 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

Historical allusion does not imply that a policy is bad. This is not the same as the Japanese- American internment camps. In most instances, aliens that have been detained have been released, unless they have a specific immigration problem. It is perfectly acceptable to allow enforcement agencies latitude in the questioning of even remote subjects who might provide leads, because, frankly, the stakes are that high. I understand that secrecy, at least in portions of trials, is of the essence, when intelligence assets and methods may be compromised. Perhaps not all trials will require secrecy. As for the hearsay, well, we have to assume that the tribunal will be in a position to weigh the credibility of the evidence. We tend to treat juries like children, assuming that their judgment will be tainted if something is "inflammatory" or "prejudicial", for example, even if pertinent. In this instance, the jury pool will be exceptionally qualified. By the way, since we are not in a position to offer lifetime security to jury members, why would we empanel a group of civilians who, in open court, could be easily identified and targeted by the terrorists? Do you think that would affect the quality of their deliberations, especially if a well- publicized instance of retaliation had occurred?