Posted on 08/04/2006 5:24:42 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
by Mark Finkelstein
August 4, 2006 - 08:10
With its editorial of this morning, Justice After Guantanamo, the Los Angeles Times has raised the bar when it comes expressing exquisite sensitivity for the rights of accused terrorists. The Times waxed indignant that when in trials for denizens of Gitmo the Bush administration favors - brace yourself - the admission of hearsay evidence. Quick, the smelling salts!
Says the Times:
"New draft legislation to bring the military commissions established by the administration into compliance with a Supreme Court decision borrows heavily from the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That's the good news. The bad news is that on some issues particularly the use of hearsay and evidence obtained by coercive or inhumane interrogation the administration still clings to the notion that the end justifies the means."
Let me hark back to my law school days to share with readers a brief explanation of what's involved. Under general rules of evidence in the United States, hearsay evidence is inadmissible. Simply put, a witness cannot testify as to what he heard another party say.
What would be the effect of waiving the hearsay rule? Well, a witness could then of course testify as to what he heard another party say. Would that mean that such testimony would be uncritically accepted as fact? Of course not! Defense attorneys could, and surely would, cross-examine such witnesses, and have every opportunity to undermine their testimony by questioning the witness's motives, credibility, accuracy, etc. Waiving the exclusionary rule would simply mean that a witness could testify. The jury - or judge serving as jury - would still retain the ultimate right to decide what - if any - value to attach to the testimony.
But when it comes to protecting the rights of accused terrorists, even this limited derogation from standard procedure is enough to disturb the delicate sensibilities of the LA Times.
LA Times/NewsBusters ping to Today show list.
please add me to your ping list,,, thanks
Is that lwd . . . and lcvs? ;-)
In any case, thanks for your interest, and welcome to the list.
There are at least two dozen exceptions to the hearsay rule, regularly applied in criminal prosecutions. It's not as ironclad as the LA Times appears to believe.
Not sure who or what lcvs is, so your joke went right over my head. Thanks for adding me, I've enjoyed reading your reports since I first signed up. Have a good weekend.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.