Quote:
Originally Posted by Oftencold
Actually, we can win any war by ourselves, if we choose to fight with alacrity. That's what being the sole superpower is all about, no?
|
Not if a coalition of nations are unified against us and a few believe they
already are.Crazy?...perhaps but not all coalitions are made public! Diplomacy is still in vogue for that very reason. It takes more than just the will to win a war and imperialism is "unpopular" at the moment. Even if we fought with alacrity there would be unacceptable consequences and victory would be bitter sweet and subjective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oftencold
And what is this about coerced evidence? Was it forced simply because a judge said so? Isn't most evidence coerced on one fashion or another? What about putting someone in jail for contempt of court because they refuse to testify, isn't that coercing evidence?
|
Coerced evidence is at minimum frowned upon and often inaccurate. People have limits to their endurance,ask John McCain. Others will do or say almost anything to make the (coercion) stop.
Quote:
Fruit Of The Poison Tree
The principle that prohibits the use of secondary evidence in trial that was culled directly from primary evidence derived from an illegal Search and Seizure.
The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine is an offspring of the Exclusionary Rule. The exclusionary rule mandates that evidence obtained from an illegal arrest, unreasonable search, or coercive interrogation must be excluded from trial. Under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, evidence is also excluded from trial if it was gained through evidence uncovered in an illegal arrest, unreasonable search, or coercive interrogation. Like the exclusionary rule, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine was established primarily to deter law enforcement from violating rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oftencold
If a smuggler is subjected to a cavity search for contraband, isn't that to provide coerced evidence? When armed law enforcement officers execute a warrant, aren't they coercing evidence with the threat of deadly force?
|
That's for a court of law to decide on an (individual) basis. We authorize law enforcement to be armed and to use deadly force within certain guidelines.This need not be viewed as coercion,intimidation maybe but it would be very difficult to make a case for coercion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oftencold
And once again, the idea of complex trials is absurd in light of the fact that militant hostiles are committing warfare without flag or uniform. That alone justifies execution.
|
Now here we agree,I believe the above offense does justify execution. However,something tells me that the powers that be would disagree with both of us. In war one usually doesn't have the luxury of protracted and needlessly complex trials. When hostiles are committing warfare without flag or uniform but they (surrender), I can see having a "brief" hearing to determine troop strength and positions. When the enemy sees that we mean business and we will KILL hostiles who fight without flag or uniform,they may reevaluate their methods. If not...no trial,they will be dispatched to Alah.
When a decision to place these NUC captives on trial has already been made,we begin traveling down the yellow brick road to absurdity and we embolden the enemy who has no sense of fairness.
11-20-2010, 12:03 PM
Re: Guantanamo Trial Verdict Angers US Lawmakers
Now I never saw any in the Nam most at my first 6 months were waring black pj's. Then we saw the NVA uniforms.
Linear Mode
