Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS
Did you even read the thread? What was the first post here? It was fecklessly (frankly, I'm not sure what that means) blaming Obama and Holder. Who here said it was a slam dunk other than Scott? Once most of the evidence was ruled inadmissable, no trial would ever be a "slam dunk". If torture, abuse, etc. were not legally applicable, why was most of the evidence thrown out?
|
forgive Paul, he's a self-admitted minimal reader(but still lots of fun) and probably gets most of his info from Ed Schultz
...the evidence that was allowed was compelling ...apparently for all but one juror
Holder: "Many of those who have criticized the decision--and not all--but many of those who have criticized the decision have done so, I think, from a position of ignorance. They have not had access to the materials that I have had access to.
They've not had a chance to look at the facts, look at the applicable laws and make the determination as to what our chances of success are. I would not have put these cases in Article III courts if I did not think our chances of success were not good--
in fact, if I didn't think our chances of success were enhanced by bringing the cases there."
Paul...do you know what the word "enhanced" means?
there's a pletherea of these if you simply do a little research...you can't be as incredibly arrogant as these people routinely are and then whine and blame others for pointing out blatant shortcomings or big disasters when things don't go the way that they so demonstratively said they would ....while glaring down their noses at those in a "position of ignorance"
Holder's terror trial catastrophe
Washington Post
By Marc Thiessen
Monday, October 11, 2010
If President Obama needed a clarifying moment to help him decide whether to try Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in civilian court, a federal judge's decision last week to bar the testimony of a key witness in the trial of Ahmed Ghailani should have provided it.
Ghailani's prosecution for the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in East Africa was supposed to be a slam dunk, which Attorney General Eric Holder would then hold up as evidence that civilian courts could handle the prosecutions of other Guantanamo detainees with more complicated cases.