Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 11, 2008 19:06:24 GMT -4
Only a fair, transparent trial would be justice. I doubt seriously if this will happen. So many details will be excluded from the public record that it will be anything but transparent. Like I said, I'm sure we'll give them as fair a trial as we can, given the circumstances. It's more important to do what is right rather than what is popular. The Bush Administration understands that. You may disagree with them as to what is right, but you should respect their integrity when they choose to continue with what they feel is right despite their choice proving unpopular. It's the single biggest difference between this administration and the last one.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Feb 11, 2008 19:16:53 GMT -4
Bah.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 11, 2008 19:18:59 GMT -4
Yeah, that's pretty much what I expected you would say.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 11, 2008 19:21:53 GMT -4
You mean just like it was all excluded from the opublic record with the Massoui trial?
The only issue I have with a "fair" trial is that it could be hard when several of them have already admitted in a media interview that they did it.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Feb 11, 2008 19:32:04 GMT -4
Yeah, that's pretty much what I expected you would say. Well, I could provide a case for why Clinton wasn't as bad as you make him out to be and why Bush is a dope -- but then we've been there before. What would be the point? So, yeah. Bah.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 11, 2008 19:40:02 GMT -4
It depends on your definition of "a dope", I guess. If your definition is "he chose policies I don't agree with" then I guess you have proven your case. Of course, that's not a very usable definition of "a dope".
I don't think President Clinton was a dope, or EEE-vil the way some Bush-haters think Bush is evil, I just that he was not a very good president.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Feb 11, 2008 19:42:16 GMT -4
You mean just like it was all excluded from the opublic record with the Massoui trial? Moassaoui was tried in a US District Court. That is a very different setting than a military tribunal, which is where I understand the trials in question will take place.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 11, 2008 19:47:20 GMT -4
And the circus-like atmosphere that prevaded the Moassoui trial is probably a good argument for using Military Courts instead.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Feb 11, 2008 19:52:14 GMT -4
I wouldn't think "atmosphere" should stand in the way of justice, Jason.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 11, 2008 20:14:48 GMT -4
As long as the media is allowed full and free access to the coutroom and reporting of the events inside to the degree a normal trial would (many trials have some suppressed infomation in them) and the Lawyers are allowed access to all the information pertaining to their client and their defence, I don't see why it should be an issue. If that wasn't done I'd say Bush would lose a lot of face as the trials would be called a sham, so I don't see it'd be in the US or the Administration's interested to run it behind closed doors.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Feb 17, 2008 20:18:59 GMT -4
I've been going to many 9/11 sites...CT and otherwise. Reading FDNY accounts etc. One thing I have a question for the CTs about...much is made about the air defense response that day. Much is made to the "top speed" of an F-15, no SAMs from air defenses around Washington. What did you expect that morning? I'm looking for a 9/11 conspiracy type to talk with about this. I'm not expecting any takers, but it's worth a try. Let's discuss a basic premise of the CT argument...maybe I oughta make this a new topic.
I'm tired of those who believe Hollywood ans real world.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Feb 17, 2008 21:04:12 GMT -4
Those who spout the "top" speed of various fighter jets forget that it takes time to reach top speed, it is usually done at altitude and takes time to reach that altitude, it uses a lot of fuel and would be unwise to fly at top speed when you would then have no fuel left to maneuver when you go there and have to go home, and they were not allowed to go supersonic over land before 911.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 17, 2008 21:51:18 GMT -4
They're also forgetting or deliberately ignoring that Top Speed is done in a stripped down, clean bird. No extra Fuel Tanks or weapons. All of the that on a normally launched fighter drops its top speed as well. The F-16 launched from Otis on the morning of 9/11 were both carrying extra fuel tanks. Huge drag.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Feb 18, 2008 0:15:19 GMT -4
Top speed can't even be used continuously for too long either. I've flown an official F-15 simulator when I was at Tyndall. After about a minute of the afterburner I flamed out both engines at 40,000 feet. Couldn't get them restarted until about 12,000 feet. It was fun though.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Feb 18, 2008 7:00:34 GMT -4
Top speed can't even be used continuously for too long either. I've flown an official F-15 simulator when I was at Tyndall. After about a minute of the afterburner I flamed out both engines at 40,000 feet. Couldn't get them restarted until about 12,000 feet. It was fun though. Reminds me of a story that our test pilot, John Farley, used to tell. He was over at the McDonnell-Douglas plant at St Louis and everyone there was pleased because an F-15 had been flown supersonically for a full seven minutes for the first time. John couldn't resist saying "That's nothing, a friend of mine regularly flies supersonically for three hours at a time - and with sixty passengers in the back."
|
|