[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

so how was Scotts first post ("another nice job by Holder and the Obama admin.") "purposeful and substantiated" by the actual verdit?

Its purpose was to show how the Ghailani trial as a test case for trying the 9/11 conspirators in civil court with all the due process accrued to defendents there, and with the dangers of a random civilian jury, might not be such a good idea--the lone juror who didn't think the preponderance of evidence that WAS presented merited conviction and wanted to hold out for acquittal shows the danger of jury nullification in civil court

Most of the evidence was thrown out and Ghailani got a sentence that could be 20 to life. Bush authorized torture and the court threw out the evidence as a result of the authorization.

Well, there it is. It has finally been judicially and legally established that Bush authorized torture. Up till now it has been accusation, argument, conjecture, no trial (neither civilian nor military) has been convened to establish the Bush torture, but, BAM, you have stated it unequivocally--BUSH AUTHRIZED TORTURE! case closed--PaulS says so.

Now, I don't recall judge Kaplan claiming that the "tainted" witness was excluded because of some Bush authorization. Because of some possible, probable, maybe, you know, one of those really definite terms or phrases, the prosecution had to prove that such really absolute coercion (or did he say Bush authorization--it seems that this stuff is being repeated, to no avail, and swimming about in my brain, like I'm being slowly water tortured and wearily worn down with repetition . . . Ah YES! I confess . . . Bush authorized the torture, abuse and illegal detention of Ghalaini! And yet . . . he was convicted on one count and could get 20 years to life. Let's see--Bush authorized the torture of Ghailani and he got 20 to life--Ah, Bush's strategy of authorizing the torture of Ghailani was successful! And I mentioned Bush's name 5 times in this paragraph. I AM obsessed with Bush--OOPS.

You mentioned him as much as I did so that is no more obsession on my part than yours.

Right. That has been established. We're both obsessed.

If your so concerned with people being obsessed with Presidents, you should come around and watch people discuss what the Obamas had for lunch (or have you missed those posts?)

Not concerned. Just trying to understand. It's OK to be obsessed. Obsession can lead to great accomplishment. Or insanity. Yes those posts are obsessive. Be careful, you mention Obama a lot as well.

Any time someone mentions a person and you don't approve of it, is it an "obsession"? Who cares that "several commentators" used the phrase slam dunk - they weren't on here.

Gosh, why do you say that I don't approve of it? I approve! I approve! It is wonderful that you are obsessed with blaming Bush. It makes you feel good, justified, moral, and the holder (not eric) of truth.

Actually, "slam dunk" has been used several times here, including by you.