Reply With Quote
What's so funny?
Terror detainee largely acquitted
The first former Guantanamo Bay detainee to be tried in federal criminal court was found guilty on a single conspiracy charge Wednesday but cleared on 284 other counts.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...111707280.html
What's so funny?
I don't find the USG's rate of failure funny at all.
They couldn't use his very detailed confession because of where and how he was arrested and detained. Bull .
dubya and head's ups live on. In head's shovel-ready case, they'll live on longer than him.
Gitmo has/is costing how many 100 of $Ms?
how many tried and convicted?
Apart from head's lies, how many times would America have been destroyed, or attacked, without the tortured info from Gitmo and other American gulag sites?
OBL's chauffeur is one dangerous mofo.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 11-18-2010 at 11:00 AM.
Nice job Barry.
the guy faces a minimum of 20 yrs in prison? What's your problem?
Not bad for killing a couple of hundred people.
You mean nice job, Bushie.
I wasn't aware that the decision to try him in a US Civil Court was Bush's. Military tribunals have different rules of evidence and as I understand it, under these cir stances were available to be used.
In military tribunals, verdicts are determined by political effect, rather than by whether the defendant is innocent or guilty.
Depends on what they dream up as the rules of evidence for that tribunal.
A greater percentage of defendants have gone free after being tried in the recent tribunal system. This guy is not going free.
Yeah, it's a shame we can't use forced confessions to convict people.
Fixed it for you.
Any court which doesn't allow people to see the evidence against them makes a mockery of the legal system.
Sooo....you guys say he couldn't have gotten a fair trial in a military court?
I'm saying the conviction record of terror suspects by the tribunal system is much worse in a much smaller total number of cases.
So your preference for civilian trials is strictly based on your desire for them to get more convictions and harsher sentences?
I would argue that the military trials, while technically legal, are not "fair" and should not represent an American form of justice/legal system.
No, your assumption is false, just as the assumption that military tribunals will automatically result in more convictions than civilian trials is false.
So when Obama's justice department folds like a cheap lawn chair and tries KSM in a military tribunal you aren't gonna like it?
But Chumpdumper says civilian trials get more/harsher convictions than military tribunals, and Chumpdumper prefers civilian trials. Now Chumpdumper says he doesn't want more/harsher convictions for terrorists.
If thats not correct this is a good opportunity for chumpdumper to set the record straight on what Chumpdumper wants.
CosmicCowboy makes a lot of false assumptions.But Chumpdumper says civilian trials get more/harsher convictions than military tribunals, and Chumpdumper prefers civilian trials. Now Chumpdumper says he doesn't want more/harsher convictions for terrorists.
If thats not correct this is a good opportunity for chumpdumper to set the record straight on what Chumpdumper wants.
This is a good opportunity for CosmicCowboy to start over and simply read without making a lot of false assumptions.
I cannot help CosmicCowboy with his failure to understand. CosmicCowboy needs to help himself.
Simply put, I have not been presented with a good reason why terror suspects should not be tried in civilian courts as they have been for well over a decade.
Nope. Our court systems has tried terrorists before, successfully. We can uphold our values of a fair legal system AND keep ourselves safe. We don't have to pick one or the other.
I will offer several reasons:
1) Most of them are not US Citizens
2) Most of them have never been to the United States
3) They are terrorists, not criminals.
4) Their acts of terrorism were typically performed abroad.
5) They were typically captured by military (ours or others)
6) Because they were not captured by trained US law enforcement and mirandized like common US criminals so most legitimate evidence gathered is inadmissible under US criminal law.
7) The trial becomes a ing joke when this evidence is not admitted.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
