Commentsview comments in forum Page 1 2 You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2026 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2026 by Canadaka.net
A trial with professional jurors might as well be a multi-judge tribunal, which I would definitely not support for criminal trials, either in the USA or at Gitmo.
In the USA, a trial by a jury of one's peers is a constitutional right. That's one reason.
A trial with professional jurors might as well be a multi-judge tribunal, which I would definitely not support for criminal trials, either in the USA or at Gitmo.
As difficult as you seem to have with this concept, you are posting on a Canadian forum where the Constitution of the United States means less than sweet fuck all.
As difficult as you seem to have with this concept, you are posting on a Canadian forum where the Constitution of the United States means less than sweet fuck all.
Even though you do have a hard time with reading and grammar, I thought you might actually read blurb on the article before posting.
I was addressing the question asked. If that offends you, I'm not sure what to say.
As difficult as you seem to have with this concept, you are posting on a Canadian forum where the Constitution of the United States means less than sweet fuck all.
Even though you do have a hard time with reading and grammar, I thought you might actually read blurb on the article before posting.
I did read the article. She's not an American though apparently she gave you a courteous honourable mention.
I did read the article. She's not an American though apparently she gave you a courteous honourable mention.
Then it appears she does give, as you so intellectually put it, a "fuck all."
I did read the article. She's not an American though apparently she gave you a courteous honourable mention.
Then it appears she does give, as you so intellectually put it, a "fuck all."
You'll be okay, tiger.
You'll be okay, tiger.
Of course I'll be OK. I wasn't the one jumping to conclusions without reading everything. And concision is a good thing.
As it stands who knows most about the law and it's implementation?
I figure Lawyers and criminals, not the General Public.
Section 11(f)
I take it you mean this part?
Where does it say you need a jury? Even a single judge is called "tribunal".
Why have jurors at all? Why not 3 or 5 or even 7 judges, depending on the severity of the case?
Sounds good. One would be sufficient most of the time I would think.
Section 11(f)
How annoying.
I take it you mean this part?
Where does it say you need a jury? Even a single judge is called "tribunal".
no, 11(f).