It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by AnOldFriend
People seem to like to through around this junk about you can only practice your rights if they don't infringe on another's rights. If somebody comes up to you and says "you cant practice your rights because my rights (or another's rights) are being infringed upon," wouldn't they be infringing upon your rights?
How do we decide who's rights are more important? Well apparently its whoever is in the pursuit of happiness.
Because the charges were misdemeanors punishable by less than six months in jail, the case was heard by a judge instead of a jury.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury...
President George H.W. Bush appointed Judge Wendell P. Gardner, Jr. to the bench of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia in 1991.
Originally posted by AnOldFriend
My question to those that say these people were infringing upon others rights, how exactly were they doing so?
Originally posted by sir_chancealot
See how easy the disinfo agents have it?
INNOCENT PEOPLE ARE BEING TORTURED, and they steer the conversation to 9/11, illegal/legal protests, etc. Anything to get the focus off the fact that people are being detained, without trial, and are being tortured. WE KNOW FOR A FACT AT LEAST ONE INNOCENT MAN WAS TORTURED AND KEPT IN PRISON FOR 5 YEARS WITHOUT A TRIAL.