Mike Lorrey wrote:
>
> Samantha Atkins wrote:
> >
> > Mike Lorrey wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > > Sorry, Mike, but when trials are closed, it's too easy to accuse
> > > > anyone of being anything, whether they are or not. PUBLIC trials
> > > > for all offenses are a fundamental human right everywhere, under
> > > > all conditions, without exception. Anyone who proposes closed
> > > > trials for any reason is an enemy of freedom and justice.
> > >
> > > Ah, public trials for all offenses, provided the accused agrees to
> > > surrender for trial with no caveats. If someone refuses to be captured
> > > and remains a threat, how far should others risk their lives just so
> > > they can have their trial whether they want it or not?
> > >
> >
> > That was not the issue here. The issue was whether military
> > tribunals are appropriate.
>
> So? You are assuming that they will not be made public, to start with.
The point is to have the trial, much of the evidence, perhaps
even the charges not public and also to remove many rights of
the accused, even if not citizens, including the right to
counsel of their choice, right to appeal, right to know the
charges before hand and ones accusers. In short it makes a
total mockery of Justice from end to end.
> Furthermore, public trials are actually NOT the right of every person.
> You have a right to a trial by a jury of your peers.
>There is nothing in
> the constitution that says that the trial has to be public as it >occurs.
Public is not the primary issue and I think you know that and
know that I know that. So I will assume this is a debating
ploy.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:22 MDT