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 (134238)	5/24/2004 5:41:29 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

The Nuremberg defendants were judged by a three jurist panel, as is the norm in the Civil Law system, derived from Rome and Greece. All of Europe except for Great Britain uses that system. Great Britain is mostly Common Law, as is most of the US and Canada. Juries are used in Common Law. Without going into excruciating, numbing detail, Scotland, parts of the US and parts of Canada are mixed Civil and Common Law. A plug for my home state of Louisiana (a Civil Law jurisdiction), the dean of LSU was one of the jurists at the main Nuremberg trial, the one almost everybody knows about. (There were eleven other Nuremberg trials, each with several defendants, on different legal theories.) My point being that, while we did not apply American law against the Nazis, we strove for something universal, a floor, if you will, below which legal proceedings should not go. Fundamental to due process is the right not to be detained indefinitely before adjudication of your status. Holding people in secret indefinitely is a violation of fundamental due process. But there's no point arguing about this. We should all expect a ruling on the Hamzi case this year, prior to the Supreme Court recessing for the summer.