Penn prof. defends Guantanamo Bay detainee in 'the biggest criminal trial in U.S. history'

As usual, I respectfully dissent. I'm glad you included the Blackstone quote, the epitome of appeasement in these days of the Last Crusade. All of the chips are on the table. It's time for the moment of TRUTH. The American justice system, modeled after the sentiment in that quote, cares more for that than for the truth. It cares more for WINNING one's case than for the truth. It cares more for letting ten (and in the larger case about 730) guilty men go free than convicting a handful of accused terrorists. If the Constitution is indeed the supreme law of the land, even in cases of Law of War commissions, then let us hear from the Supreme Court Justices, who give voice to the document. Let them tell us now and for the future, how these unlawful combatant Islamists who want to kill us should be adjudicated. Roosevelt asked them in 1942 how German Saboteurs should be treated and tried. The response was unanimous. Tried by military commission, without extra legal privileges, without habeas corpus, six of the eight were convicted as spies and then executed by electric chair less than eight weeks after their capture on US soil. What's different now?

MAJ Montgomery Granger - I wish you had used the phrase "days of the Last Crusade" before now, so that I would have been on notice that to you, this is a religious war. No wonder you don't want them to have any rights--you are only concerned about your "TRUTH," which of course has a religious connotation to it, despite the fact that this is a secular nation where everyone has Constitutional rights. Yes, that includes people who believe in other gods than your gods.

It explains why your mind is closed to any explanation besides the one you have arrived at yourself with your Bible as a guide, and why you cannot comprehend the differences in 1942 and today, even though it has been explained to you numerous times. It is why you have this belief that the detainees must somehow "earn" rights, despite the fact that the Supreme Court has said the exact opposite.

It's why you are asking why the Supreme Court doesn't rule on the issues, when they actually have, multiple times. You can't recognize it, even though it's been explained to you here at RP, repeatedly.

Capt Gregory Pricket,
Do you suppose that we are not providing them with much better treatment than they might give ours? I hope that you are expressing your opinion based on your having served in Iraq or Afghanistan and not what you have read and had possibly observed on tv!! Thank you for your service anyway! I do know what attorneys are all about by the way having been a cop for 25 yrs! The Plaintiff's attorney measures the truth in two ways: how much money he is being paid and how much he has to state his truth to get their client off! In other words if the weight of his discussion is good enough to get the client off he wins and gets paid. The scrot's of society know which attorney they need based on the crime they had committed. This is a win for injustice and greed.

No, she does not care. Like most attorneys, she is only interested in winning her case, the major flaw in the American justice system. The truth is always secondary to WINNING.

MAJ Montgomery Granger - It seems to me that our criminal justice system is set up to err on the side of "presumed innocence" than "winning". That's why there is such a high burden to "prove" guilt.