Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh, OK. I thought the topic was Terrorist Trials in Civilian Court.
So it seemed appropriate (to me) to mention the whole idea of mock trials; predetermined outcome; presidential indefinite detention. You know, that type of stuff.
Carry on with your discourse of the validity and well, American justice, of these trials.
It is appropriate, don't worry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
I'm not missing anything, I'm just trying to stay on topic.
The dog and pony, show trial of obama/holder IS on topic. Do you deny they said this? Do you deny that is what they will do if any high value terrorist is acquitted in civilian court?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Sanrene seems to think that Obama was the jury forman or something.
His policy of trying terrorists in civilian courts, giving them ALL the rights of an American citizen.
Do you have proof that Ghailani was guilty of any of the other charges lodged against him?
Oh....only his confession and the mountain of evidence against him, including the man who could NOT testify about the truck and explosives. The witness was named BY the defendant.
Wouldn't you know, defending a terrorist that murdered 200+ people....I guess you can claim the guy is lying..right?
Your disliking the source doesn't make their presentation of the statute from the UCMJ or the judge's decision any less accurate.
But, you've ignored that reality in several posts already, no reason you would acknowledge it now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene
Oh....only his confession and the mountain of evidence against him, including the man who could NOT testify about the truck and explosives. The witness was named BY the defendant.
Wouldn't you know, defending a terrorist that murdered 200+ people....I guess you can claim the guy is lying..right?
Right. The confessions that were obtained through torture. Yes, very credible.
It is a true shame that even those who should be convicted may not ever get just punishment all because someone decided that his administration was above the law.
You won't like this link either, but, it says all that needs to be said about this travesty:
"By throwing aside all norms for prisoner treatment and setting up an apparatus of systemic torture, Bush and Cheney destroyed critical evidence that could have been used by the prosecution to convict."
Thanks OP - it is indeed a win for the administration regardless of how some would prefer to characterize it. The DoJ did the best they could with the evidence allowed and got a conviction. The family members got to see justice served. Another example of the strength of the American justice system. I hope they take Rep. Weiner's advice to heart:
" As outspoken Rep. Anthony Weiner of New York tweeted this morning, "New nominee for most inept messaging by the Obama team: DoJ. Guys, you won! Act like it!""
He was found guilty on a single conspiracy charge and cleared on 284 other counts. Is that really a successful prosecution?
It was a very successful prosecution. It was a win for the security of the American people - it put the bad guy away for a very long time - and it was a win for American values - the Constitution wasn't shredded and stomped all over in the process.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.