|
|
| Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing (939320) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Mon May 7 14:26:18 2012, in response to Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing, posted by SLRT on Mon May 7 14:15:25 2012. Oh, please. When a liberal begins to use the terms of nobility for "warrior" to try to say that the terrorists should be tried in civilian court, it becomes embarrassing.It's YOU people that are giving lice a term of nobility, not me. And where the hell do you get the idea that Courts-Martial are more lenient than civilian courts? Look at the sentences they mete out (when they actually convict somebody). Sentences are not determined by federal guidelines. They are determined by the jury up to the statutory maximum by averaging out what a juror imposes. That means that sentences will ALWAYS be less than the maximum unless they unanimously rule to give the maximum. On top of that, the military even has parole. The civilian system does not. Johnny Walker Lindh got 20 years without parole from a civilian jury for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. David Hicks got time served from a military one after 3-4 years in custody and is sitting on the beach for the same exact situation . Osama's driver also got time served. He'd gotten 30 to life had a civilian court tried him. Educate yourself. |
|
|
|