Fascizing America, One Amendment at a Time
It looks like the Supreme Court has decided that Zacarias Moussaoui can be tried, and possibly get the death penalty, but he can't questions his three witnesses, which are alleged members of Al Queda and currently in U.S. custody.
He can only get "government-prepared summaries of the captives' statements." or statements "from unnamed, unsworn government agents purporting to report unsworn, incomplete non-verbatim accounts" as his lawyers so eloquently put it.
Now stop me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the 6th Amendment give us the right to confront witnesses?
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Did the justices forget this part? I mean, I know some of them are old. But are they getting batty and senile and forgetting the amendments?
U.S. officials insist that questioning these three fellas would compromise national security.
But how, pray tell, could questioning these fellas in a courtroom setting compromise national security? I would think that if anything, we might find out some stuff that we previously didn't know and it would help national security. Or am I missing something? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
He can only get "government-prepared summaries of the captives' statements." or statements "from unnamed, unsworn government agents purporting to report unsworn, incomplete non-verbatim accounts" as his lawyers so eloquently put it.
Now stop me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the 6th Amendment give us the right to confront witnesses?
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Did the justices forget this part? I mean, I know some of them are old. But are they getting batty and senile and forgetting the amendments?
U.S. officials insist that questioning these three fellas would compromise national security.
But how, pray tell, could questioning these fellas in a courtroom setting compromise national security? I would think that if anything, we might find out some stuff that we previously didn't know and it would help national security. Or am I missing something? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
posted by cookie christine @ 3/22/2005
2 Comments:
At March 23, 2005,
Anonymous said…
Hey, strict constructionism really means (in Republican-speak) "whatever the fuck we feel like doing, ya know, torture, star chamber procedings, revivifying corpses, whatever..."
At March 24, 2005,
cookie christine said…
I wonder if one of the liberal Supreme Court Justices was in a permanent vegetative state, would the Bush Administration and the Republican-lead congress go so far out of their way to save him/her?
Post a Comment
<< Home