[Dr. Frank fan]

Ok, he is an eyewitness to the statement so it's not "hearsay". Fair enough.

But you need two witnesses to prosecute for treason (a capital crime). Why is one witness good enough to kill a disabled person?

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

I think three people - Michael Schiavo, his brother, and his brother's wife - have testified to having heard Terri say she would not want to be kept alive by artificial means.

That's a little bit too convenient for my taste, but, the point is that there were three people who stipulated to that, and it was declared to be a "finding of fact" in the case, which is apparently very difficult to overturn.

[Gondring]

Why is one witness good enough to kill a disabled person?

Well, nobody is "killing a disabled person"...so that brings us to the flip-side question for you:

And why are "no witnesses" sufficient (to many people, at least) to deny someone of her rights?

Our rights are as important--more important--as our lives. Many Americans have sacrificed the latter for the former. One of those rights is the right to live or die, as an individual chooses...just as one is to bear arms or not bear arms, as one chooses, to speak out or not speak out, as one chooses.

[He Rides A White Horse]

But you need two witnesses to prosecute for treason (a capital crime). Why is one witness good enough to kill a disabled person?

.....because it will be expedient for the government bureaucrat of the future to terminate your life when you become a burden to the state in future rulings.

[Badray]

But you need two witnesses to prosecute for treason (a capital crime). Why is one witness good enough to kill a disabled person?

You missed his point. What Dershowitz was trying to say is that he is still a worthless POS liar and leftist whore.