Originally Posted by
logroller
Technically, it wasn't the unabomber who sought redress, but the People. Do you think the war on terror consists of Obama throwing darts at a perp lineup? I'm sure there's a process; it's just not made public; because like many investigations confidential information is used that, if made public, would compromise both the investigation at hand, but a myriad of coextensive investigations as well. He had the right to confront his accuser, a trial by jury, to have the evidence presented to himself and his counsel-- but a trial in absentia would fail to fulfill these rights; and furthermore, it would compromise the ongoing investigations the President has been instructed by law to carry out-- its lose/lose.-- but the fix is simple, bring the man in for trial. But what costs should We incur to see this happen? Should we risk dozens, hundreds, perhaps thousands of lives to satisfy the rights of a man who expressed nothing but disdain for the US of A, including his rightful Constitutional protection? It seems to me the process well-afforded him what he was due. You could make a better case for cruel and unusual punishment than a violation of due process.
Reply With Quote