Quote Originally Posted by Sasquatch
So what? We already know that you disagree with anything and everything the United States of America does and stands for, so what's the point in listening to you any further? Kangaroo court or not, we can't wait for the entire world to give us permission to protect our own citizens, it's that simple.

Why are you standing up for terrorists, who commit one of the most inhumane crimes imagineable, one that targets innocent civilians and is illegal, against discomfort by a power that wants to protect its civilian populace?
First off, he never said that he opposes everything America wants to do to defend itself, and secondly, he's never said anything to make me think that he supports terrorism. We have a difference of opinion reguarding the treatment of prisoners at guantanamo bay. That's it. I think he's a bit nieve as to how the real world works, but I don't think that is equivelent to hating America or cheering on al-qaida.

Perhaps I'm not explaining myself correctly. What I think probably happens is that the suspect goes to a millitary tribunal, and evidence is presented. (I'm not sure but I thought there were three judges at this phase of the trial.)

it would be a kangarro court if like you said all you needed to do was to say to the judge "we know that there's a bomb planted somewhere in the USA. We know that this prisoner is in al-qaida." and he would grant you permission.
What I was referring to would only happen after the suspect was convicted of being in al-qaida. And you're still ignoring that the bomb is already planted somewhere in the USA. That little fact changes things quite a bit in my mind. The requirements would be slightly less than getting a warrent, and no proof of the guy's being in al-qaida would be needed, because it had already been established by the tribunal. Maybe I didn't make this clear enough in my initial post, and if so I appologize.