Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov
Pentegarn: are you saying that if Osama had gotten a trial you are worried that he would have gotten off? Haha, I don't think so, but if he did and your trial is fair then, well, that's fair.
I don't think so though.
|
People said the same thing about OJ Simpson. The evidence was all there. DNA matches, fingerprints, several witness giving all sorts of accounts pointing to motive. It should have been an open and shut case. But because the defense decided to make the case about the police who arrested him, the parameters of justice were warped and distorted. With the right defender, and people who dislike America pushing their agenda in the arena of public opinion, he may well have gotten off on a technicality. And if it were a world trial, ran by the joke we all call the UN, well I shudder to think how badly that would have gone. Simply put my point here is that a trial does not always bring justice, despite your protests to the contrary.
You talk of wanting his side of 9/11, but he has given it, multiple times on multiple propaganda tapes. He hates America enough to kill thousands of people he has never met and is too cowardly to face. You have already heard this and I assume you are smart enough to know if he were on trial you would hear it again. What you really seem to want is to give him another chance to spread anti-America propaganda. Why is this?
You say if he got a fair trial and got off it would be fair, but how can this be? Even you cannot deny he was responsible for the death of thousands. If he walked for that on some sort of technicality in a 'fair trial' would you really feel justice were served? Would you go to the terrorist internet forums and tell them that their use of the word justice is wrong?