I'm not sure what you mean by "business as usual". All I know is that Judge Brinkema and Moussaoui's court-appointed lawyers did a great job of giving him a fair trial despite all his disruptive efforts.I think you are asking a little too much. Why won't you give credit where it is due?

.

Can anyone explain why they think the judicial system is so broken
that it cannot handle these trials ?

What is wrong, why don't you think it will work ?

.
RichC
:jester:
.

I said that it didn't help in the fight with terrorists and you asked how I knew this. So I asked how you knew it changed the terrorist mindset instead of it being "business as usual" in the "I hate USA world". IOW, what good did it do? since I didn't see it. Maybe you know how it improved things and made us more likable but I didn't see it. Maybe you did.

What credit do you think it is due? That it shows the world that we treat people fairly? Yes, it did. Did that change things? No. Again, I am interested in quantifiable results. Now if it can make people decide not to sign up for terror campaigns, I'm all for it. However, I would like to see any claim substantiated. If you are talking about some warm fuzzy "Dr Feelgood" result, I suppose.

What have they done to deserve anything good? How fair have they been with us, as far as it goes?

You mean like the following?http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/17/mora-abu-ghraib-and-guantanamo-are-first-and-second-identifiable-causes-of-us-combat-deaths-in-iraq/

What is the difference between thinkprogress.org opinions, Mora's and your's? How are their opinions any more credible than your's?

Now, if you had even a few people who could come forward and say that they were considering joining Al Qaeda until they saw that, it would be convincing.

The article I quoted didn't include any opinions from thinkprogress.org.

One reason that Mora's opinions might have credibility is that he has actual experience in the field. That doesn't make his opinions the final say on anything, but aren't they worth considering?

More to the point, though, is that Mora's focus was not on his own opinions, although he did touch on at least one opinion of his own. His focus was on the views expressed by serving flag-rank officers who maintain that abuses committed in the name of the United States at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo have resulted in U.S. combat deaths. Are their views to be ignored? Are their views inferior to Justice Scalia's?

Like I said, their views are about as valuable as yours and Justice Scalia's or even mine. However, if they had something concrete, it would be more than a viewpoint. If they could point to something that we cannot argue with, that would be something. If it could even turn a few recruits and we have some sort of verification of it, that would be something we could not argue with.

I disagree. Not all views are equally valuable. I'd trust the view of someone from the field more than the view of someone who likes to argue on a message board.

Fair enough. Why don't you tell me what he bases his view on? What data does he have to support it?

What about those people on the field who DO believe in it? Do their views count? How about those who are in the field doing it? What if we actually had some people who were trying to extract info and can tell you that they got info? Would their views count even more since they are actually working with these people and not in the rear with the gear?

Of course their views count. You are the only one around here questioning whether other peoples' views count.

I am not saying that we should discount one view or another. I am saying that before we accept their view as the only truth, we should see hard data. Otherwise, it is just an opinion. That is why I am asking what they base their view on. Now, if you can say that we have done this study or something, well, that is a different story. What makes this guy's view so valuable over say the person actually working with the detainee? Without hard data, what makes it more than an opinion

Who suggested that anyone's views should be accepted as the only truth?How would anyone collect hard data on this sort of thing? If you wait for hard data before taking any action against our enemies, then we will get nothing done. There has to be some exercise of judgment. In my judgment, Bush's scorched earth tactics have done a lot of harm.

Report the whole story Rich--that was my reply after you threatened to whine to a moderator. Its my standard response to those who talk tough but can't handle their own problems.

I'm as inclined as the next guy to treat these suspected terrorists the way the Bush administration has. On the other hand, the rule of law is what sets us apart from our enemies. If we resort to the same stuff they do, we're no better than they are.