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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (11743)	9/7/2006 1:53:44 PM
From: Mr. Palau	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

speaking of treating people with respect, peter, your silence in the face of cyberloon's tranparent and consistent racism is deafening

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (11743)	9/8/2006 5:47:42 AM
From: sandintoes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Yes, unlike all the looney left who post on SI!

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (11743)	9/8/2006 10:15:15 AM
From: E. T.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Here's the right showing even more respect. Pentagon lawyers say proposal goes too far in withholding evidence from terror suspects. By MARISA TAYLOR and GREG GORDON McClatchy Newspapers Posted on Fri, Sep. 08, 2006 kansascity.com. “I’m not aware of any situation in the world where there is a system of jurisprudence that is recognized by civilized people, where an individual can be tried without, and convicted without, seeing the evidence against him.” --- Brig. Gen. James C. Walker, staff judge advocate of the U.S. Marine Corps WASHINGTON \| Top Pentagon lawyers took issue Thursday with key aspects of President Bush’s proposal for a special court system that would limit the legal rights of terrorism suspects. To protect classified information, Bush’s proposal would bar terrorism detainees from their own trials in “extraordinary circumstances.” It would also narrow what constitutes coerced admissions — a central issue in prosecuting 14 top terrorist suspects who were subjected to unorthodox interrogation techniques that critics call torture. At a House Armed Services Committee hearing, lawyers from all of the armed services generally endorsed Bush’s push for a new military court tailored to deal with the complexities of prosecuting dangerous terrorist suspects while protecting national security secrets. But the lawyers voiced concern about the fairness of preventing a defendant from hearing and confronting evidence against him. “I’m not aware of any situation in the world where there is a system of jurisprudence that is recognized by civilized people, where an individual can be tried without, and convicted without, seeing the evidence against him,” Brig. Gen. James C. Walker, staff judge advocate of the U.S. Marine Corps, told the panel. The administration’s plan is likely to provoke a rousing debate when the measure goes before Congress next week. Democrats support an alternative bill being crafted by three Republicans that would guarantee suspects more protections and would be more in line with international law. At Thursday’s hearing, Rep. Duncan Hunter, a California Republican, pressed Navy Judge Advocate General Bruce MacDonald on whether he would bar the use of crucial classified evidence if it otherwise meant sharing it with suspected Sept. 11, 2001, architect Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. “I can’t imagine any military judge believing that an accused has had a full and fair hearing if all the government’s evidence that was introduced was all classified and the accused was not able to see any of it,” MacDonald replied. Steven Bradbury, acting chief of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, contended that sharing the information with a defense lawyer who had a national security clearance would address the problem. But several of the military lawyers disagreed. The administration proposed the legislation in response to a Supreme Court ruling that struck down the administration’s earlier attempt to create a special military terrorism court. A new system is needed, Bradbury said, because traditional military court rules are too rigid for terrorism cases. U.S. troops or intelligence agents cannot read terrorists their Miranda rights, he said, and national security concerns make it impractical to comply with speedy-trial rules. The proposal would also allow the use of hearsay, or testimony relayed from witnesses who do not have to appear in court and be cross-examined. Experts in military law said Bush’s proposal would raise thorny legal issues. Bradbury said that military judges should decide case-by-case whether the detainees had been coerced into making incriminating statements. Margaret Talev of McClatchy Newspapers contributed to this report. Reach Marisa Taylor at mtaylor@mcclatchydc.com. © 2006 Kansas City Star and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved. kansascity.com