[kurto]

"Exactly why we have appellate courts..." sigh... you don't even try, do you? There is ample evidence that the courts have failed in this respect. ie... the courts didn't think it mattered that a person's lawyer slept through their trial. Does that sound right to you? (I imagine it does.)

"Could and should are two different things. He should follow the recommendations of the jury and judge during the sentencing phase of trial, and not just grant clemency to every person on death row simply because he (hypothetically) didn't like the DP." LOL No one is suggesting 'every person.' There were numerous cases which were questionable. What about those cases?

hmmm... where's your comment on Bush mocking the woman pleading for her life? You seem silent on that one.

"I don't know...perhaps the innocent Iraqis being tortured to death? Perhaps the women who were raped in front of their families? Perhaps the Kurds who've been the victims of ethnic cleansing?" Honestly... its easier to just stop discussing. Is there a Bush supporter who has an ounce of sense? Kurds... years ago... with OUR support at the time. So you can't bring that up to justify a war a decade later. Nothing you mentioned showed why a rush to war was necessary. CAN ANY BUSH SUPPORTER PLEASE HELP THIS GUY OUT? Such a nonsensical argument.

"Tell me exactly where Bush or any other high official in the Bush admin approved torture...." Like I said.. I can't argue with people who either (1) are ignorant of the news or (2) act ignorant. If you're not aware of what I'm talking about, do some research. I'm sure you'll find it.

"Hundreds? Could you back that up please?" Sure... but I'm sure you're capable as well. Look up how many people were let go in the last 2 years.

"Either way, there are many legit terrorists sitting in Gitmo." Great. What about the one's that aren't terrorists? No one's arguing about legit proven terrorists. We're talking about the ones that aren't legit that have little to no recourse under this admin.

"BTW, where in the Constitution does it say we need to provide lawyers etc, to foreign terrorists?" They aren't foreign terrorists... the point is they haven't been shown to be anything. Honestly, you hurt my brain.

"By the definition of our trials, yes they have." You miss the point... if a court says you're guilty of killing someone doesn't mean you actually are guilty of killing that person. Honestly, try thinking things out. Don't just play semantics. Think about what a person is saying and respond to that. A court's ruling can have no relevence to the actual guilt or innocence of a person. (If you're so ignorant to think that a court's ruling always corresponds to 'truth' then please let me know for it will tell me much about you...)

"I'm doing no such thing. Our criminal courts convict people on the principal of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Capital cases usually have higher still standards." Honestly, you make it hard not to want to insult you. Its as if you're 'playing stupid.' Courts have proven people guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... only to later (sometimes after its too late) to show they were wrong. The problem is Texas was that the standards were horrendous. Again... you're either arguing for the sake of argument or you're not thinking.