Obama gets his first terrorist acquittal in civilian court

In the way that in the Bush administration civilian trials were more effective in getting convictions that Military Tribunal trials.

 

indeed

 

Link?

 

This man would be getting the chair if Bush was president; he never let a gitmo detainee have civilian court procedures. For this reason you will not see Democrats bring up the issue.

 

Yeah, we all know how much of a hard on Jr had for the death penalty.

 

This sentence should read, "...unless you can't prove..."

Other than that,

 

you wouldn't want the death penalty for someone who killed 12 Americans and hundreds more?

 

An American court of law says he did not do anything that you accuse him of.

 

hmmmmm.... That article I posted discusses the fact that the civilian trials were more effective.

It points out that in the 20 military tribunals started during the Bush era, there are only 3 convictions so far.

Yet in the hundreds of cases where terrorists faced the American Justice System there was an 88% conviction rate.

If you can't read it or click on the link for some reason let me know. I'll try and find a different way to post it.

Under Bush it is just as likely the guy would have had the same exact result in a civilian trial or not have been convicted at all in a military tribunal.

 

In order to make that claim, you must know whether a person is guilty or not. Since you don;t know if any of this, you can't claim what was more effective. Unlike the Ghailani case, were we know the man was guilty, and the only reason he got off so many charges was because he was given rights he should not of had.

 

We do know how prosecutors measure effectiveness of methods used, and that is by conviction rates.

I don't think it's unreasonable to base effectiveness for terrorism cases by the same methods that prosecutors normally use.

I think it's actually unreasonable to suggest that new method of effectiveness be used in the cases of terrorism put forward by the Bush administration.

 

Yay, hooray, high five guys! We are so civilized! Awesome, we can definitely hold our heads high because a guy who obviously was a terrorist was acquitted of charges!

 

Yep. Score one for us. Justice was served. Don't like it? Go to some place where nobody gives a crap about the rule of law.

 

Do you like the constitutional rule of law the United States has?

This is a yes or no question.

 

yes. Please tell me where in the constitution it says a non-citizen gets tried in a civilian court and has rights?

 

How can so many liberals pat themselves on the back when a murderer of hundreds, including 12 Americans, is just getting 20 to life? All we need now is Holder to say "The system worked".

 

The Bill of Rights says what are govt. is not allowed to do. It may not deprive anyone of a jury trial and does not delineate between citizen and non-citizen. It doesn't not say only citiznes may not be deprived of a speedy trial by jury.

Furthermore, I understand that the Constitution isn't the same as the Declaration of Independence. But they are related and written by the founding fathers. The DoI does say that ALL MEN are endowed, by their Creator, with certain Inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

They didn't believe that only citizens are endowed with certain inalienable rights. They believed that ALL MEN were.

 

As been stated already in this thread, the Bill of Rights/Constitution doesn't grant non-citizens civilian court trial procedures.

 

The Bill of rights ensures that everyone whether they are a citizen or not is entitled to a speedy trial by jury.