Skip to main content

View Diary: The sunlight of a public trial (118 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  From CNN: Front Page (4.00)
    "We did not need to use a secret military tribunal, detain the defendant indefinitely or deny the defendant the right to counsel. ... Our courts have not abandoned the commitment to the ideals that set this nation apart," he said.

    CNN article

    "What is hateful to thee, thou shalt not do unto thy neighbor. This is the whole of the Law, the rest is only commentary" Rabbi Hillel

    by modthinglet on Wed Jul 27, 2005 at 01:01:16 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Yay for federal judges (4.00)
      I've appeared before a few.  I always get along with the conservative Republicans on the bench; believe it or not, the only judge I have had trouble with is one appointed by Clinton!

      Let's remember what the federal judiciary did in the Schiavo case:  NOTHING. They swatted the US Congress and Jeb away as if they were flies. Moreover, the Florida judge who had the case was a Republican, if I recall. He stuck to his guns, despite death threats and getting thrown out of his Church.

      Let us also remember that the defendant's involved in the first WTC bombing were tried in a Federal court.  They had vigorous counsel and a public trial. They were convicted.

      There is no reason for holding people for years without charge, without a lawyer.  Bush and his cronies have no respect for the American judicial system.  Even Timothy McVeigh got a trial, and had counsel. We used to be a country where due process pertained to all.

      The best thing about the federal judges is that, despite Bush's attacks, they remain true to the Constitution.  Lifetime appointments insure that they don't have to check the way the wind blows politically before they issue a ruling.  

      We do not rent rooms to Republicans.

      by Mary Julia on Wed Jul 27, 2005 at 01:37:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Our court system works... (none)
      but only in places where they have jurisdiction.  They have none over an "enemy combatant" who surrenders to US soldiers after spending previous moments firing bullets at those very same soldiers.  They cannot be charged with attempted murder in our federal court system.

      What gets me is that he ONLY got 22 years.  22 years sounds like a lot, but it means he'll be out in his 50's.  Can a 55 year old drive a car full of explosives into an airport?  Ummmm... yeah.  So Richard "shoebomber" Reid gets 3 life sentences, 4 20year sentences, and 1 30 year sentence.  Essentially he's locked up for life.  What's the difference here?  Why does this terrorist get off so much easier?  What kind message does this send to other terrorists who would try and kill innocent Americans here on US soil?  Come and try and kill us, if you're successfull you'll be rewarded in heaven, if not, then you can stay with us for 20 years and we'll give you another chance.  Someone put me straight.  Why is this such a GREAT decision?  Just because the judge seems to denounce GITMO?  This sentence seems awfully light.  Maybe I'm missing something here.  Somebody shed some light on this.

      •  Ummm... (none)
        "Our court system works, but only in places where they have jurisdiction.  They have none over an 'enemy combatant' who surrenders to US soldiers after spending previous moments firing bullets at those very same soldiers.

        Like Jose Padilla?  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site