Thomas wrote:Scrat wrote:Walter Hinteler wrote:Why?
Because who gives a rat's ass what he thinks?
Anyone who is interested in hearing competent legal opinions about the subject. While there is no
practical relevance to the fact that a British judge came out on Walter's side of the issue, this judge is nevertheless an expert of law, in a legal system not too different from America's. Judging by the history of this thread, it is you, Scrat -- not Walter -- who stubbornly refuses to take seriously anyone who disagrees with him.
Last things first, the only thing I refuse stubbornly is to agree with others who happen to be failing to agree with me, so if I am to be called "stubborn" they are equally so.
Next, would you assert that every person who becomes a judge must be considered an "expert of law"?
Lastly, the judge in question commented thusly:
Quote:He said detainees were "beyond the rule of law, beyond the protection of any courts and at the mercy of victors".
I happen to believe that the detainees belong "at the mercy of victors", and think them lucky that we were the victors, for they'd likely be dead at the hands of any other power, instead of getting 3 hots and a cot, better medical care than most have ever known, freedom to practice their religion, etc..
Once again this judge (as are so many who are whining about this) asserts that these people should be being treated as criminals before a criminal court, when that is simply not what they are.
Don't get me wrong, I can certainly see arguments that at some point the US needs to at least suggest what the endgame is for the detainees, but I am far less concerned with the possibility that they have been denied a few rights (which they likely forfeited through their own behavior) than I would be allowing them freedom to cause other innocents to forfeit their lives.
But sure, my "F@#$ him" was a bit over the top. My point was that I could not care less what this limey judge thinks. Of course, you and Walter have every right to care what he thinks if you wish.
