In a fair trial one is allowed to see the evidence against him or her.
In a fair trial one gets to face one's accuser. What Bush wants is a vigilantee, kangaroo court where an innocent person can be jailed or put to death on the basis of secret evidence. I would expect this from Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, or Communist China during the Cultural Revolution .. but never United States.
We're better than that!
2006-09-13 14:34:11 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Thankfully the 5th and 6th Amendments to the Constitution stand in the way of some who would rush to summary judgement. Its amazing how many people have a lynch-mob mentality.
They seem pretty angry to even have the question raised at all - but we are either a lawful and just society or we are no better than any other previous totolitarian state.
2006-09-13 15:20:19 · update #1
The day I even think like that, no less condone it, please shoot me. But,...
Oh my God, it amazing, you certainly did manage to draw out a lot of trailer trash.
I hate to have to face it but if you read most of the responses you received you will, like I have, realize the seriously hopelessness of today's situation. How much trouble we're really in.
Almost all of the people answering have opinions and yet apparently haven't a clue as to what the hell of what you or they're talking about.
The most amazing part is that they possess the intelligence to read, no less to own and even are able to operate computers and some, even capable of typing. And the scariest part is they blend in so well you never get to know who they are until it's to late.
Not to unlike what living in Germany must have been like under Hitler before and during the second world war only worse.
Remember something as you read your responses. Bush, like Hitler, needs supporters as well as followers.
How is it possible for some countries, like ours, to have it's leaders manage to fool (almost) all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, when we, with what is supposed to be, but obviously isn't, a free press.
Would this be a good question to ask, YAHOO! answers?
2006-09-13 15:19:31 · answer #1 · answered by thomnjo2 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
everybody charged with any offence might want to be entitled to a public trial. there's no opposite direction that Justice may have any actual meaning. different platforms are in basic terms Kangaroo courts in a unmarried form or yet another and that contains defense force courts. Any gadget that denies accused persons of human rights performs correct into the palms of the bigotted few from whose ranks those adult men got here contained in the first position. it really is amazingly demanding to declare someone as a martyr even as each and every of the info about their behaviour and callousness are contained in the traditional public area. we are better than them and prefer to face tall and say so. sturdy success to Obama, the guy has criteria.
2016-11-26 22:13:55 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your Yahoo! Lib rage is clouding your brain. In any government trial where classifed material are in question, We take safe guards to protect that info. Would you prefer to have the name of covert operatives or a turncoat Al Queda feeding us info revealed in open court? As for execution? NO! You can't get intel from a dead guy. That's why you take prisoners.
Moron
2006-09-13 15:14:49 · answer #3 · answered by lana_sands 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, I wouldn't.
I would, however, gladly pull the lever or the trigger if the person was guilty without a reasonable doubt.
Do you believe a suspected Islamic terrorist should be accorded all of the protection afforded by our Bill of Rights? Or, perhaps, he should not be subject to intense interrorgation?
Are you a dues paying member of the ACLU?
These people want to kill you and your family.
They would cut your head off just to produce another video.
Wake up and smell the coffee.
2006-09-13 14:46:03 · answer #4 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Nope. Cat Stevens was a terrorist suspect. Like many other innocent people, somebody had confused his identity with somebody else's. We need fair trials as much as ever. And we don't need the death penalty. You kill too many innocent people, and life imprisonment isn't a barrel of laughs.
2006-09-13 14:39:47 · answer #5 · answered by zee_prime 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Weapons used in combat may accidentally discharge prior to cleaning or due to improper reassembly and this accidental discharge may result the unfortunate demise of person's in the line of fire, or multiple deaths as the malfunction may be a greater problem than anticipated.
2006-09-13 19:11:34 · answer #6 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sure. And I would summarily execute plenty of regular criminals without a trial also. Plus a few people like OJ or Blake that had a trial but got away with murder anyway.
2006-09-13 14:37:34 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
<<
But our enemies are not. That's why we're gonna lose the "war on terror". Americans don't have the guts to break their opponents will to win. We're dealing with sexist, racist pigs that see death as a release of their miserable existence. If someone doesn't fear death (indeed, worships it) what tactical advantage do you gain in killing him???
2006-09-13 14:50:43 · answer #8 · answered by Sean T 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I sure hope we are. Regardless of the charge, a suspect deserves a fair trial. I think Bush needs psychiatric help.
2006-09-13 14:40:02 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Why would you think a military court would be a kangaroo court? You need to give the military a little more credit than that. Oh wait, are you one of those hate the war, support the troops persons? .....
2006-09-13 14:37:35 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋