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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (288519)	1/20/2009 9:26:42 PM
From: D. Long	1 Recommendation Respond to of 794666

and all the information obtained from the interrogation (even indirectly) would be tossed. That might not leave enough left to prosecute He wasn't being prosecuted in a civil court. I am not a military lawyer, and I'm not familiar with the rules of evidence laid down for the tribunals, but I know it is a lesser standard than civil courts, and likely would not have been thrown out unless it was clearly and uncontestably torture. I did study international law in law school, and I do know that the line she pushed, that isolation and calling people names, is not torture by any but the most defense-oriented standard. She had a duty to push her client's case to get a conviction of this guy. He was the 20th hijacker, for God's sake. She's in direlection of her duty as an officer of the United States and as a lawyer representing the people of the United States, IMO. How many other Gitmo prosecutors do you see grandstanding in the paper? She's a disgrace.