Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla
Really? So, say I walk up to a news reporter who is in the middle of a live newscast and blow his brains out on national TV, then I'm not guilty until I go thru a court trial? The evidence speaks for itself.
|
How many Gitmo detainees have that level of evidence against them? 3? Maybe 4? And for those cases, we have a short trial in which they plead guilty and then go on to sentencing. What about the innocent people, dogzilla? What about the fact that Lawrence B. Wilkerson, former chief of staff to then-secretary of state Colin Powell, has stated that
most Guantanamo detainees are innocent?
What I find most amazing is you stating "The evidence speaks for itself." Well no, dogzilla, it doesn't. The evidence is classified or nonexistant, and we won't even know why these people were kidnapped until they're tried on the evidence. You're arguing against the evidence; you're saying "don't worry about the evidence speaking for itself. I know they're guilty."
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla
Same as for KSM who claims to have masterminded 9/11 or the shoe bomber who was caught red handed by several people on the flight he was trying to blow up.
|
KSM admitted guilt, yes. Was that before or after he was tortured? If it was coerced, should that admission be admissible in court? Would you admit to something you didn't do if tortured?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla
There's no doubt the guy did it. Why pretend otherwise?
|
I can't make it much more clear than this: Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is not representative of the detainees in Gitmo. There's a mountain of evidence against the Christmas bomber, most of it quite public. What evidence do you have that similarly condemns every single man in Gitmo?