Replies

That's weak. I didn't claim he was "innocent." I said that those who didn't see the evidence shouldn't be critical of the jurors who did.

As far as 'fighting the war on terror like a lawyer' goes, if you are going to bring charges against a guy, you have to be able to prove those charges. You may be all in favor of changing our justice system to deal with terrorists. I'm not. You are correct about ONE thing. In prosecuting jihadists, I DO want the evidence to carry the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' burden. Because that's the law. And has been for the entirety of our existence. You may want to let the jihadists serve as the justification for gutting our entire system of law and governance. I don't.

Characterizing my post as a claim that he is "innocent" is simply dishonest.

"Characterizing my post as a claim that he is "innocent" is simply dishonest"

That's b.s. The legal standard is "innocent until proven guilty" - so when you are denouncing and mocking people who think he is guilty of involvement with terrorism even if the legal criminal standard "beyond a reasonable doubt" has not been met, you are implying that he still falls under the "innocent until proven guilty" presumption. I am saying that terrorists and their co-conspirators (i.e., even people like Al-Arian who may never make a bomb or crash an airplane, etc.) may be judged guilty by reasonable people of good will even when the standards of civlian courts have not been met.