Douglas the Intrepid
Beach Fanatic
That is true with any form of torture Geo. That is why they continue the torture over a period of time to ascertain any deviation in the information received.
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
Civilian trials appear to be working for terrorists......
- Thread starter walk the walk
- Start date
LuciferSam
Banned
So in other words, even if the subject is telling the truth and is willing to cooperate, he's in for months of brutal torture.
scooterbug44
SoWal Expert
30ashopper
SoWal Insider
McVeigh got the needle under Clinton's leadership for killing hundreds. Ghailani gets twenty year to life under Obama's for doing the same.
Letting the bad guys off easy... change you can believe in?
Letting the bad guys off easy... change you can believe in?
Geo
Beach Fanatic
Believe this-
Remove the politics and you see that nothing has changed-
The plantiff still needs evidence to win their case.
30ashopper
SoWal Insider
30ashopper
SoWal Insider
Geo, IMHO you're the one letting politics get in the way of your judgement.
Geo
Beach Fanatic
How so, my brutha?
Here is where I am coming from-
The administration chose to allow the accused to be tried. They followed the law rather than making new rules because of 9-11. Which means- they maintained the status quo. They made it possible for the legal process to run its course. I would have hoped a Republican or Tea Partier would have done the same.
So that's our starting point.
What happened after that?
Without having disected the trial I am under the impression that the prosecution's case hinged on testimony that would have been ruled inadmissible in any other trial.
I don't like the outcome. But I don't blame POTUS. I don't blame politicos.
If the guy got 100 consecutive life sentences would WTW have posted an article about how Obama gets the credit? I wouldn't have.
Here is where I am coming from-
The administration chose to allow the accused to be tried. They followed the law rather than making new rules because of 9-11. Which means- they maintained the status quo. They made it possible for the legal process to run its course. I would have hoped a Republican or Tea Partier would have done the same.
So that's our starting point.
What happened after that?
Without having disected the trial I am under the impression that the prosecution's case hinged on testimony that would have been ruled inadmissible in any other trial.
I don't like the outcome. But I don't blame POTUS. I don't blame politicos.
If the guy got 100 consecutive life sentences would WTW have posted an article about how Obama gets the credit? I wouldn't have.
30ashopper
SoWal Insider
Geo
Beach Fanatic
I'm not down with any of this.
9-11 was terrible. Nuts killed a lot of innocent people. Those responsible should be punished. But newsflash- this is still the United States. When bad guys commit a crime they are arrested and the judical system runs its course.
I am against this idea of a phoney court, a bogus trial with a predetermined result.
The prosecution needs to build a case. Testimony from witnesses or the accused while they are under duress won't hold up.
Did anyone inform the jury that none of this was real? Because it seems apparent that they based their decison on the merit of what was presented to them in court.
I would feel the same way whether George Bush, Barack Obama or Sarah Palin were in office. Mine is not a partisan stance.
Not sure which part of my judgement seems flawed.
War on Terror isn't an actual war. It is a paradigm- a mindset that causes people to act crazy based on irrational fear.