From firstname.lastname@example.org Sat Dec 14 13:09:58 PST 1996 Article: 85659 of alt.revisionism Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!pumpkin.pangea.ca!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!news3.cac.psu.edu!news.cse.psu.edu!news.cc.swarthmore.edu!netnews.upenn.edu!news.enter.net!usenet From: email@example.com (Yale F. Edeiken) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: The Criminal Giwer is Wrong Again Date: 14 Dec 1996 05:35:19 GMT Organization: ENTER.NET Lines: 69 Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> References: <email@example.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp89.enter.net X-Newsreader: SPRY News 3.03 (SPRY, Inc.) > firstname.lastname@example.org (Kurt Stele) writes: > On 10 Dec 1996 23:11:48 GMT, email@example.com (Yale F. Edeiken) wrote: > > They were not tried in an American court. They were given certain > >rights which, in fact, are greater than the rights currently given in either French or > >German courts. They were also given all rights considered basic to a fiar trial in > >the U.S. today including: > > 1. the guarantee of counsel (which was *not* part of U.S. practice > >until "Gideon v. Wainwright" in 1964). > > 2. the right to challenge evidence; > > 3. the right of cross-examination; > > 4. the right to present evidence; > > 5. the right to testify in their case (not a right in the U.K. until about > >1930; until then the defendant was prohibited from testifying) > > 6. the right to have counsel address the triers of fact; > > 7. the right to examine all documents presented in evidence against > >them at the expense of the prosecution; > > 8. the right of subpoena ad testifcandum and subpeona duces tecum. > > 9. the right to make statements not subject to cross-examination or > >response in any manner whatsoever (please inform me of any court in the U.S. > >that would permit this procedure) > > They did not have the right to a jury trial. But this right is *not* > >recognized except in Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence. It is *not* part of the law of any > >country in Europe. > > In short, you do nothing but make your usual wild and inaccurate > >statements unsupported by anything other than your lying mouth. > Hearsay evidence was allowed and that German witnesses tortured. No evidence was admitted that was not admissible under Rule 803 or 804 of the U.S. Code of Evidence hich sets forth the conditions under which hearsay evidence is admissible. There is no evidence of any witnesses being tortured or placed under duress to either testify, testify to something specific, or not to testify. [rubbish from Stele, without citation, stripped] > The Nuremberg Trials ...had been popular throughout the world and > particularly in the United States. Equally popular was the sentence > already announced by the high tribunal: death. But what > kind of trial was this? ...The Constitution was not a collection of > loosely given political promises subject to broad interpretation. It > was not a list of pleasing platitudes to be set lightly aside when > expediency required it. It was the foundation of the American system > of law and justice and [Robert Taft} was repelled by the picture of > his country discarding those Constitutional precepts in order to > punish a vanquished enemy. > U.S. President, John F. Kennedy That is not a statement of JFK's beliefs. They are a summarization of Taft's beliefs. JFK specifically stated that it was not to be taken as a reflection of his opinion.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor