Question (controversial) : LUSENET : Unk's Troll-free Private Saloon : One Thread

Is not the man (apparently a Sri Lankan) who had explosives in his shoe a poster boy for military tribunals?

-- Peter Errington (, December 24, 2001


Shameless bump, since we are now discussing this subhuman individual.

-- Peter Errington (, December 25, 2001.

Peter, since you ask, I say the answer is "no". Look at the case. The man is wearing a shoe. Law enforcement officials take the shoe off his foot and test it. The shoe is full of explosives. Witnesses say he tried to detonate the explosives while on an airplane filled with innocent people.

Why the heck would you need a military tribunal to try a case like that? Any 24 year old prosecutor fresh out of mail order law school and working her first case in an ordinary court of law should be able to get a conviction for reckless endangerment at the very least. Given the current climate, working any USA jury for a case of attempted homicide would be a prosecutor's dream!

What makes this case require a military tribunal, for heaven's sake???? It's a shoe in!

-- Little Nipper (, December 26, 2001.

LN: His guilt is obvious, but that will not stop the American defense lawyer from screwing things up, stringing things out forever, wangling one or two total idiots onto the jury, etc.etc. etc.

-- Peter Errington (, December 26, 2001.

If the defense drags things out "forever", it won't set this guy free. it would only make him stay in jail "forever" without a clear sentence. I don't care what you say, finding one or two idiots who would not vote to convict on a modest charge like 180 charges of attempted manslaughter would be FU*KING impossible.

If his guilt is so unmistakable as you say, it is just plain unmistakeable. There isn't a big sympathy vote for foreign terrorists these days, OJ Simpson notwithstanding.

No go. No way. No chance. He might not fry, but he could cool his heels in prison for 180 years, easy. That satisfies me.

-- Little Nipper (, December 26, 2001.

Last I heard the only charge against this guy was "interferring with the job of a Flight Attendant."

-- Anita (, December 26, 2001.

Isn't that a capital offense in Texas?

-- Jack Booted Thug (, December 26, 2001.

Isn't that a capital offense in Texas?

Probably if your IQ is under 60, but Federal law could still put this guy behind bars for 20 years. He DID bite a Flight Attendant, ya know. That little bomb in his sneaker doesn't seem to amount to much. The Feds are still looking for other crimes of which to charge him. I'm sure there's an old, "One may not have a bomb in one's shoe" law on the books somewhere. They just need to find it.

-- Anita (, December 26, 2001.

The charge of interfering with a flight attendent is like inserting a no-op in programming code. It is a real instruction, but just a placeholder.

That charge is enough to hold him without bail. That is all that is necessary at this time. Witholding the more serious charges gives them more leverage to turn him informant, which is undoubtedly their real aim. If he rats out on enough of his buddies, he'll get a cushier cell. Problem is, al-Qaeda knows enough to compartmentalize their operations, so the poor sod probably doesn't have many chips to bargain with.

-- Little Nipper (, December 26, 2001.

How dare you post a controversial question! We will locate you and fix your brain while you sleep.

-- Thought Police (we have @ lobotomy. for you), December 27, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ