Okay, I’m confused. For the last six years the justice system at Guantanamo Bay has been taking a pasting. Guys have been locked up for years without trial, tortured, generally treated badly. Finally, they get round to trying one of these ‘terrorists’; he’s found guilty but only sentenced to serve an additional six months – but they say they may not let him out anyway.
So, what’s the point of the trial?
And another thing: all of sudden these military trials are being called ‘war crimes tribunals’, but the defendants aren’t prisoners of war because otherwise they’d be subject to the Geneva Conventions, and Bush/Cheney would be the one’s on trial. So, if they’re not prisoners of war, how can they be tried for war crimes?
And, who ever heard of a driver being accused of war crimes, anyway? So he drove bin Laden around Afghanistan with a coupla rockets in his trunk. Did Hitler’s driver end up at Nuremburg? Or, Himmler’s? No, once the war was lost they both buggered off to their families in Austria, and went back to making snitchels and home-brewed lager.
And you can tell he’s a nice man; just look at his face. I ask you, is this the face of a rabid terrorist?
If he ever gets out he’ll make a fortune advertising for Colgate.
American justice is very confusing. Unlike other nations, the US is back to front. First you serve your sentence, then you get tried for the crime.
And I thought Gilbert & Sullivan were British.
Apparently, after the verdict had been given and the judge read out his lenient sentence, all the court participants hugged each other and wept. They were so happy it had all worked out right for the defendant. No-one is going to criticize them anymore. Suddenly, the Guantanamo Bay tribunals are a model of fair play and true American justice.
Now they can get on with handing out the really stiff sentences without fear of reproach.
Hmmm! Am I the only one noting a certain method in this madness?
Filed under: A cunning plan?