callmeslick wrote: Most experts say the outcome would have been the same in a military tribunal. Once you torture people, convicting them in any sort of court proceeding gets to be problematic.
Who are these "most experts" you occasionally refer to? Left wing nut jobs?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124493/Ameri ... sions.aspx
I searched to find the LOWEST numbers attempting to support your claim. NO ONE polled said "yay, good idea".
I'm nauseous about those "experts" the left keeps holding up. Elitists, the self proclaimed knowing group of so called intellectuals
This process was "designed for domestic criminals," not "wartime enemies." If the Obama administration had tried Ghailani under a military commission — as Congress hoped it would — then this confessed terrorist would be locked away forever. Instead, the U.S. will "eventually release a man who attacked two of its embassies abroad" — what a disgrace.
how does someone born elsewhere, committing a crime elsewhere, against people...elsewhere...warrant a trial here?
spare me the flowery America, home of the free, brave, we're better than they are. In our role there, we were mercenaries, so why have a trial here?
What to do with him upon release? unless murdered he will be OUT.......then what? during his incarceration he will be allowed access to internet and all forms of communications granted..."citizen" criminals..
Where is his jury of peers?? WTF.
The ONLY reason Obama had this done, was to further discredit bush, and shore up his base...his wavering gay, socialist, left wing lib, green terrorists, and tax cheat base.....pity they are washing off in droves or it might have worked.
You. are. wrong.
again.