you do know i am baiting you? :)
--- 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
|
