Reply With Quote
Last time a Military commission judge had to rule, it backfired.
I thought they finally would get a fair trial... Oh well... at least if this gets the cases moving again they can maybe appeal to the justice system, much like what happened in the Habeas cases.
Last time a Military commission judge had to rule, it backfired.
Try 'em and fry 'em.
In principle there's no rational limit to the scandalization of the national conscience.
This is the kind of people Palin appeals to, I would guess... smh
I didn't know Palin was in favor of fair trials for terrorists.
I'm talking about the expediency. The 'trial' is a mere formality that preludes the frying part.
(Too slow, wino!)
Actually, I think it was the President's spokesperson that suggested they'd be tried and executed. Well, Khalid Sheik Mohammed...but, it's a start.
Hey, I'm liking the way Obama is turning on this issue. I stand behind the idea expressed by Robert Gibbs.
There you go, blood libeling Sarah Palin again. I don't know that she ever suggested "trying and frying," but, Gibbs damn sure did.
Surprised you didn't think Ayers had a hand in this...
But Obama has been a complete turd on this. So it makes sense you actually side with him.
I think you owe Palin an apology.
I have no problem telling anybody that wants to hear that Palin is as dumb as they come. This is exactly why I was saying earlier in the other thread: "We'll see who runs in 2012"...
I didn't misspell anything, did I?
yoni is serious.
An apology for what? She's on the record that the prisoners in Gitmo do not deserve access to the justice system (despite omitting that Bush tried the shoe bomber successfully that way).
She's for expedited try 'em and fry 'em.
You're going to have to produce the "fry 'em" part to pin that on her. I can post video of Gibbs saying it.
Once again, you've got this narrative you have to follow.
It doesn't matter if they fry 'em, inject 'em, or lock 'em and throw the key.
It's not the outcome that's the problem, it's the process.
You could have the same outcome under established systems of justice that provide for a fair trial. Again, you can keep harping on the outcome, my concern is with the process to get there.
The process for trying and disposing of combatant cases has been fine until this war. And, now Obama is seeing what Bush saw and, he's agreeing.
Good on him.
Except Bush tried terrorists in Federal court.
And got convictions.
Why do you hate the American justice system?
You mean the federal process? Because most of the released prisoners were never actually tried. And those still in there are still waiting.
If it hadn't been for liberal whining none of them would have been released and tribunals would have commenced a long time ago.
Well thank God for liberal whining. Detaining people in error was wrong.
The tribunals commenced and at least two cases were dismissed because the judge ruled that the accused were not properly determined to be under their jurisdiction.
This is what happens when you try to put a hack job in place of real justice. It backfires. So, the liberal whining had nothing to do with it. The lack of actual evidence did.
I bet Glenn Beck didn't explain it like that.
It sounds much worse when you quantify the rate of failure: the US is losing 2/3 habeas cases 50 cases in.
That means judges have determined the USG had insufficient evidence to detain in the first place, in 2/3 of the reviewed cases.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
