[Vision2020] [Bulk] Re: Learning From History

[Donovan Arnold]

Paul,
 
I would trust the lawyers to do what they consider their duty which would be to get their client free, guilty or innocent. And I have no doubt some would succeed in freeing some terrorists. And some of those terrorists will kill innocent people. 
 
As to trusting those that put their life on the line for me and you. Yes, I trust that 90% of police and military personal are honest people trying to serve their community to the best of their ability. They have no will to torture or harm innocent people. They all take oaths not to do that. They want to serve and protect their communities. I think you can seperate the responsiblities of the military to make sure that the captors are not the ones conducting the research to bring to a fair and imparitial military tribunial to determine their degree of being a threat to national security. Our current overseas prisons should not have any torture. I put that blame on Bush, and solely on Bush.  
 
Lawyers simple do their best to get their client free, even if they are guilty or suspect they are guilty. I think MOST lawyers are about money, making as much of it as they can, and building a record of always winning. Lawyers will not be interested in finding who is really a terrorist or not. In fact, most if any, will even ask their clients. 
 
Generally, I like and trust police officers and military personal. And generally, I don't like lawyers and politicans. 
 
I think most courts work fine. However, I think a huge number of them let the gulity go and punish the innocent. So for civil cases, where the stakes are low, they work fine. But when the stakes are high, like the death of thousands or millions, I don't trust the courts that much. 
 
Best Regards,
 
Donovan

--- On Wed, 6/25/08, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [Bulk] Re: Learning From History
To: donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
Date: Wednesday, June 25, 2008, 7:50 AM

Donovan Arnold wrote:
>
> I am all for devising a system that only captures the terrorists, and 
> doesn't capture any innocent people. However, I don't know of any
such 
> system. And I doubt that US Big Shot Lawyers in our Civil Court 
> system are going to be any more capable or qualified of weeding out 
> the real terrorists from the falsely imprisoned innocent people than 
> the soldiers and intelligence experts on the ground. If anything, I 
> just think all these lawyers will muddy the waters even more in an 
> attempt to blur the lines between the guilty and innocent in the hopes 
> of freeing their client, which may or may not be a terrorist that 
> could kill innocent people as quickly as they are freed.
>

You would really trust the determination of innocence of the detainees 
to their captors rather than a court of law which would require 
evidence?  Even when our captors have gone through scandals such as Abu 
Ghraib?  Does that extend to trusting our domestic police force to know 
who is guilty and who is not as well, or is this just for the sub-humans 
we've collected at Gitmo?

Paul


=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet, 
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
               http://www.fsr.net                       
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20080625/9ac21ef0/attachment.html