Secret Trials endanger Security.. Notice the date of the article.

[Guest guest]

S

Fri, 17 Mar 2006 20:26:26 -0800 (PST)

Secret Trials endanger Security.. Notice the date of the article.

 

 

 

 

Harry Browne Harry Browne WND Exclusive Commentary Secret trials

endanger security

Posted: December 13, 2001

1:00 a.m. Eastern

 

© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com

 

 

 

Why are the Bill of Rights, open trials, the rule of law and the

traditional American rules of evidence important?

Two reasons:

 

1. If an innocent person is convicted and punished, it's an

injustice to that person – and the founding fathers were determined

that Americans wouldn't suffer the injustices that had oppressed so

many innocent people in the Old World.

2. If an innocent person is convicted, the real criminal will be

free to commit more crimes.

 

So it misses the point to say the civil liberties of individuals must

be balanced against the safety of the community. If individual civil

liberties aren't protected, the safety of the community is endangered

by putting the wrong people in prison, i.e., by allowing the guilty to

continue to function.

 

It's vital that only the guilty be convicted – whether the accused is

suspected of a petty theft, a terrorist act or mass murder.

It's vital that only the guilty be convicted – whether the accused is

an American citizen, a green-card resident or an outright foreigner.

 

Whatever the crime, whoever the accused, your safety requires that

only the guilty be convicted.

 

Each rule is important

 

The Bill of Rights and the rules of evidence were developed to assure

that only the truly guilty are convicted.

The right to a trial by jury: A defendant must be tried by " a jury of

his peers " so that he isn't judged by people who can gain personally

by convicting him.

 

The right to a public trial: If the prosecutors, judges and juries

can't be seen and judged by the public, they can short-circuit a fair

trial.

 

The right to counsel: A defendant isn't likely to have the talent and

skills necessary to call the jury's attention to logical gaps in the

prosecution's case. So the defendant must have a skilled lawyer. To

assure that the right person was convicted, appellate courts have

ordered retrials when the accused didn't have competent counsel.

 

The right to confront one's accusers: No evidence is valid if the

person offering it can't be cross-examined by the defense. Hearsay

evidence is worthless because you can't be sure what someone meant by

what he said if you can't question him.

 

The right to remain silent: If you're nervous or inarticulate, a

skilled policeman or prosecutor could cause you to say something

that's incriminating but not literally true.

 

The right to private consultation with an attorney: To mount a

competent defense, a defendant must be able to speak freely to his

attorney – confident that his words won't be taken out of context or

otherwise misinterpreted.

 

These are just some of the rules that are vital to assure that the

innocent aren't convicted while the truly guilty go free.

 

If these rules are discarded – as the Bush administration proposes to

do with secret military trials – we have no guarantee that the people

convicted, and possibly executed, will be the true villains. And if

the wrong people are convicted, the guilty ones can continue

terrorizing Americans.

 

And those who say " terrorists have forfeited their rights " are

forgetting the most important point: Without a fair, open trial, you

can't be sure the accused person really is a terrorist. Allowing

government employees to act as investigators, prosecutors, judges and

juries isn't the same as conducting a fair, open trial.

 

Why the Bill of Rights is ignored

 

The Bill of Rights, the rule of law and the rules of evidence are

there to protect both individuals and society. If the individual isn't

safe from false prosecution, society isn't safe from criminals.

Saying the terrorist danger justifies tearing up the Bill of Rights

makes as much sense as saying a threat of invasion justifies

disbanding the military.

 

It's a shame that schools don't show children why the Bill of Rights

is so important.

 

But then, why would government want to teach children that it's

important to protect individuals from government?

 

______