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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bela_ghoulashi who wrote (12819)	12/5/2001 2:45:23 AM
From: Neeka	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I have asked the same question and haven't been given the courtesy of a reply. I truly don't get the paranoia thing? What ARE they afraid of? I think there is no answer or I would have heard it by now. My opinion! No one in America has the power to abort the Constitution of the US. Abuse, maybe. Destroy(?)never. M

To: bela_ghoulashi who wrote (12819)	12/5/2001 12:29:26 PM
From: oconnellc	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

This isn't probably exactly true. The caller really meant to say "I'm not sure", which is true. People are making the mistake of assuming that since something has been done once, it is legal and therefore ok to do again. Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution says "The Trial of all Crimes, except Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury". Hmmm... Nothing about Tribunals there. The 5th Amendment says "No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces". Curious, sounds like they are talking about Military Tribunals. Guess what? They got that name because they are used for members of our military, not for people who we don't like a lot. My guess is that people we don't like a lot fall under the 'infamous crime' thing. Also, I want to inject something here. It specifically says 'No Person', it doesn't use the phrasing 'the people' like it frequently does to refer to 'the people of the United States of America'. This also sounds like our Constitution goes out of the way to make sure that our courts are applied to everyone, not just American citizens. So, back to the original point. This guy doesn't know what he can't do yet. He does know that the Constitution is getting trampled on for expediency sake and he is smart enough to know that this is a bad thing. He doesn't know what he can't do until some stormtrooper grabs him, or searches him or detains him for doing something that our Chief Executive has decided he can't do (your homework is to look up Article 1, Section 1. Just because George W says something doesn't make it so...). What I'm getting at is that our government should always (during times of crises it is even more critical then not) be held accountable and be forced to show why they can legally do what they are trying to do (remember, just because someone has done something illegal in the past, doesn't mean that it becomes legal the second time). Why are we so afraid that if we attempt to try a terrorist in a criminal court (I assume people mean our criminal courts when they are saying civil courts. It is pathetically easy to find against someone in a civil court. Criminal courts at least require proof beyond a reasonable doubt)? If our allies don't like our court system, maybe we should find new allies, ones that don't require us to put our own citizens at risk. Chris