Oops; didn't realize Ken had already addressed this to the list
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kendall D. Corbett <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 5:09 PM
Subject: Re: [C-PALSY] ubl in court
To: [log in to unmask]
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
>
--
--
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
-----------------------
To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:
http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy
|
