Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E. T. who wrote (203887)	11/19/2001 12:50:14 PM
From: willcousa	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Once again in this thread of debate you are acting on a false premise. You are speculating that a military tribunal is acting without benefit of law. You do not know that to be the case, you are only speculating.

To: E. T. who wrote (203887)	11/19/2001 3:57:10 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

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

To: E. T. who wrote (203887)	11/20/2001 9:50:43 AM
From: Dr. Doktor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

"That the terrorist were threatenning the world, so why not a world court?" The main problem with a regular trial is the evidentiary requirments. Basically, the US would be required to divuldge sources and make public evidence that is currently classified. That has the potential of comprimising national security and getting CIA/FBI agents and their sources killed. That's not going to happen. What we have is a very evil guy that has virtually confessed involvement in heinous acts of murder and therefore needs to die. The US can't risk bringing him in alive and I'm sure they won't. DOC