|archives ~ negative273 ~ chill ~ nathan ~ jim ~ mount athos ~ rob|
Just can't (under)stand it
I listened to some of the talk today on NPR and was proud to hear two things said by people who are waging the war against terrorism.
First, a Judge Advocate General, for the Air Force I think, indicated that he couldn't imagine a democracy that would put somebody to death without giving the accused a chance to hear the evidence against him or her. Bush is claiming that some evidence might have to be kept secret because its exposure could compromise our security. So that evidence would be presented in private, not in earshot of the accused. The JAG suggested that it would be ironic if we were the first democracy to support such a procedure.
Then, somebody was asked if the treatment we were proposing for people held as terrorists would be OK if an emeny were to use the same procedures against our troups should they get caught. The answer: "probably not".
I don't understand why the courts and procedures in place already are inadequate to try the accused. I want to see these people brought to justice as quickly and as accurately and completely as possible. Why do we need separate jails, courts, and laws for accused terrorists?
|Copyright © 2002-2008 Ron K. Cytron ~ hosted by negative273 ~ powered by moveable type|