Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS
Did you even read the thread?
Yes, I even read the thread.
What was the first post here? It was fecklessly (frankly, I'm not sure what that means) blaming Obama and Holder.
Scott's post was not feckless. It was purposeful and substantiated by the actual verdict. Your contention that it was Bush's fault was unsubstantiated conjecture. It is not possible to substantiate that if the trial were done by Bush's choice of court the verdict would be the same.
Who here said it was a slam dunk other than Scott?
Several commentators have used the phrase slam dunk before the trial started.
Once most of the evidence was ruled inadmissable, no trial would ever be a "slam dunk". If torture, abuse, etc. were not legally applicable, why was most of the evidence thrown out?
|
Was "most of the evidence" thrown out? Evidently Holder and his crew thought they had enough in spite of the loss of the "tainted" witness. And if they didn't, it was stupid on their part to have the trial. Stupid on
their part, not Bush's.
"Torture," "abuse," and "illegal detention" to be legally applicable have to have been legally adjudicated as such. Has there been a legal adjudication that Ghailani was tortured, abused, and illegally detained? Judge Kaplan disallowed the "tainted" witness on grounds that Ghailani may have been coerced to divulge information and that the prosecution did not prove that such coercion did not happen. The prosecution did not object and argue for inclusion of the testimony,
as what may have happened in a military court, but, instead stipulated that coercion probably happened, and proceeded with what they thought was a highly winnable case. And, for the most part, they were right--with the exception of a single juror that, for whatever reason, could not see the merits of the preponderance of evidence and argumentatioin that was submitted. This, apparently, led to the compromise which avoided the embarassment of a hung jury.
This may well not have happened in a military tribunal where the judges would be more attuned to the merits of the evidence.
But we'll never know. Personally, I don't have much of a bone to pick with the decision to have civilian rather than military trials. I think military trials are more appropriate for unlawful combatants. I think there is much to lose in terms of classified information. I don't think those who avow to kill or destroy us, when caught in the act, deserve the same constitutional rights of citizens who wish to preserve and protect this nation and its Constitution.
My response to you is purely a retort to your--obsession?--for blaming Bush.