Curtailing Due Process


Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2006
Lawmakers Debate Detainee Legal Rights—

The debate is over whether or not to limit suspects' access to evidence. It can be logically argued that withholding evidence from a person may be prudent in some cases involving high-risk individuals.

On the other hand, I could see this becoming a big problem for the court system. The scenario plays out something like this:

SUSPECT: You're sending me to jail for how long?
JUDGE: For 25 to 35 years.
S: And what was I convicted of?
J: Terrorism. You were found guilty of blowing up an elderly home and gassing a day care center full of children. We also caught you in the middle of a plot to disintegrate the city's water supply, poisoning everyone by causing a release of all the airborne toxins you had dumped into it.
S: What was the evidence against me? Did I fall asleep during the trial or something? And didn't you steal that last crime from the plot of Batman Begins?
J: Terrorists don't get to see the evidence against them or witness their trials. You're guilty, and now you're going to jail. Officer, take this scum away!
I am frightened by the fact that this sort of thing is now sanctioned by the US government. Terror suspect or not, according to the United states government and our justice system, these people should have some sort of due process.