Bombstar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 618 times:
Im surpised no one has brought this up yet. Bush signing an executive order to allow military courts (more like mock trials) proceed in secret, as well as allowing evidence to be withheld from the defendent. This is perhaps the biggest blow to freedom in the outcome of Sept. 11. Is Bush suggesting the American judicial system is incompetent of handling terrorists?
I Like To Fly From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1188 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 611 times:
Bombstar, behave & don't blow up thousands of people and you won't have to worry about how the trials are held. The changes fall under strict circumstances anyway, and to be honest it has always worked like this. It is now legal, as it should be. It's no big deal and most people agree with it, that's why it has not been brought up. The only people it bothers are the same morons that say we should leave the Taliban alone, give tham a cup of tea, & forgive them. Some freedom will be sacraficed, but it's for the best. This decision will in no way affect your life.
Matt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 47
Reply 2, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 610 times:
Hey, it's all in the name of safety, right?
We have to take as many precaustions as possible. We can't leave anything to chance.
The only thing scarier than this, and everything that I've ranted and raved about in my other posts is the blind sheep American public that gladly, and blindly goes along with anything that we tell them. If we tell everyone in the country that in order to be safe that they should each chop one hand off.
And guess what? 98% of the people would be at home, hand on the butcher block lopping a hand off. It's un-fucking believeable how gullible, and how mindless conformity oriented we are.
I still can't believe how naive so many people are to think that any system will be foolproof. As I stated in an earlier post, none of these new "security" measures will have prevented 9/11 from happening.
And now here we are, acting on a knee jerk impulse fueled by emotion rather than logic stumbling around groping at all of these ideas with no time to see if it will work or if it will create more problems than it will solve.
You know what I would love to see that would perhaps make everyone pull their head out of their ass?
Have Atty Gen. Ashcroft hold a public meeting announcing all of these new "security" measures, let everyone applaud it, and then have him randomly pick a person out of the crowd, have that person come up on the stage, and then Mr Ashcroft can blow that persons head off with an Uzi. Whereupon Ashcroft will address the stunned silent crowd and say "This person looked suspicious. It's for your own protection. That is what you wanted, right?"
Maybe THAT will be what it takes to make us wake up.
Bombstar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 601 times:
I Like to Fly,
That is besides the point, because if you dont watch out one day, all your freedoms are taken away. And you cannot defend freedom, while at the same time taking it away from anyone. Remember: Innocent until proven guilty.
And a lot of Arabs have been random targets recently. Anyone of them can be pulled off the street and go through the trial, and we'd never know cause they are kept secret!
Hepkat From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 2341 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 599 times:
Just a few information about military courts, FYI. They require a much lower burden of proof, can be held in secret without meeting all the usual criteria, and most troubling, suspects can be convicted on secret evidence that may never be disclosed, even after they have been sentenced.
It seems to me that the government is getting pretty desperate and needs foolproof measures to guarantee a conviction. Many legal scholars are beginning to question why the Bush administration has not yet been able to obtain inditements for the Sept. 11 attacks. Reason? Their evidence falls short. Compare this to past events, for example, the embassy bombings, where inditements were handed down immediately, which enabled the government to start a worldwide hunt for the suspects. Inditements are very necessary in order to convince other world leaders or agencies to join your efforts. It says that you have found credible evidence, and that a court has agreed with it, and therefore you have a justifiable reason for finding and bringing these suspects to justice.
The legal experts are baffled, and quite frankly, so am I.
Delta-flyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2676 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 592 times:
Naturally, the Bush Adminstration wants to convict terrorists as expediently as possible, even at the risk of nailing some innocent people.
But you know what? The beauty of the US Constitution is that the Supreme Court can (and probably will) clip his wings. You guys don't have faith in our system.
The argument that our freedoms will be taken away little by little sounds good (if you're a fanatic), but is not grounded in fact. Our freedom over the years has actually increased, despite the proliferation of laws (which tend to limit freedom, as conventional wisdom goes). For every law that limits freedom, other laws are passed that guarantee some sort of remedy to injured parties.
My prediction is that the military tribunals will be limited to special cases that will be under the scrutiny of a small number of legislative and judicial overseers, to assure that any secret material is kept under cover.
One thing to remember is that the constitution was meant as the supreme law for a nation of basically law-abiding citizens. I don't think anyone then or now could have imagined the evil that we have witnessed. It literally took our collective breaths away, and we are still reeling. So a bit of emotional knee-jerking is not exactly an inhuman reaction.