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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (73931)	9/4/2003 11:21:53 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Double jeopardy won't apply because there hasn't been a trial. Is it a trial, or am I correct that the empanelment and swearing of the jury actually creates the jeopardy?

To: Ilaine who wrote (73931)	9/4/2003 11:51:48 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Double jeopardy won't apply because there hasn't been a trial. True. Dismissing a case and bringing it again in another venue or jurisdiction is nothing worse than forum shopping, at worst. Are you referring to the possibility of a secret military tribunal? Wait a minute, counselor. If that option has become "just another venue", my answer is that we fought a revolution to prevent such "changes of venue". all the orders regarding discovery go away. But does the defendant's right to HAVE discovery go away? If so, why have it all? All the prosecutor has to do is rig a way to get a "change of venue" and then fry the guy. siliconinvestor.com It appears to me that habeas corpus, and right to a speedy trial have been violated. And possibly the right to a public trial if a secret military tribunal is held. This guy was busted on US soil. Technically, we're not at war. How does the gov't get away with this? I mean legally, not just because they have the most and biggest guns. I thought we didn't run this country by that rule. but if they have an absolute right to it (and I think they do) then one can't fault them for taking every procedural advantage they have available to them. Surely that does not include shredding the Bill of Rights.