Do you realize the logic of the military tribunals the US Government has set up to try terrorists is the same as the logic for not trying bankers, traders, and mortgage sellers? It goes like this: we can't try terrorists in courts because the judicial system is too strict on rules of evidence to allow us to present all the facts that may relevant in judging the guilt of a dangerous terrorist, and subject those facts to cross examination.
And here is the logic the Justice Department and the SEC uses to excuse the fact that no leading perpetrator of the 2008 crash or its aftermath has yet to be charged with a crime: the rules for evidentiary procedure in courts are so stringent that we doubt we could get a conviction because so much of what these people did won't stand up to standards of reasonable doubt.
Isn't that the same problem as with the terrorists? So why don't we establish military tribunals for bankers?
No comments:
Post a Comment