Professional Soldiers ® - View Single Post

NousDefionsDoc · 02-23-2004, 17:40

Solid,
I don't know how old you are, but this is nothing new. The left did it to Nixon, Reagan and the first Bush and the right does it as well. Its the nature of politics.

Transparency is an idea, and like all ideas, it is impacted by circumstances. I believe that we have undergone a revolution of political/military affairs and the system has not caught up - it may never catch up. We've had discussions about the constitution before. I still fail to see the insistence on applying a 200 year-old document that voices ideas verbatim to every situation that presents itself today. When most of these ideas, laws, etc., were first given voice, the US wasn't the world's superpower, it took months not hours to travel from the US to the ME, and there was no such thing as WMD.

Colombia used their normal criminal courts to sentence drug traffickers at first. And it worked. Until the drug traffickers used terrorism to impact the system at its weakest link, which was the judges. So they went to Jues Sin Rostro, judges without faces, they wore masks to conceal their identity. Who knows who was under that mask? But it worked rather well depsite that it wasn't at all transparent.

I think transparency is a good thing 90% of the time. But if giving the defense disclosure of classified sources and methods in order to protect the rights of an accused is going to cost the life of one little guy that was willing to give us information over there, its not worth it.

The only way I see to use the current system is to wait for trial until the classified information is no longer sensitive. But if we do that, we violate his right to a speedy trial.

What I would like to see if a special set of judges with clearances that could look at the government's case and say "Yes, it has merit, defendent is remanded to custody indefinitely or will stand trial in a military tribunal." Or "No, this case can be tried in regular court." There kind of is this group already, but they don't do this I don't think. Plus, you come back to a man or men using their judgement after being appointed by politicians. No way to win. If they disclose the classified information, they should be tried for treason.

02-23-2004, 17:40	#65
NousDefionsDoc Quiet Professional Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: LA Posts: 1,653	Solid, I don't know how old you are, but this is nothing new. The left did it to Nixon, Reagan and the first Bush and the right does it as well. Its the nature of politics. Transparency is an idea, and like all ideas, it is impacted by circumstances. I believe that we have undergone a revolution of political/military affairs and the system has not caught up - it may never catch up. We've had discussions about the constitution before. I still fail to see the insistence on applying a 200 year-old document that voices ideas verbatim to every situation that presents itself today. When most of these ideas, laws, etc., were first given voice, the US wasn't the world's superpower, it took months not hours to travel from the US to the ME, and there was no such thing as WMD. Colombia used their normal criminal courts to sentence drug traffickers at first. And it worked. Until the drug traffickers used terrorism to impact the system at its weakest link, which was the judges. So they went to Jues Sin Rostro, judges without faces, they wore masks to conceal their identity. Who knows who was under that mask? But it worked rather well depsite that it wasn't at all transparent. I think transparency is a good thing 90% of the time. But if giving the defense disclosure of classified sources and methods in order to protect the rights of an accused is going to cost the life of one little guy that was willing to give us information over there, its not worth it. The only way I see to use the current system is to wait for trial until the classified information is no longer sensitive. But if we do that, we violate his right to a speedy trial. What I would like to see if a special set of judges with clearances that could look at the government's case and say "Yes, it has merit, defendent is remanded to custody indefinitely or will stand trial in a military tribunal." Or "No, this case can be tried in regular court." There kind of is this group already, but they don't do this I don't think. Plus, you come back to a man or men using their judgement after being appointed by politicians. No way to win. If they disclose the classified information, they should be tried for treason. __________________ Somewhere a True Believer is training to kill you. He is training with minimal food or water, in austere conditions, training day and night. The only thing clean on him is his weapon and he made his web gear. He doesn't worry about what workout to do - his ruck weighs what it weighs, his runs end when the enemy stops chasing him. This True Believer is not concerned about 'how hard it is;' he knows either he wins or dies. He doesn't go home at 17:00, he is home. He knows only The Cause. Still want to quit?
NousDefionsDoc is offline