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: Hawkmoon who wrote (13075)	12/7/2001 2:33:17 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

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