Comments on: Let The Inquisition Begin http://www.stageleft.info/2007/01/20/let-the-inquisition-begin/ Fri, 19 Mar 2010 03:00:19 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Pros and Cons » Iraq war criticisms that I both accept and take a face value. http://www.stageleft.info/2007/01/20/let-the-inquisition-begin/comment-page-1/#comment-100759 Pros and Cons » Iraq war criticisms that I both accept and take a face value. Mon, 22 Jan 2007 23:51:59 +0000 http://www.stageleft.info/2007/01/20/let-the-inquisition-begin/#comment-100759 [...] UPDATE: In fact, much of the criticism is so otherworldly as to be downright silly. One such critic, an intelligent well educated person who just misses the point about warfare is here. He analogizes all hearsay (and ignores the numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule, from reputation, to business records to dying declarations) to Hillbillyism, instead of thinking why such rules might have been made by intelligent well educated persons whose job it is to think about terrorism. perhaps it might be difficult to get Fatima to testify in the United States if Fatimah told a soldier or Marine that X was an insurgent who hid a recoilless rifle under his floorboards in the back bedroom. The discovery of a recoilless rifle alone might not be enough to convict absent such hearsay evidence in a number of situations. Further, how to account for people in a war zone, you know, dying. Their evidence would then be inadmissible unless they were spilling their guts as they knew they were about to die. Perhaps The writer in unaware of the practice of being vague as to sources in case the enemy might, you know, be spying on our operations, something the average drug dealer cannot effectively do? Just some thoughts that leap to mind to counter a critic who thinks a system that has yet to convict a single person is somehow akin to the Inquisition - the bad one - not the Inquisitorial system of Justice that is in place in most of Continental Europe, and which by the way allows hearsay testimony as a matter of routine. (Hat tip, Basil.) [...]<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('100759','Pros and Cons » Iraq war criticisms that I both accept and take a face value.'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('100759','Pros and Cons » Iraq war criticisms that I both accept and take a face value.','[...] UPDATE: In fact, much of the criticism is so otherworldly as to be downright silly. One such critic, an intelligent well educated person who just misses the point about warfare is here. He analogizes all hearsay (and ignores the numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule, from reputation, to business records to dying declarations) to Hillbillyism, instead of thinking why such rules might have been made by intelligent well educated persons whose job it is to think about terrorism. perhaps it might be difficult to get Fatima to testify in the United States if Fatimah told a soldier or Marine that X was an insurgent who hid a recoilless rifle under his floorboards in the back bedroom. The discovery of a recoilless rifle alone might not be enough to convict absent such hearsay evidence in a number of situations. Further, how to account for people in a war zone, you know, dying. Their evidence would then be inadmissible unless they were spilling their guts as they knew they were about to die. Perhaps The writer in unaware of the practice of being vague as to sources in case the enemy might, you know, be spying on our operations, something the average drug dealer cannot effectively do? Just some thoughts that leap to mind to counter a critic who thinks a system that has yet to convict a single person is somehow akin to the Inquisition - the bad one - not the Inquisitorial system of Justice that is in place in most of Continental Europe, and which by the way allows hearsay testimony as a matter of routine. (Hat tip, Basil.) [...]'); return false;">Quote</a></div> [...] UPDATE: In fact, much of the criticism is so otherworldly as to be downright silly. One such critic, an intelligent well educated person who just misses the point about warfare is here. He analogizes all hearsay (and ignores the numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule, from reputation, to business records to dying declarations) to Hillbillyism, instead of thinking why such rules might have been made by intelligent well educated persons whose job it is to think about terrorism. perhaps it might be difficult to get Fatima to testify in the United States if Fatimah told a soldier or Marine that X was an insurgent who hid a recoilless rifle under his floorboards in the back bedroom. The discovery of a recoilless rifle alone might not be enough to convict absent such hearsay evidence in a number of situations. Further, how to account for people in a war zone, you know, dying. Their evidence would then be inadmissible unless they were spilling their guts as they knew they were about to die. Perhaps The writer in unaware of the practice of being vague as to sources in case the enemy might, you know, be spying on our operations, something the average drug dealer cannot effectively do? Just some thoughts that leap to mind to counter a critic who thinks a system that has yet to convict a single person is somehow akin to the Inquisition – the bad one – not the Inquisitorial system of Justice that is in place in most of Continental Europe, and which by the way allows hearsay testimony as a matter of routine. (Hat tip, Basil.) [...]
Reply – Quote
]]>