A lawyer for one of the 9/11 terrorists facing trial in NY confirms earlier claims made by Holder and BHO.
Claims made earlier this month by both AG Holder and Obama that this trial is going to be nothing but a show trial was confirmed by one of the defendant’s lawyers. They intend to plead not guilty in order to use the forum so they "would explain what happened and why they did it." Since Obama’s administration does not have the courage to bring charges against Bush officials directly they decided this trial must be held in civilian criminal court so that the more public forum in New York can be used to indirectly put the Bush administration on trial.
Under the Bounty Of Allah, they're brothers!!
we have an American president, WHO WENT TO A MUSLIM religious service, under the HATEFULL and Muslim Rev Wright, FOR 23 YEARS!!! Rev Wright, who is a seed of hate, planted by Farrikahn, are ALL 5% NATION ISLAMS!!! And the president goes by the name of Barrackl Obama..This man walks like a muslim, talks like a muslim, AND EVEN HAS A MUSLIM NAME, but he aint muslim, is he???
ONLY IN AMERICA, can a duck walk like a duck, quack like a duck, AND NOT BE A DUCK!! Even when the facts ALL SAY THE MAN IS A DUCK/MUSLIM..
Coommmmmeeeeeee onnn people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HE EVEN WENT TO RADICAL SCHOOLS TEACHING JIHAD AND ISLAM, in elementary and junior high.BUT NONE OF YA';;, well most of yall NEVER DID ANY RESEARCH ON HIM, and when someone calls obama a muslim, the news paints them with the broad brush of racism,and radical, EVEN THOPUGH ALL THE FACTS, SAY BARRACK IS MUSLIM!!!! But none of you Obamabots look into facts, AND ALLOW YOUR NEWS TO TEACH YOU EVERYTHING, they want you to know, ABOUT OBAMA!!!!.AND YOU DONT THINK THE THINGS HE LEARNED IN GRADE SCHOOL, in those radical school, OR HIS REVERAND OF 22 YEARS SHAPED HIM, AND HIS MIND???? WTF - OBAMA HATES USA!!! Is that not obvious yet??? ITS BECOMING THAT WAY, TO MANY OF AMERICANS, who wouldnt believe Barrack was muslim during the election, ARE NOW OPENING THEIR EYES!!!
-- Modified on 11/23/2009 1:34:24 AM
Rev. Wright is NOT a Muslim. He was the Pastor of Trinity United Church of CHRIST! A CHRISTIAN chruch affiliated with the United Church of CHRIST! Believing in Christ is decidedly not a Muslim trait. Does Wright preach hatred? Yes... so call him out for attending a church that had a hateful, bitter pastor, but stop with the "Muslim" shit.
Obama goes by the name Barack (btw, note that it only contains one "R") becasue THAT'S HIS NAME! What would you have him do, call himself Barry?
He attended BOTH public AND catholic schools while in Indonesia... the public school was NOT a "Muslim" school, other than the fact that most of the students were Muslim (since Indonesia is primarily a Muslim nation). The school didn't teach jihad or any other "radical" Muslim philosophies... in fact they only had a few hours of religious instruction weekly. In Catholic school, he studied catecism.
He returned to the U.S. at the age of 10 to live with his Grandmother in Hawaii, and attended the Punahou School, a private college prep school from fifth grade through twelfth grade. The Punahou School, also known as Oahu College, is a highly regarded school that is considered the "greenest" school in America and was ranked by Sports Illustrated as having the best sports program out of over 38,000 high schools. It's yearbook has won national awards from the Columbia Scholastic Press Association and the American Scholastic Press Association. Hardly a hotbed of Radical Islamic teachings.
You know, TJ, "research" means more than just believing what you read on radical-right websites... do some REAL research and learn the truth so you don't make yourself look so foolish! Try being open-minded and stop drinking the kool-aid. Check multiple sources, and don't just read those that have a decidedly anti-Obama agenda. His biography is available from many NON-PARTISAN sources. Check you facts before making absurd statements...
Many might call you racist, but not me... I just call you stupid.
I KNOW THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE!!! 
You believe in BIG GOVT, and that group thought makes you right, I say its a heard mantality you're suffering from..But thats another story..
You believe in climagte change, and spending big when YOUR BROKE,will get you out of A FINANCIAL hole, Geeee EDDIE, YOU BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOUVE BEEN TOLD, and when new ideas are introduced to you, you skim the surface in ''research'' THEN COPY AND PASTE SOMEONE ELSES SHIT, as your own, TO BOLSTER YOUR OPPINION, as facts, and make you ''sound'' intelligent, as if you knew ALOT about the subject...You do that EXACT SHIT WHEN YOU DEBATE ABOUT THE NWO, the thing about finding the truth, in all the lies out there about the NWO, is you have to read alot about it, and peice the facts together yourself, their is ALOT of dis-info out there, just soo you keep your mind closed to it, by reading some of the rediculous stuff out there about it, ok??? .YOU're a ''useful idiot'', eddie..
-Its you who has no clue, but I can take a joke, so, LMAO @ FatEddie You get on my nerves
Eddie, you're such a ''salty'' biatch, that everytime I post, you attack me and call me a name, do you notice that?? Now what have I done to you?? I am like this to you, cause you attack me..I KNOW YOU DONT SEE REALITY, you have a problem with that.. BUT I THINK YOU BEG FOR MY ATTENTION, better than GG used to, you really give me to much power, to make you so mad...Like you're weak to my spell...
-- Modified on 11/23/2009 3:05:54 AM
Does that shit go down with just a spoon full of sugar?? ?? LMAO
-- Modified on 11/23/2009 3:27:43 AM
Rant and rave, rant and rave... you didn't address ANY of the points of my post... Smoke and mirrors, sweetheart...
EVERYTHING you said in your post was incorrect! EVERY-FUCKING-THING!!!! Address THAT, and forget all of the other bullshit you're spouting.
"Eddie, you're such a ''salty'' biatch, that everytime I post, you attack me and call me a name." The only "name" I've called you consistantly is stupid, because most of what you post IS stupid! I never attacked you personally like you did me... calling me "fat" and referring to my diabetes... BTW, I got a few PM's from your "friends" who admitted that you went over the line, even though they didn't have the balls to say it openly on this forum.
And the fact is, in case you hadn't noticed, is that I've pretty much stopped replying to your posts unless they're totally absurd... It's YOU who consistantly reply to mine. I understand, you can't help yourself... you're infatuated with me.
But getting back to the original point, your "facts" about Obama were completely wrong! WRONG!, and I systematically pointed that out in my reply, to which you haven't addressed. Try to divert that fact with your rant, filled with bad spelling and grammer, but it won't work. YOU ARE CLUELESS.
I'm glad I "get on your nerves". Someone has to... but you're sadly mistaken to think that you make me "so mad". You merely amuse me, TJ; I fuck with you simply because I know you can't resist replying to me, and every time you do you only show yourself as the weak-minded neo-con that you are. You're a joke and you don't even realize it. You call liberals "sheep", but YOU'RE the sheep, who blindly follows the party line and gets all of your information from like-minded right-wingers who support your fragile ego. Heaven forbid you actually read some non-partisan information; it would make your brain hurt too much.
Because I like you, and I really do, I'm going to give you some real advice... I mean this from the bottom of my heart. Compose your posts in Word, use the grammer and spell checker, and then cut and paste it to this forum. Cut back on the capitals, use one or two exclaimation points instead of 20, and stop replying to your own posts... maybe THEN more people will take you seriously.
-- Modified on 11/23/2009 3:56:50 AM
BUT THEN HE CHOOSE TO GO TO A RADICAL BLACK LIBERTERIAN MUSLIM ''CHURCH'' FOR 22 YEARS, its clear WHICH RELIGION HE IDENTIFIES WITH, you sheep...I HAVE TO MAKE EVERY POINT TO YOU, cause you dont know how to think...BUT TO ''THINK'' YOU'RE THE SMART ONE...LMAO, Fuggn IDIOT,communist, you You even tried saying liberals helped with the fall of communism, silly wabbit, Liberalism = IS COMMUNISM..Or it looks A LOT like it...BUT YOU DONT FEEL ME THOUGH...Im done talking to you, for now- I HAVE TO DO ALL THE THINKING..And I dont like that, its ALOT of ''head'' to just be giving away, ya know-LOL...So, PEACE Love and hairgreece, Fateddie..
-
-- Modified on 11/23/2009 5:03:22 AM
It's not a Muslim church... Muslim's don't have churches moron... Muslim's have Mosques. It's a C H R I S T I A N church. A N D... once again, the school he attended for all of two years was NOT a radical school of Islam... it was a public school in Indonesia that was attended by predominately Muslim students because THE WHOLE FUCKIN' COUNTRY is predominantly Muslim. You are aware, aren't you, that most middle-eastern countries are mostly Muslim, and that only a very small percentage of them are fundamentalist radicals?
And I didn't TRY saying that liberals helped with the fall of communism, I DID say it.
Once again, you rant, call me a sheep and communist, whatever, but you don't address the points, because you can't, at least not until you look up something on your right-wing websites to help you out.
You're not even smart enough to know when you're wrong and simply shut up about it, you HAVE to continue to rant about the same things over and over again which only proves that you're clueless. Sheep, lefty, communist, yada, yada, yada... you're a one-trick pony.
If your brain had a thought it would die of loneliness!
-- Modified on 11/23/2009 7:10:54 AM
Wow, do you read your vile FiLlEd rants? ROFLMAO with the LiBeRaLiSm = CoMmUnIsM?
What thinking are you doing? There is no balance here, it's either your way or the highway, and looking at the past 8 years, of your wonderful right winged world, I'll stick to the highway.
Good luck with the 2010 elections, and getting Palin in 2012, I'm sure in your mind all will be right in the world then. Where are those FEMA lockups, I might just need to check in, to get away from your RaNtS!
it's delivered via IV, i fear.
open your mouth and remove all doubt.
C'mon. You're not this stupid are you? Please try harder when you post here. PLEASE.
TJ, if you go to a religious service, does that make you a believer of that service? My grandmother's funeral was held at a Lutheran church, and yet I'm an atheist.
And even more rediculous is your claim that Obama went to a Muslim religious service under Muslim Rev Wright.
Ok....
1) How is Rev Wright any more hateful than your average southern Baptist church?
2) Both Rev Wright and Obama are Christians.
3) We know this because Jeremiah Wright's title is REVEREND. There are no such thing as Reverends in mosques.
I personally could care less what faith the President professes, so long as they aren't reading their idiotic holy books to make Presidential decisions. Since Bush only read one book, I think Barack is a positive step forward.
If the accused take the stand and testify in their own defense, they would be permitted only to testify as to facts relevant to the charges. We do not know what the charges will be yet, but I suspect the prosecutors will be smart enough to limit the charges to those for which political complaints will not be a defense.
Sadly, even testimony that Bush officials tortured these guys may be excluded if the prosecutors are smart enough to attempt to prove their case without using any of the "confessions" obtained, or the fruits thereof.
As for "Since Obama’s administration does not have the courage to bring charges against Bush officials directly", have you been snoozing again?
An investigation into lower level officials was just started last month and even prior to that there was an investigation in the works as to why the CIA destroyed those torture videotapes, since we all know they only showed "lawful enhanced interrogation techniques."
What is admissible may determine the verdict.
However, what happens that the jury does not see impacts how the public - world - views the case.
For example, the OJ jury never heard much of hte stuff about Furhman that was conducted outside of their presence. Although OJ won, the reason the defense did that was in case he was acquitted, they were playing the TV audience.
The defendants in this case could do a similar move, since their concern is the world stage, particularly the Moslem world, and they don't care about the jury.
Also, assuming there is a conviction. No trial is perfect. There are always errors, since nothing in human affairs is perfect. These mistakes may not be serious enough for the appellate court to reverse, so the conviction and death sentence will be affirmed.
However, if we are doing this to show how good we are, this won't work. Once again, KSM does not care about the court of appeal. His audience in the court of world opinion.
His play is that the world - outside of appellate specialists - does not understand "reversible error" or "standard of review" or all the other technical nicities that determine whether a conviction will be affirmed. Rather, the world will only see mistakes that are made and ask, "How can you kill a person when there were so many mistakes at trial?"
Western Europe hates the death penalty. Even if the trial is perfect, they won't approve. But for us to execute him as a result of a trial with errors will look really bad.
Finally, even without their confessions, you have huge evidentiary problems. Who said KHM is No. 2 in Al Quaeda? Is the person going to testify? Where did he get his info? Who said that KHM planned 9-11? Where did that person get his information? Is that person going to testify, or are you just going to admit hearsay of some guy in Pakistan said......
What if the information needed to convict is security sensitive? Yes, there are provisions that allow for the court to consider this and work around it. But again, KHM is playing to the world. What will world opinion say about the wonderful U.S. system that convicts on secret evidence?
In summary, KHM may very well be convicted and executed. But the rest of the world hasn't gone to law school and won't understand the mistakes.
He is willing to die. Is our system understandable to the non-legal world?
is to simply issue a gag order barring the attys and parties from statements to the press during the trial. I'm sure the government can cook up enough security and classified information objections to make such an order overcome First Amendment objections.
And this one will not be on television and the odds of having a Judge Ito assigned are a zillion to one. They will pick a no nonsensee judge for this one.
The extra judicial speeches are only one tiny part. The big part is explaining how the system works fairly with so many apparent flaws.
I know. I have spent years trying - stress trying - to explain why things really are fair. And that is to people here, who should have some idea.
All the world will see will be flaws. And they are limitless. Just another example. What if someone with an agenda gets on the jury and you have a hung jury. I know that re-trial is possible. I know that re-trial is a good idea. I have no gripe with it.
BUT, BUT, BUT much of the rest of the world will say, "Gosh. I thought you couldn't try a person twice under American law."
Now, they are wrong in that situation. But who has the better soundbite. That brief, "That's not fair" or a 15 minute explanation by the head of Harvard law as to why this is permissible?
(Trust me. I have tried to explain just that.)
Look how many times someone on this board has said a report was hearsay or tossed around other legal terms with no idea of what they mean.
Also, you may very well be right that the government can cook up a lot of classified informtion objections.
Even that will LOOK bad. "So, Achmed. The U.S. claims it is an open and free society. Look. They are no better than a secret Star Chamber that the Infidels had in the Inquisition. They limit what people can hear and say. This is not good."
Or try France. "Mon Dieu, Pierre. Look at how zee Americans limit what people can say in zee public and how zey close the trial of zees poor men to keel them avec l' babaric death penalty. How can zey kill people after trials where people had to be silent?"
Finally, you can't guarantee a "no- nonsense judge," that you say "they" will pick. Cases are assigned at random. The mere thought of the prosecution picking the judge is a violation of the right to due process of law. A "pre-selected" judge may be the easiest road to reversal per se.
All I am saying is that this trial is being done to show the world how good and open we are. To show the world that America lives up to its values (even if values allow military tribunals).
If the world goes on appearances, and not on in depth understanding, it will look like a farce.
(And for one more, let's end in Russia. "Vel, Tovarich. Vee see how fair is America. Before trial, president say Arab to be convicted. Dat vat DyaDya Stalin do. Say before trial he guilty."
to the chief of the circuit who by statute most certainly has that power in the public interest:
“(b) The chief judge of a circuit may, in the public interest, designate and assign temporarily any district judge of the circuit to hold a district court in any district within the circuit.”
Do you really think he's going to leave this case to the luck of the draw? Sorry, no chance that your Judge Ito gets this one by random selection.
I am not sure if that allows the presiding judge the power to appoint a particular judge to a particular case. It seems to me that this would just allow the chief to select a judge to sit in another district. (e.g. 28 USC 292) That is very different from the selection of the actual judge to try the case. Even then, when that type of assignment is made it is by random selection.
U.S. v. Claiborne 781 F.2d 1327, 1334
In fact, it would be misconduct to assign a case to a particular judge in order to affect its outcome. In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct 425 F.3d 1179, 1188 (C.A.9,2005)
And yes, I think it is very likely that it would be random selection. In fact, from my experience judges are randomly selected in the vast, vast majority of cases.
Jesus. If my whole point here is "how will the world view it," it sure will make us look good to call up Judge Bean to hear the case. They won't want to make it look bad.
Also you never addressed any of my other points.
There is something different about these defendants that is truly sui generis. The defendants are not necessarily interested in getting an acquittal. While that motivates almost every other defendant in the system, that is a secondary consideration.
If they can make the U.S. look bad, they win, even if they die.
How will the judge control them in that situation? Do the Judge Hoffman and gag them. That will look really good, having them trussed up like a Thanksgiving turkey. Lock them in a room and do video feed? That looks bad and requires explanation.
Maybe the judge can hold them in contempt or fine them.
The interests of these defendants is not to win the case.
Finally, how long do you think this trial will last? On that, I can only guess.
Do you know if this is a joint trial? (I am asking because I don't know. Not rhetorical.) That would stretch it out.
"1] REINHARDT, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
[2] I respectfully dissent from the court's refusal to hear Judge
Claiborne's appeal en banc.
...
In my view, the current rules should be modified so that any
out-of-circuit judges designated to hear specific criminal cases
are selected by a random selection system through procedures that are a matter of public record."
And even your dissenting judge recognizes that Section 1291 (in addition to the statute I cited) authorizes the Supreme Court to select a district judge if the chief circuit judge asks them to which will most likely happen.
I do agree with you that Section 1292 allows the chief judge to appoint a judge from another district, but disagree that it is limited to outside districts – the statute just does not say that. But, if you are right, 1291 clearly does permit such appointment if that procedure is invoked. So random selection is not going to happen in this case.
I do not think the decision has been made as to whether to consolidate the trials yet. And it is premature to say that "they win even if they die." We have not heard from any of these guys directly and indirectly only from a few.
As to your repeated concern that they will make our legal system look bad, that ship has already sailed, hasn't it? How can we possibly look ANY worse after the Bush admin tortured these men and tried to imprison them indefinitely without any third party review?
Even a bad trial can only makes us look better. We are not torturing them anymore and we are giving them due process, which is never guaranteed to be perfect.
First, many of the things Bush did could be easy to explain, like indefinate detention of combatants. That is just a bedrock rule of international law and every country that has ever been at war did that.
I had an uncle who was amazed that we would do that, until I reminded him that during WW II, he guarded detained Germans in Texas who never had a hearing, never had a trial, never had a lawyer. Their release date was "when it is over, and don't ask before that."
Secondly, Bush is no longer in office. That is old history, getting older by the day. In 3 years, people won't be talking about it very much. They will be talking about all the mistakes being made THEN.
The wonderful, new U.S. is allowing them to appoint hanging judges and is ignoring its rules regarding hearsay. It is not allowing the defense to present its case. It is trying the defendants who are not allowed to be in the court room or are gagged.
Regardless of the proper reading of Section 1292 ANY VARIATION on the norm is going to look like crap. In 99.9999% of cases judges are randomly assigned. Now explain to Piere, Ahmed, Fritz, Ivan, and Chan why this case merits the .000% to get a judge who denies all the motions.
Yeah. That will look good.
Almost all of phil’s discussion with you has revolved around what the defense may or may not be able to accomplish toward the probable goals of the terrorists. A little about how the courts may act, but too little about how the prosecution may conduct themselves. Since Holder and Obama have already made statements confirming this will be nothing but a show trial (and no one here has yet to refute that, indeed WW agrees) I contend they are free to instruct the prosecution to act in ways that will cause the Bush administration’s previous actions to be revealed (my nice way of saying they will try to make Bush look bad). What do they care about prosecutorial success? It’s a show trial. The goal is to show the world the realities of America, good and bad.
Seriously, give me one example. Short of proof that these guys are all innocent, I don't see how Bush can be painted in any worse light.
Now I do agree that they are trying to show the world that what Bush did is completely contrary to the American justice system. We don't treat even the worst serial killer that way. So, if that is your point, I would agree with it - but the motive is not to make Bush look bad but to show the world that he and his henchmen do not represent America.
I think they just read about the NKVD in Wilikipeida. Except for the numbers harmed the parallels are striking.
Lets substitute “Bush nomenclature” in brackets for Soviet nomencalture:
“In implementing Soviet internal policy with respect to perceived enemies of the state ("enemies of the people")[terrorists] , untold multitudes of people were sent to GULAG [Gitmo] camps and hundreds of thousands were executed by the NKVD [CIA]. Formally, most of these people were convicted by NKVD troikas ("triplets")[military commissions]– special courts martial.
Evidential standards were very low: a tip-off by an anonymous informer was considered sufficient grounds for arrest. [same in Bush admin] Use of "physical means of persuasion" (torture) [enhanced interrogation techniques] was sanctioned by a special decree of the state, [the John Woo legal memos] which opened the door to numerous abuses, documented in recollections of victims and members of the NKVD itself. Hundreds of mass graves resulting from such operations were later discovered throughout the country. [bc the predaotor missiles used by Bush tend to vaporize everyone in the drop zone, no need to bury them].
And you are worried about making Bush look bad?
well, here's where bush and company got a whole bunch of ideas, all of 'em bad.
Please tell me you can see the huge, huge difference between these two things, a difference so huge it is not of degree but kind:
1. In response to the most severe attack in U.S. history, with all indications pointing to the possibility of thousands of people having passed through terrorists training camps, where training literature with references to terrible weapons and tactics was found, the Bush adminsistration water boarded a handful (three?) of the top suspects who were almost definately likely to have important information, and which the Obama administration exclaims are obviously guilty of hideous crimes, and recognizes were captured properly.
2. A state and organization that routinely picked up hundreds of thousands of its own innocent citizens for 70 years from its own streets and tortured them by the tens of thousands, sending hundreds of thousasnd to slave labor camps and death in frozen tundras.
Yes. the two sound alike to me. Almost like rounding up citizens in a time of war and detaining them illegally but humanely, versus rounding up millions, stealing every piece of property they have, killing children in front of themt heir and starving and gassing the rest to death before peeling of their skins for lampshades and hair for pillows. Yup. Both concentration camps. I guess FRD learned from Adolf.
except for the numbers.
Fortunately, the Bush admin was not in power for 70 years but only 8. And by attempting to isolate the bad conduct to three individuals you conveniently leave out
1. There were hundreds of men tossed in Gitmo and Bagwan without due process.
2. Almost all of the Gitmo detainees claim some degree of physical abuse that the characterize as torture. At least two were killed in the interrogation process.
3. The CIA destroyed 92 interrogation tapes. Care to hazard a guess as to why?
4. You ignore – for the second time – the habeas corpus reversal statistic – 28 out of 33 detainee habeas corpus petitions have been granted to date – and we re still counting
Certainly a significant difference in degree but as to kind?
Well, the parallels are striking.
First of all, you are comparing war time activities to peace time activities. Even if you disagree that the war was correct, we were at war. (Declared v. undeclared is irrelvant. Lincoln held tens of thousands U.S. citizens in custody without hab and there was never a declaration of war. Wow. What did Lincoln do with hab in his time. And that was for U.S. citizens. If you want you similarities with Russia, Honest Abe is your man. What "Due Process did Abe give Johnny Reb?)
Yes, we may have done some bad stuff in this war. But capturing a couple hundred potential enemies and holding them is not exactly the same as arresting a million of your own citizens during peace time and sending them to Siberia. Yes, some innocent people may have been detained in both situations. But the parellel is pretty superficial comparing captured POWs to imprisioned citizens.
Wow. 28 habeas cases granted. I will assume now for the sake of argument that there are twice that number still being held illegally. That makes, hmmmmm, 84 people who may have been held illegally. (By the way, a grant of hab is not equal to innocent, as I am sure you know, thos this 84 illegally isn't 84 innocent.
Now. Let's see. 84 compared to 10,000,000 shall we saw, if we factor in all of Eastern Europe under soviet domination for 60 years. Again, with the 10,000,000 imprisoned citizens during peace time.
But hey, they are in prison. Striking similarity.
And wow of those 84, they were in Gitmo. Gitmo, where they are given prayer mats and religiously appropriate meals sure are similiar to the Gulags where hundreds of thousands died of disease, starvation, and torture. Yeah. Those parellels are striking.
Wow. Two may have died. Well, we are still 99,999,998 short. Amazing. Excessive abuse in war versus millions imprisoned in peace. Sure strikes me as similar.
Yes, the Bush administration was only in power 8 years, versus 70 for the Soviets. So let's drop down the soviet tens of million to a pro rata 1 million that Bush detained. That sounds strikingly similar to me. And those 1,000,000 that Bush detained were all U.S. citizens to make it strikingly parellel to the millions of Soviet citizens.
Wait. Why stop there. I see more striking parellels. Bush improperly detained and tortured a handful of people. Who else did? WHy I know. Uncle Adolph. Gosh, Gitmo and Aushwitz both had barbed wire. Rings a bell for me. Gosh, the Jews never had due process. Just like Achmend. Bingo. The parellels are striking.
I prefer this trial happening in a civilian court.
There's members of the Obama administration who want to try members of the Bush administration for what they did, but they also want to keep their hands clean from it.
Smart move politically. Not so smart if you want to see justice done.