Secret trials for terrorists, says US judge

He seems to be pretty unique. A liberal with a brain.:thumbs:

 

Yep, yep. He'll probably be called a neocon from now on, lol.:laugh:

 

Or he might be a neo-liberal.

 

Also, those that complain about the restrictions placed on the government by the U.S. constitution have a word that describes them quite accurately - totalitarians.

 

I don't know this guy, but having read what he said, and having read what is said here, no one has actually addressed what he said. Let's look at it.

Judge Posner raised the prospect of secret trials as a "tailored regime" to prosecute terrorists in cases where there was a concern about classified information going public.

That is a standard position, even in courts today where certain information is barred from public knowledge. And it is specifically drawn narrowly.

You people who oppose this answer me this. Which would you rather have: a suspected terrorist freed or classified information that could lead to the arrest of other terrorists revealed?

A secret or private trial avoids that. The suspect is tried and classified info is not revealed.

Rufus (not surprisingly) completely misses the boat. The whole point of having a trial is to determine guilt. They are not guilty before tried. That is simply to misread what was said (possibly intentionally, hoping that people wouldn't actually think).

 

I can't help but notice you avoided the question.

Which would you rather have: a suspected terrorist freed or classified information that could lead to the arrest of other terrorists revealed?

 

So to be clear, you prefer that the country be endangered by terrorists?

 

You people who support Judge Posner this answer me this: Should the U.S. constitution be followed even though maybe some potential terrorist receives some information we would rather he/she not receive?

 

If following the U.S. constitution results in suspected terrorist being freed or in classified information being revealed that helps a potential terrorist, then so be it.

I believe in the rule of law, not the rule of men. If there is a problem with following the U.S. constitution, then propose a constitutional amendment, present your case for it, and I will consider whether to support it or not.

 

I tend to agree Rufus (again). Before this happens the constitution should be amended. The greatest victim, apart from the tragic loss of life, of 9/11 has been our constitution.

At that I am deeply saddened .

 

I am not a supporter of Judge Posner, but there is clearly merit in his argument that is being overlooked by some here. If a terrorist receives information that endangers our citizens, that is bad, no matter what the excuse.

I struggle with this, but it is perhaps because I am so strongly pro life. I think life should be defended, even over the constitution, if need be. After all, only one is in the image of God and only one is demanded to be protected by Scripture.

I am not entirely sure this is unconstitutional, as of yet. But having said that, what good is a constitution for a country that doesn't exist?

We need to have a little broader frame of thinking here.

Again, I am not supporting Posner in this, though I see his argument. I am questioning whether you guys have any legitimate answers. It appears that you don't, so far.

 

What good is a country for which the constitution doesn't exist?

We have provisions here - the country has a voice. Amend the constitution and the problems are solved. If this has popular support it could be law in 6 months. Problem solved.

 

My answer is to always follow the U.S. constitution. Apparently, some people have a problem with following the U.S. constitution because it may be hard to do so or not provide the results that he/she wants. What such people are doing is advocating throwing out the rule of law. I reject that and I will continue to do so. Those who advocate throwing out the rule of law often end up being hoisted upon their own petard.

 

“Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.” - President Lincoln

“"The liberties of our country, the freedoms of our civil Constitution are worth defending at all hazards; it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors. They purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood. It will bring a mark of everlasting infamy on the present generation – enlightened as it is – if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of designing men." -Samuel Adams”

 

It would take longer than six months if it even has to be done. My point is that we need to think deeper than what is being said here.

Really? So you think certain people should only be counted at 3/5ths of a person? You think certain people should not be allowed to vote? Because that is what you get when you follow the Constitution. It was changed precisely because people did not think it wise to always follow the constitution, so those things have been amended.

Actually, I think you are guilty of doing that very thing. In the past, we have seen you advocate some unconsitutional positions.

It is a petard. If you are going to make smart aleck comments at least spell them right.

We need to recognize that the Constitution did not always get it right. The very existence of amendments is testimony to that. And it is likely that on this they did not get it right. But I am willing to listen to reasons why we should endanger people's lives for the sake of a judicial process against those who desire to destroy this country. So far, no one has offered anything substantive.