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: Neocon who wrote (8163)	12/4/2001 7:00:44 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

Historical allusion does not imply that a policy is bad. Of course not. It doesn't imply that it's good either. But we should look at the possibilities with some skepticism as to their real value and the impact that may result. Both in espionage and drug related cases there have been accomodations made for the protection of intelligence related information. There have been accommodations made in drug related cases to protect both judges and juries. Witnesseses have been protected. Perhaps not all trials will require secrecy. I think this is one of the changes that has occurred as a result of some complaints from the Senate Judiciary. In this instance, the jury pool will be exceptionally qualified. There's no way for you to know that. That's hopefull supposition. It's something that we all would like to believe, but I would have found it hard to believe that the head of the homicide division in Chicago would have used torture to exact confessions. We tend to treat juries like children, assuming that their judgment will be tainted if something is "inflammatory" or "prejudicial", for example Children or human beings? I think defense attorneys have claimed that the more violent the crime is that the more likely the prosecution will get a conviction regardless of the evidence. Show lots of blood and gore and the jury wants to convict whoever it is that sits in the defendent's seat. I've said this earlier but perhaps not in a post to you. I don't have a fundamental problem with military tribunals. It's the rules that I care about. It's important that the set of rules that we establish are the same rules that we ask of other countries. jttmab