Its not about not telling the parents, its about the parents not being able to do anything. the people who got thru on the hijacked planes called their love ones and told them that they are ok and that they love the family and good stuff, they didnt call em up and say, OMG WERE GUNNA ****IN DIE, I AM SO FREAKIN SCARED IM ABOUT TO HAVE A HEART ATTACK no, whys that? because they dont want to worry a loved one for somethign that isnt in the power of the loved one to stop. you can decipher this any way you want, but fact of the matter is that there are many two faced practices goin on in saudi, and when time comse these tortures and stuff will be the points that you use to point a finger at saudi and be like, OMG its a country that TORTURES AMERICANS. blah blah,, but when time comes to prove an americans innocence, NAh saudi didnt torture him, hes muslim... freakin patheticl
umm, ok... hypothetical and possible situations are now the same as "anecdotal stories" TJ, seriously, your not worth my time... i find it more intellectual arguing with a tree.
no. im just saying i think juries are a joke. they are random and that is one reason why lawyers always try to settle the case. juries are inconsistent, can be easily infleunced etc. its the best system we have. but its not perfect. though i love how you pull out random comments and start interrogations on them when they are irrelevant tothe discussion at hand. if i was ever accused of something i'd feel safer in the hands of a fair judge than a random jury. unless i had some amazing lawyers who could pull the emotional strings.
The PEPTO is a helpful reminder to you to help counteract the indigestion from Thanksgiving and my heaping serving of truth. You got OWNED as bad as anyone has ever been OWNED in this forum -- and that includes the Stradivarious Conquest of Sam Fisher. Listen, Batman, if you don't understand that calling Christians who want to preserve the sanctity of marriage by the name of "*** haters" could be interpreted as hatred towards Christianity, then you are simply incapable of grasping any argument. Continue on this path and you will continue to have to reach for the PINK STUFF
But the Jury heard the defense's claim that he was tortured and that anything he said may have been coerced. They still convicted him which must mean there was other evidence that was extremely incriminating.
First off all - there's no proof they tortured any American - this is just a claim made by a defendant. Secondly, he was tried and convicted in the U.S. by a jury. Clearly the jury would have had some doubt about the voracity of his testimony if the Defense could demonstrate reasobable liklihood of torture - still they convicted him. We don't know what other evidence was presented. Regardless, you are the one who is saying the jury came to an incorrect statement - which i find hard to believe since you don't have access to the same information they do.
and they will be incorrect again. What's your point? You're really trying to defend this guy so hard. He's like your OJ.
That's why I said I wasn't commenting on his innocence or guilt but instead pointing out that if he was being tortured its very unlikely that the Saudis would allow him to call his parents and say so. They might've have let him call his parents and threatened worse torture if he said anything. Not knowing more about the case I presume there is very convincing evidence to convict him. That still doesn't mean he wasn't tortured because the jury weren't ruling on him being tortured or not. They could have thought he might've been but decided that he was too dangerous to let go free or they could've found it not convincing enough to put the evidence in doubt.
unfortunately my point? You were using the jury's desicion as the desicive factor in declaring this man a terrorist or not, when the fact is that there are many unknown variables in his case and I dont feel that the desicion was a correct one. I defend who I believe is innocent... DWhy does it bother you that there is a possibility that the guy just may be innocent.
I suppose if you're going to be skeptical you'll always be skeptical. In this case, there's really not much more you can do than a jury trial. You can't declare him innocent simply because you have a gut feeling. He was given a trial and by all indications it was a fair one that looked at all the issues at hand. If there's some evidence that wasn't presented or some arguments that weren't made at the trial, then by all means you might have a point but to say that there may have been some unknown variables is to vague of a justification for his innocence after a trial.
I see what you are saying, and I guess it is right based on the circumstances, but imagine how easy it is for the jury's to convict anyone who is just slapped into saying that they did something wrong... **** like that makes me feel bad for anyone that goes to jail... here or any other country.
How is allowing to people who love each other and want to have an official committed marriage destroying the sanctity of marriage?
