Perhaps we are getting a little ahead of ourselves, or perhaps Ozoned (yet again) is hearing what he wants to hear. In any case, I'm curious as to where exactly people have suggested if anything would happen to Bush, it should bypass his constitutional rights? People may have accused him of things, but that hardly is the same as saying he should be treated like Gitmo detainees. Ozoned's logic (yet again) is very thin at best.
Here's an analogy, I accuse someone of robbing my house, "Hey, I think I saw that guy sneaking out my back window when I got home." Ozoned jumps in and says, "So, you think we should just lock him up with no trial, eh?" What about that makes sense?
I do not understand the basic lack of reasoning skills that would lead someone to say that saying an individual is guilty of a crime is the same as saying they shouldn't get a fair trial or all the protections of our legal system. Actually I take that back, I know what Ozoned's problem is. HE is unable to seperate the two in his own mind. If he thinks someone is a terrorist, they should be sent straight to the gulag, to be tortured if he thinks they should be. After all, why do they need legal protections, he thinks they are guilty.
Here's an analogy, I accuse someone of robbing my house, "Hey, I think I saw that guy sneaking out my back window when I got home." Ozoned jumps in and says, "So, you think we should just lock him up with no trial, eh?" What about that makes sense?
I do not understand the basic lack of reasoning skills that would lead someone to say that saying an individual is guilty of a crime is the same as saying they shouldn't get a fair trial or all the protections of our legal system. Actually I take that back, I know what Ozoned's problem is. HE is unable to seperate the two in his own mind. If he thinks someone is a terrorist, they should be sent straight to the gulag, to be tortured if he thinks they should be. After all, why do they need legal protections, he thinks they are guilty.