Funny, it isn't intentional. Often, I'll find out later that Mrs JB posted in a thread and then we discuss it. I just think that, for us, our core belief systems are aligned. We have very similar beliefs at a root level and we both feel like it is very important for us to have those similar beliefs. When we do have some sort of disagreement, it is mostly trivial or emotional issues that are more about she or I as individuals than us as a couple. We always have those core values and beliefs to lean on and they are what hold us together when we do have problems. Knowing that the other person feels the way you do is really important for me. It isn't that big of a deal in a friendship because the feelings aren't nearly as intense and you aren't with that person all the time like in a marriage. However, in a marriage, you HAVE to feel like your partner has your back. Without those similar values, I don't think we would have been able to come as far as we have. And it isn't as if "liberal" or "Buddhist" or "vegetarian" would qualify as a core belief. Both of us were liberal when we met (though she more than I) but I wasn't a vegetarian and we still have somewhat different spiritual beliefs though they are marketdly more similar now than when we met. When I say "values" I mean things like compassion, open-mindedness, kindness, empathy, etc. We had those from the beginning even though we came from very different spiritual, political and socio-economic backgrounds. Those things are the foundation upon which we built our relationship. As much as I love my wife, she is also my best friend, my confidant, my coach and my biggest fan. That's the only way we know how to be.
Okay, you win but I just don't see a problem right now giving the government some extra room to operate when the potential consequences of failure could be so catastrophic. This isn't anything like what we've faced before and I don't believe it's prudent to pretend it is. I'm still curious what the danger is of making the guy go to trial instead of a military tribunal? Is our justice system so unreliable that we don't trust it for the most dangerous of criminals? Have we decided that, for most crimes, we need absolute proof, but for really horrible crimes, hearsay is good enough?
Where do you get hearsay in this case? They have an operative who has traveled with this man and has given information regarding him. That's not hearsay. Our legal system isn't set up to deal with sleeper agents who don't know what they're here to do. It's not a crime to take flight lessons, or to learn to build bombs, or to associate with bad guys. Shall we wait till he blows something up to arrest him or can we intelligently deduce that his active association with a known terrorist group means there is a high probability he's here to commit crimes?
Where do you get hearsay in this case? They have an operative who has traveled with this man and has given information regarding him. That's not hearsay. One of the largest benefits of a military tribunal is that hearsay is acceptable evidence. If there's no hearsay here, then they should have no problem getting him convicted by a regular court. I still haven't seen the benefit of a military tribunal here. What rights are you so afraid of him exercising in a regular court of law? [It's not a crime to take flight lessons, or to learn to build bombs, or to associate with bad guys. Shall we wait till he blows something up to arrest him or can we intelligently deduce that his active association with a known terrorist group means there is a high probability he's here to commit crimes? It IS a crime to associate with a terrorist group and plan terrorist actions. Why not incarcerate him for that?
