timm@amsta.leeds.ac.uk (Tim Mellor) wrote:

:Fred J. McCall <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<rf9phvolv7rgv7r5npb6v3c0rotfatsm7c@4ax.com>...
:> David Evans <devans@freeuk.com> wrote:
:> 
:> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> :
:> :>Who's being executed without a fair trial?  You should take something
:> :>for those hallucinations.
:> :
:> :The Al Qaeda suspects detained in Guatanamo Bay may face execution if
:> :found guilty by military tribunal.  
:> 
:> 'May' and 'if'.  I reiterate my question.
:> 
:> :A military tribunal does not constitute a fair trial.
:> 
:> I'm sure all those folks who have been subjected to military Courts
:> Martial over the years will be surprised to hear that.
:> 
:> Frankly, it's a 'fairer' trial than you'll find most anywhere else in
:> the world, military OR civilian jurisprudence.
:
:These men will not be allowed to choose their defence council. They
:and their council will not hear the prosecution case and thus be
:unable to defend against it. 

Well, they could just try telling the truth.  A novel approach for
some, no doubt.

:They have already been treated
:disgracefully and almost certainly tortured to produce such
:"evidence". 

And given the evidence you have for THAT claim, I think we see what
'evidence' really means to you.

:Their defence council and the judges will have a vested
:interest and there will be intense political pressure for convictions.
:It is difficult to think of any ways in which these trials could be
:less fair. The president may aswell just execute them now, at least
:that would save the American people the further shame of hypocracy.

And yet, oddly, we have yet to see the first conviction and execution.
Gee, I wonder why that is?  Perhaps the process is a bit more fair
internally than you care to admit....

[If we were just interested in killing them out of hand, they'd be
dead now.]

-- 
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
 territory."
                                      --G. Behn