i actually do not think the court was correct in its ruling last week. i personally think the constitution only applies to americans and alliens here legally. but i am not on the court.
you are right. the eyes of the world would be on it for sure.
i think the court probably just gave quite a few soldiers a take no prisoners mentality. if you take no prisoners, you don't have to worry about them ending up in the courts.
--- On Wed, 6/18/08, Kendall D. Corbett <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> From: Kendall D. Corbett <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [C-PALSY] ubl in court
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Wednesday, June 18, 2008, 7:09 PM
> Ken,
>
> So, if it's ok to deny one defendants rights,
> what's to make it wrong to do
> it for others? To me the whole thing is eerily reminiscent
> of the McCarthy
> Era and the Red Scare in th 50's.I would hope that any
> prosecutor who
> handled a case against UBL would realize that the eyes of
> the world were on
> him/her and would do it right. By extension, I'd hope
> the judge handling
> the case would be very careful to not rule in UBL's
> favor, except in the
> case of glaring procedural violations.
>
> He may well be insane, but the videos he's made since
> 9/11 show that he's in
> control of his faculties, and is fully cognizant of what
> he's done (or
> ordered to be done), so I don't think he meets the
> standard of not being
> responsible for his actions because of mental illness or
> defect.
>
> I seem to remember an equal amount of dismay by both
> Conservatives and
> Liberals because UBL hasn't been caught or killed. If
> you look at the
> Nuremberg trials, Nazi SS officers who had committed
> atrocities were tried
> (granted in military tribunals) but because the world was
> watching (or
> listening) the trials were carried out in as fair a manner
> as possible.
>
> Do you mind if we take this back to the list? I'd like
> to hear some of the
> other folks take on this as well....
>
> Kendall
>
> An unreasonable man (but my wife says that's
> redundant!)
>
> The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the
> unreasonable one
> persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
> Therefore, all progress
> depends on the unreasonable man.
>
> -George Bernard Shaw 1856-1950
>
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 1:00 PM, ken barber
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > if he is presumed innocent, why then all the
> wringging of
> > hands on the left becouse ubl has not been killed by
> the
> > bush admin?
> >
> > what if he pleads insanity? someone has to be crazy
> to do
> > what he has done.
> >
> > what if he gets off on a technicallity?
> >
> > --- On Wed, 6/18/08, Kendall D. Corbett
> > [log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > > > From: Kendall D. Corbett
> > <[log in to unmask]>
> > > Subject: Re: [C-PALSY] Sartre's Coffee :-)
> now ubl
> > in court
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Date: Wednesday, June 18, 2008, 2:37 PM
> > > I think so; if we assume anyone is guilty before
> they
> > are
> > > proven guilty,
> > > what stops us from doing that with everyone? In
> > UBL's
> > > case, the evidence is
> > > pretty overwhelming, so that won't be a
> problem.
> > Some
> > > may view it as a
> > > waste of time, but I'm with Justice Holmes
> on this
> > one:
> > > "It is better that
> > > 100 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man go to
> > prison.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 12:28 PM, ken barber
> > > <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > good comeback, kendall.
> > > >
> > > > on a more serious point, in view of last
> weeks
> > supream
> > > court decision
> > > >
> > > > if ubl is captured and is given a trail, do
> we
> > > consider him innocent until
> > > > proven guilty?
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----------------------
> >
> > To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY
> list, go here:
> >
> >
> http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy
> >
>
>
>
> --
-----------------------
To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:
http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy
|
