Quoted:
Cause we are going to TRY him first!

Isn't it enough that he is not going to be going through the courts, but be court martialed?

And hopefully he will squeal.

It would be nice if we could confirm the Nation of Islams involvement in terrorist conspiricies now wouldn't it?

Quoted:
Patience, [b]TheRedGoat[/b], we have all the time in the world to drop the pellet on this rat!

Eric The(SqueezeHim,ThenBleedHim)Hun[>]:)]

Quoted:
TheRedGoat, since he hasn't been witnessed in the "overt act" or hasn't confessed it in open court, how do you suggest we legally execute him for treason?z

Quoted:
The wheels of justice turn slowly.  Of course, after he's tried and convicted, then we assemble the firing squad.

TheRedGoat, since he hasn't been witnessed in the "overt act" or hasn't confessed it in open court, how do you suggest we legally execute him for treason?z

Quoted:
The wheels of justice turn slowly.  Of course, after he's tried and convicted, then we assemble the firing squad.

TheRedGoat, since he hasn't been witnessed in the "overt act" or hasn't confessed it in open court, how do you suggest we legally execute him for treason?z

Quoted:
Let me know if they need volunteers for the firing squad....

Quoted:
It would be nice if we could confirm the Nation of Islams involvement in terrorist conspiricies now wouldn't it?

Quoted:


Sign me up. I know just the gun and bullets I would use. Wouldn't cost the govt. a thing.

-legrue

Quoted:

I prefer the tried and true "Drawn and Quartered" apporach.

Quoted:


RedGoat,

Do you know what it is to be whipped around a tree?

(For those who don't: The victim has a small hole cut in their abdomen and an end of intestine is removed. This is tacked to a tree. The person is then whipped so as to force them around the tree, winding their intenstines around the tree as they go.)

I always thought that would be a particularly unpleasant way to go.

Quoted:
WHY ARE WE NOT KILLING THE TRAITOR?

Quoted:
There's got to be due process.

If we don't even make an effort at appearing to look like we are upholding our own Constitution than what good are it's other protections?

Also, by going through due process there is the possibility that this idiot's other connections can be rolled up.  So you interrogate the guy and scare him, offering him clemency for turning in his compadres (knowing that as soon as he hits prison this idiot is dead meat anyhow.)

So while it would give great satisfaction to impale the guy on a dull, thick spit, it is ultimately more productive to do it legally and with due process.

Quoted:


Because:

An accusation is an accusation.

A conviction is a conviction.

And in this country they are not the same thing.

Don't confuse me with the facts, I have already made up my mind.

The most difficult issue in this case is whether the overt acts have been proved as the Constitution requires, and several grounds of attack on the conviction disappear if there has been compliance with the constitutional standard of proof. The Constitution requires that 'No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act ....' Art. III, 3. We considered the application of this provision to the problems of proof in the Cramer case. Defendant claims this case in two respects falls short of the requirements there laid down as to all the overt acts which comprise harboring and sheltering the saboteur: First, that there was no direct proof that the saboteur was actually in the defendant's apartment, and second, that there is no direct proof that the defendant was in the apartment at any time when the saboteur was there. Both of these we find to be without merit.

The act to be proved is harboring and sheltering in the house at No. 2234 North Fremont Street. The defendant and his wife lived there in a third floor front apartment, which had but one bedroom. Federal Bureau of Investigation agents, never less than two, had the place under continuous surveillance from 10:30 a.m., June 22 to the arrest of the saboteur on June 27, and at least two testified in minute detail to each of repeated arrivals and departures of the saboteur, in some occasions accompanied by [330 U.S. 631, 637]   the defendant, on others by the defendant's wife, and on some by both. He entered each night and left each day. On so e occasions he came out wearing different clothes from those he wore when he went in. When he went in at night the lights in the defendant's apartment were turned on and after a time extinguished. Two witnesses who were callers at the apartment testified that on one occasion defendant and Herbert were there together at supper time, the three Haupts being together in the kitchen, Herbert later coming into the parlor and one of the guests going into the kitchen. The defendant contends that this does not constitute the required two witnesses' direct proof that the saboteur was harbored and sheltered in the defendant's apartment. It is true that the front entrance, where all of this testimony shows the saboteur to have entered, connected with two other apartments. The occupants of each of the other apartments, two witnesses as to each, testified that the saboteur did not at any time occupy their respective apartments

It is sufficiently proved by direct testimony of two witnesses that the saboteur stayed in the house where the father lived and with the latter's knowledge. But it is said that this is not enough, that it fails because the two witnesses did not see him enter his parents' apartment therein. But the hospitality and harboring did not begin only at the apartment door. It began when he entered the building itself where he would have no business except as a guest or member of the family of one of the tenants. It is not necessary to show that he slept in the defendant's bed. Herbert was neither trespasser nor loiterer. He entered as the licensee of his father, and was under the privileges of the latter's tenancy even in parts of the building used in common with other tenants. His entrance to and sojourn in the building were made possible by the defendant, and the saboteur slept and stayed in [330 U.S. 631, 638]   some part of it with the father's knowledge and by his leave. We think the proof is sufficient to comply with the constitutional requirement that two witnesses testify to the overt acts in that group which charges harboring and sheltering of the saboteur