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 : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (21281)	12/17/2001 2:54:45 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

Hi KLP; Great article. -- Carl

To: KLP who wrote (21281)	12/17/2001 8:58:10 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 59480

Last week on C-Span I heard part of a Congressional hearing on military tribunals - two lawyers testifying (not Ashcroft), one from Justice, one from the Pentagon. They were asked about the procedures the tribunals would use. These have not been worked out yet. They were asked a lot of detailed questions which they could not answer. One question they could not answer really troubled me. Would there be the presumption of innocence? Now, in my mind, the presumption of innocence is a fundamental right. I believe, as our forefathers believed, that we are endowed by our Creator with certain fundamental rights - all of us, whether Americans or not, whether Christians or not, whether guilty or not. I believe that due process is part of liberty, and I believe that the presumption of innocence is part of due process. If these lawyers can't say that the military tribunals will give the accused due process, then something is really wrong with the way we are approaching this. Why bother with a trial at all? Are American values something we put on and take off when it suits us? Surely our values are more meaningful than that. One of the things which came out at the hearing was very interesting - the President's order with respect to military tribunals did not have any input from the Justice Department. According to the testimony, it was written by people in the President's office and in the Pentagon. I don't know whether Ashcroft would be considered part of the President's office or part of Justice and they did not use his name. Another thing which was said is that the order was verbatim to an order issued by Roosevelt during WWII. The reference to Roosevelt is intended to quiet the Democrats, because they love Roosevelt. However, I do not love Roosevelt. I think the US government got completely out of control under Roosevelt, so nothing that gives more power to the executive branch of the federal government is pleasing to me.