On 27/02/2008, Sheldon Rampton <sheldon(a)prwatch.org> wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> All of those things, as stated earlier, reflect poorly. Convicting
> someone of a crime should be on the basis of an accusation by a named,
> identifiable accuser who can be confronted by the accused (subject to
> observation in the courtroom, of course, and intimidation and the like
> should be strictly disallowed), not something else. One should never
> be convicted or imprisoned on a basis like this: "Well who said I did
> something wrong?" "Well we can't tell you that, but here's a
scrambled
> videotape of their accusation." "Well that's not true, I want to
> cross-examine them! And I want to know who they are, what if it's
> someone who has a grudge against me?" "Sorry, won't be
possible."
Please be careful when quoting. I didn't say that. That was in my
email as a quote from the email I was replying to from Todd Allen. My
reply actually said pretty much the same thing as yours...