quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

Tazzy in no way is the info in question in your cite secret or unsourced.

"Further, these statements were properly admitted under state evidence principles governing excited utterances and out-of-court statements by young children."

Are you actually saying that INtell agents get to use the rule for "excited utterances by young children clause"

sometimes 2 rights come into conflict, for example the rights of a child and the rights of a perp. Which this is an example of. Its not relevant to the situation.

What policy will be used to allow secret u nsourced testimony that can not be cross examined.

Also in the abuse case, the mom caught the perp with his cock out, pants undone, face flushed. There was more evidence than just the childs testimony.

But guess what, no one in Al queda carries a freaking ID card. And it is only by intell work that we can say any of them are part of it.

quote:

(a) Where disclosure of an informer's identity, or of the contents of his communication, is relevant and helpful to the defense of an accused, or is essential to a fair trial, the Government's privilege to withhold disclosure of the informer's identity must give way. Pp. 353 U. S. 60-62.

(b) However, no fixed rule is justifiable. The public interest in protecting the flow of information to the Government must be balanced against the individual's right to prepare his defense. Whether nondisclosure is erroneous depends on the particular circumstances of each case, taking into consideration the crime charged, the possible defenses, the possible significance of the informer's testimony, and other relevant factors. P. 353 U. S. 62.

quote:

One of the primary laws and customs of war is that one does not purposely target noncombatants and civilians.

quote:

Mnot, in a child case, there can be a screen, so the child victim does not have to directly face the perp.

quote:

Give a precedent where secret testimony that can not be cross examined has been used in a Criminal court case.

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

Who exactly do you think I also Am.

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

Thorn, that is a reply worthy of real one.

Do you have a specific case where the 6TH amendment was over ruled, that you would like to point out?


I cited the 6th, and quoted it. It is clear. What Due process means in civilian law is clear. IT means the right to examine the evidece and methods of getting it, and the right to confront all witnesses, publically. IF Terrorism is a civilian crime, then they get these rights in thier trials. Period. Give a real example of an exception if you can.


For example, the Way OJ was able to examine the validity of DNA testing, publically examine teh system, in order to show there is a possibility of not being accurate. Terrorists would get to do the same to any Intercepted Phone calls