Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Ah, now I see why we need to try suspected terrorists in special military courts

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-02-07 01:08 AM
Original message
Ah, now I see why we need to try suspected terrorists in special military courts
Those dang judges keep letting terrorist back out on our streets! What's the matter with those lunatics? Do they want us to get attacked again by this swarthy band of grocers and accounting teachers?

Another Terrorism-Related Acquittal

A trial that was billed "as a major component in war on terrorism" has, predictably enough, ended with an acquittal on the most serious charge:
(Muhammad) Salah, 53, and Abdelhaleem Ashqar, 48, a one-time assistant business professor at Howard University in Washington, had been accused of laundering money for Hamas terrorists fighting to topple the Israeli government.

A jury found both men not guilty of racketeering. Both were convicted of the significantly less serious crime of obstructing justice, and Ashqar was convicted of criminal contempt for refusing to testify before a grand jury.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Richard Steele Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-02-07 01:12 AM
Response to Original message
1. If we gave them REAL trials, some of the innocent ones would be acquitted.
And B*shCabal™ can't have that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-02-07 01:43 AM
Response to Original message
2. Yes, those juries, they can't be trusted
They are made up of voters, you see. :sarcasm:

They give plaintiffs large personal injury awards for no better reason than that they think the plaintiff proved that the defendant was negligent and that said negligence injured the plaintiff.

Somebody they even let criminals off, claiming that the prosecutor did not have enough evidence that the defendant was guilty, and hadn't proven it beyond a reasonable doubt!

And now isn't it so predictable that they'd let terrorists go? :sarcasm:

Why do juries hate America? :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 03:26 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC