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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (121647)	6/23/2005 11:28:08 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793916

If they had a hearing where it was determined that they were, and we're told that they did, I don't see what else it is that you'd want done. For the hearing to be conducted before trained jurists, for the accused to have the right to know the evidence presented against him, and to be represented by counsel, and to question witnesses, and for there to be judicial review of appeals. For evidence obtained by torture to be inadmissible. I'd prefer it if the hearings were public, or at least that some independent persons were able to witness them. All of these were afforded the Nuremberg defendants. The only one of the above rights that these men have is the right to an appeal, but so far that right has been blocked and fought every step of the way. As it stands now, the hearings on status are closed, conducted before three military officers, who can hear secret evidence and evidence which was obtained via torture, which the defendant has no right to hear, and the defendant has no right to counsel, or to question witnesses. This process is under judicial review. I think it will be found unconstitutional. (Note: I don't have a problem with military officers hearing the cases as long as they are trained jurists.)