Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kellychaos
I know it's a double-edged sword but you can't have your cake and eat it too. Doing something other than trying them or deporting them makes it seem to the rest of the world that we're trying to hide something.
|
Well if you haven't noticed, our gov't really doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks of it and also that is why the Supreme court said they couldn't hold them indefinately and had to give them rights.
Here's a synopsis:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/28/sc...ses/index.html
And you don't need evidence strong enough for a trial to hold someone, just probable cause to believe that they committed the crime. Then you can arrest and hold them, they get a prelim to decide if there is enough evidence to proceed to trial, which does not mean there is enough evidence to find guilt or innocence, just enough evidence to keep holding them or set bail or what have you, and there is a judge ruling on that in order to satisfy speedy trial rights and due process and THEN they get a trial in which they can decide whether they want a jury or judge decide their guilt or innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.
And then they can appeal for the next 10 years since prosecutions usually result in 90% conviction.
Threaded Mode