e.t. you say "A tribunal is for lynching, if laws are not already in place." Well it clear to see your open mind on this issue. It's clear to see your open mind when someone offers a anything but a denouncement of Rev. Falwell you call them hate mongerers. Yes oh clueless one you have an open mind.
btw in article you posted #reply-16679661 the reasons for having a tribunal.
The first thing to understand is that our civilian legal system is not equipped to destroy Al Qaeda. Consider just the experience of the families in the case of Pan Am Flight 103, blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland by Libyan terrorists. Justice, administered by Scottish judges, was greatly delayed and incomplete. If the goal is the broader one of crushing Al Qaeda (as it must be), the task is simply beyond the capacity of civilian courts. It took more than 40 years for prosecutors to nail the Mafia, time we don t have (the Mafia did not target civilians). The terrorist network is too big, and the courts too slow. Moreover, the rules of procedure and evidence are a real impediment. You can t pick and choose which protections would be offered, so the whole spectrum of rights would have to be granted to the terrorists. For instance, if a document that detailed the entire terrorist network were improperly seized, a judge would have to rule it inadmissable. That would slow efforts to crack Al Qaeda.
you all have a nice day.
tom watson tosiwmee |
