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: LindyBill who wrote (21856)	3/21/2002 9:43:21 AM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 281500

Just finished reading Safire's column over breakfast. I thought it one of his best. And the point that is most important is the congressional point. Can't make this kind of new law without congressional approval.

To: LindyBill who wrote (21856)	3/21/2002 10:50:28 AM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 281500

>>In doing justice, nothing beats a jury of one's peers.<< What a concept. Should we convene a jury of Americans, who will be prejudiced against the defendants, or shall we convene a jury of Afghanis? Only in the case of Al Qaeda members, they aren't Afghanis, either. Saudis, Egyptians, British, what have you. They'll do better before a military tribunal than a jury of Americans, anyway. >>The non-citizen tried by the U.S. outside the U.S. would have no appeal to our federal courts.<< That's because there is nothing in US law that would give our federal courts jurisdiction. Jurisdiction means the power to adjudicate a cause. No jurisdiction, no can take the appeal. >>It is not in the American system of justice to hold a suspect in jail for long without trial.<< People accused of capital crimes don't get bail, usually, especially if they pose a risk of flight or are considered a danger to the community. >>No participation by Congress in the making of what is undoubtedly law.<< Congress did not participate in the Nuremberg trials, either. There were members of the public and members of Congress who spoke out against the Nuremberg trials, as well. Most scholars consider the Nurember trials to have been models of justice, despite the fact that they had the same ad hoc quality that the Al Qaeda trials will have. Most places in the world, these guys would have been executed on the spot. Here is a quote from Senator Robert Taft about the Nuremberg trials: "About this whole judgment there is the spirit of vengeance, and vengeance is seldom justice. The hanging of the eleven men convicted will be a blot on the American record which we will long regret. In these trials we have accepted the Russian idea of the purpose of trials -- government policy and not justice -- with little relation to Anglo-Saxon heritage. By clothing policy in the forms of legal procedure, we many discredit the whole idea of justice in Europe for years to come." JFK admired Taft for this, and devoted a chapter of Profiles in Courage to him. jfklibrary.org Some interesting debate by real legal scholars, not pundits, here: crimesofwar.org