AnOMALOUSone
05-31-2006, 07:12 PM
kangaroo court
1. A mock court set up in violation of established legal procedure.
2. A court characterized by dishonesty or incompetence.
[Slang of U.S. origin.] An unfair, biased, or hasty judicial proceeding that ends in a harsh punishment; an unauthorized trial conducted by individuals who have taken the law into their own hands, such as those put on by vigilantes or prison inmates; a proceeding and its leaders who are considered sham, corrupt, and without regard for the law.
The concept of kangaroo court dates to the early nineteenth century. Scholars trace its origin to the historical practice of itinerant judges on the U.S. frontier. These roving judges were paid on the basis of how many trials they conducted, and in some instances their salary depended on the fines from the defendants they convicted. The term kangaroo court comes from the image of these judges hopping from place to place, guided less by concern for justice than by the desire to wrap up as many trials as the day allowed.
The term is still in common usage by defendants, writers, and scholars critical of a court or a trial. The U.S. Supreme Court has also used it. In In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1428, 18 L. Ed. 2d 527 (1967), a case that established that children in juvenile court have the right to due process, the Court reasoned, "Under our Constitution, the condition of being a boy does not justify a kangaroo court." Associate Justice William O. Douglas once wrote, "[W]here police take matters in their own hands, seize victims, beat and pound them until they confess, there cannot be the slightest doubt that the police have deprived the victim of a right under the Constitution. It is the right of the accused to be tried by a legally constituted court, not by a kangaroo court" (Williams v. United States, 341 U.S. 97, 71 S. Ct. 576, 95 L. Ed. 774 [1951]).
Personally, I think this is a commentary on the US judicial system.. in particular secret tribunals etc set up.. for me anyway just got the impression of trials conducted against terrorists and shit like that
From The New York Times, quoting Vice President Dick Cheney: "The basic proposition here is that somebody who comes into the United States of America illegally, who conducts a terrorist operation killing thousands of innocent Americans -- men, women and children -- is not a lawful combatant."
And, he added, "They don't deserve to be treated as a prisoner of war. They don't deserve the same guarantees and safeguards that would be used for an American citizen going through the normal judicial process."
These courts can be held anywhere -- on a ship at sea, for instance. They do not have to be open to the public.
That being the case, America's Monster of the Moment, Osama bin Laden, could even now be at the bottom of the sea. Had he been captured, he could have been tried aboard a ship by one of Bush's military tribunals and executed.
"Foreign terrorists who commit war crimes against the United States, in my judgment, are not entitled to and do not deserve the protections of the American Constitution, particularly when there could be very serious and important reasons related to not bringing them back to the United States for justice. I think it's important to understand that we are at war now."
anyway who knows it could have something to do with a specific case. but its the impression i got anyway
Sources:
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1120-08.htm
http://www.answers.com/topic/kangaroo-court
1. A mock court set up in violation of established legal procedure.
2. A court characterized by dishonesty or incompetence.
[Slang of U.S. origin.] An unfair, biased, or hasty judicial proceeding that ends in a harsh punishment; an unauthorized trial conducted by individuals who have taken the law into their own hands, such as those put on by vigilantes or prison inmates; a proceeding and its leaders who are considered sham, corrupt, and without regard for the law.
The concept of kangaroo court dates to the early nineteenth century. Scholars trace its origin to the historical practice of itinerant judges on the U.S. frontier. These roving judges were paid on the basis of how many trials they conducted, and in some instances their salary depended on the fines from the defendants they convicted. The term kangaroo court comes from the image of these judges hopping from place to place, guided less by concern for justice than by the desire to wrap up as many trials as the day allowed.
The term is still in common usage by defendants, writers, and scholars critical of a court or a trial. The U.S. Supreme Court has also used it. In In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1428, 18 L. Ed. 2d 527 (1967), a case that established that children in juvenile court have the right to due process, the Court reasoned, "Under our Constitution, the condition of being a boy does not justify a kangaroo court." Associate Justice William O. Douglas once wrote, "[W]here police take matters in their own hands, seize victims, beat and pound them until they confess, there cannot be the slightest doubt that the police have deprived the victim of a right under the Constitution. It is the right of the accused to be tried by a legally constituted court, not by a kangaroo court" (Williams v. United States, 341 U.S. 97, 71 S. Ct. 576, 95 L. Ed. 774 [1951]).
Personally, I think this is a commentary on the US judicial system.. in particular secret tribunals etc set up.. for me anyway just got the impression of trials conducted against terrorists and shit like that
From The New York Times, quoting Vice President Dick Cheney: "The basic proposition here is that somebody who comes into the United States of America illegally, who conducts a terrorist operation killing thousands of innocent Americans -- men, women and children -- is not a lawful combatant."
And, he added, "They don't deserve to be treated as a prisoner of war. They don't deserve the same guarantees and safeguards that would be used for an American citizen going through the normal judicial process."
These courts can be held anywhere -- on a ship at sea, for instance. They do not have to be open to the public.
That being the case, America's Monster of the Moment, Osama bin Laden, could even now be at the bottom of the sea. Had he been captured, he could have been tried aboard a ship by one of Bush's military tribunals and executed.
"Foreign terrorists who commit war crimes against the United States, in my judgment, are not entitled to and do not deserve the protections of the American Constitution, particularly when there could be very serious and important reasons related to not bringing them back to the United States for justice. I think it's important to understand that we are at war now."
anyway who knows it could have something to do with a specific case. but its the impression i got anyway
Sources:
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1120-08.htm
http://www.answers.com/topic/kangaroo-court