Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Jury made a 'fair' decision.

28 (21.5%)

Jury could have been less 'lenient'.

9 (6.9%)

Jury was way too 'lenient'.

6 (4.6%)

I do not agree with the decision made by the Jury, but still respect it.

8 (6.2%)

Jury should be hung.

6 (4.6%)

Evidence obtained via torture should have been used.

8 (6.2%)

The US should use Special Courts for Terrorists.

10 (7.7%)

Special exceptions to the law should be given for Terrorists.

1 (0.8%)

Special exceptions to how justice is handled should be given for Terrorists.

3 (2.3%)

I don't care.... or something...

7 (5.4%)

Jury has been too harsh.

3 (2.3%)

Terrorists are soldiers and you can't judge them in court.

11 (8.5%)

Terrorists are not soldiers, they have their own special classification.

5 (3.8%)

Terrorists are not soldiers, they have same rights as any other basic human.

25 (19.2%)

Total Members Voted: 61

[Zangi]

After citizen court ruling...

What is your take on it?  What do you think?  I want to know.

[IronyOwl]

Haven't read the details, but the point of a "trial" is to figure out if they're innocent or guilty. If you already know the answer, the whole thing's a sham anyway, so shenanigans shouldn't be all that surprising.

In particular, courts don't really run on probabilities. Accusing someone of a lot of stuff doesn't mean they're guilty of at least a certain percentage of it.

[Duke 2.0]

 And there was evidence that was not used, so the jury didn't have the full account anyway.

[Phmcw]

It lack he option of "jury has been too harsh", and "you can't judge enemy soldiers".
I'm a bit divided on this one, but mostly, I think he got a fair trial.
Now were the US in their right to judge him?
Can you judge an enemy soldier? 

[Leafsnail]

I dunno... maybe they found the evidence in front of them inadequate, and thought that overall there wasn't sufficient proof?  If there's more proof for it, prosecution can appeal, right?

I mean, is there a reason everyone's so sure of his guilt?

[Zangi]

Edited Poll.

As for the guilt thing... it just basically amounts to a witch hunt.  Its like they expect the jury to make him guilty while ignoring the lack of evidence.  Which is due to the guy's torture...

[Leafsnail]

I don't see the point of information obtained under torture.  Sure, you'll get a confession out of a guilty person, but you'll get the same confession out of an innocent person.

[Cthulhu]

It lack he option of "jury has been too harsh", and "you can't judge enemy soldiers".
I'm a bit divided on this one, but mostly, I think he got a fair trial.
Now were the US in their right to judge him?
Can you judge an enemy soldier?

Can a person who engages in this kind of attack be considered an enemy soldier?  Of course you can't really try a foot soldier, but what about an unenlisted, uniformless, independent agent who makes a terror attack with mass civilian casualties and infrastructure damage?  Why would someone like that get the same treatment?

[Zangi]

I don't see the point of information obtained under torture.  Sure, you'll get a confession out of a guilty person, but you'll get the same confession out of an innocent person.

Yea, that is the apparent issue to begin with.  A lot of evidence was waived away because he was tortured.  (I think I'm agreeing with you here.)

[IronyOwl]

Can a person who engages in this kind of attack be considered an enemy soldier?  Of course you can't really try a foot soldier, but what about an unenlisted, uniformless, independent agent who makes a terror attack with mass civilian casualties and infrastructure damage?  Why would someone like that get the same treatment?

Well, what defines a "soldier" then? A bomber pilot or artillery gunner isn't exactly a standard soldier either.

[Duke 2.0]

Can a person who engages in this kind of attack be considered an enemy soldier?  Of course you can't really try a foot soldier, but what about an unenlisted, uniformless, independent agent who makes a terror attack with mass civilian casualties and infrastructure damage?  Why would someone like that get the same treatment?

Well, what defines a "soldier" then? A bomber pilot or artillery gunner isn't exactly a standard soldier either.

That seems more of the point here.

[Aqizzar]

Judge Lewis Kaplan told the jurors that their verdict said a lot about the U.S. justice system.

"American justice can be rendered calmly, deliberately and fairly by ordinary people, people who are not beholden to any government, not even ours," Kaplan said.  "It can be rendered with fidelity to the Constitution. You have a right to be proud of your service in this case."

This is exactly why the American court system exists.  "It doesn't even really matter what we charge him with; we're trying him in a New York federal court on 281 counts of terrorism type stuff.  His ass is grass.  C'mon, we know he's guilty."  Doesn't fucking matter.  You have to actually prove guilt, and it is not intendent on the defense to refute the charge if the jury doesn't believe it by the evidence presented in the first place.  If the jury doesn't buy the case, there is no case, and there is no guilt.

And it's not like the guy is walking away clicking his heels.  He was convicted on a 20-to-life conspiracy charge, and you know damn well he'll never be paroled, and probably with good reason.  Besides, it's not like the Obama justice department has given up the Bush system of, "innocent verdict means you'll be held until we find something else to charge you with."

[Spreggo]

Yeah I am actually glad that our court system is more or less functioning and that they jury didn't find him guilty on all counts just because he is a terrorist. It looks like they did their best to make a responsible decision based on available evidence.

[Bauglir]

-snip-

[Phmcw]

Yes, that too, 20 to life in prison is hardly lenient.
And "terrorism" is a term used pretty loosely these days. Attacked US or European troops? TERRORIST!
Destroyed equipment? ditto. Tortured enemy? raped them? Killed there children? TERRORIST! except if you're part of the US military. Then it's ok, and chance are that is you are convinced at all, it will be lightly (if you're an officer don't worry at all).
And don't worry about Obama either : as a convinced partisan of Bush policies, he won't allow any international inquiries (unlike the English).

It's not only an American problem, but it's sad to see such a regression.
Clinton's intervention in Yugoslavia was way cleaner, more successful, and cheaper.