"Adam C. Lipscomb" wrote: > > Doug wrote: > > > Bush says "We must not let foreign enemies use the forms of liberty > > to destroy liberty itself." (CNN article > > http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/11/29/inv.bush.terrorism/index.html) but > > IMO these tribunals are a dire threat to liberty in and of > > themselves. Why do they have to be secret, what does the > > administration have to hide? Why no appeal? > > > > I think that when we feel the need to resort to fascism to combat > > terrorism, the terrorists have triumphed. > > Bush & Co are quickly burning up every bit of goodwill and trust they had > earned from me following 9/11. Ashcroft, especially, is bothersome - he > seems to actually relish every safeguard for the accused that he can knock > down.
I was wondering when Brin-L would take this up.. I've been quietly steaming about this for the last 2+ weeks. :[ > I fully understand the need to keep some information secret, but I feel > there are better ways to do so than by cloaking the entire proceedings. We > have successfully protected the sites of terrorist trials in the past, and > we can no doubt continue to do so. We are an open, free society, and we > have no need whatsoever to resort to the judicial techniques of tinpot > dictatorships and international thugs. The issue seems to be that our justice department doesn't want its hands tied by the normal rules of evidence, standards of guilt, etc - heaven forbid that anything slow down the pronouncment of guilt (because, as Ashcroft said, "terrorists don't deserve the same standard of justice" - and God knows we NEVER try anyone who's not guilty..) -j- -- "O! for a Muse of fire, that would ascend, The brightest heaven of invention!"
