|
|
 |
|
#1
03-05-2010, 07:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
military tribunal after all?
|
|
#2
03-05-2010, 11:55 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Proving the point that if we can get this Admin to slow down a bit and think things through, they might come up with better decisions. I know it's a big IF
|
|
#3
03-05-2010, 02:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I recall getting bashed by a few posters for saying it should be a tribunal. Now I feel some vindication! This is another example of a candidate saying something and then having to backtrack when they get more info. It's why you shouldn't believe all those campaign promises.
|
|
#4
03-05-2010, 09:59 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Well, you can feel vindicated, I feel it's pathetic - just caving to the temper-tantrum-throwing screamers. Purely a political move.
Bush successfully and quickly prosecuted over a hundred terrorists in Fed Court, that's right where they belong. They are not "enemy combantants" - they are unimportant little nothings don't deserve the freedoms of a military trial. BTW, I just read even Germany tries terrorists not in military court.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
|
Linear Mode
