Originally posted by Maverick
It seems that a jury of his peers who actually heard and saw the evidence presented at his trial felt there was sufficient reason to belive he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
I'm not criticizing his conviction, I have a problem with a US citizen being held without charges for three years. They should have indicted him when they arrested him, or very shortly therafter. Instead, they held him first as a 'material witness' until a judge was about to rule "Hey, he needs to be charged" and then they switched him to a military prison and rebadged him an 'enemy combatant'.
If that's all you need to do to strip a citizen of his constitutional protections, then how long will the definition of 'enemy combatant' stay the same? There's already precedent being set that could be the groundwork for determining that a political protester is an 'enemy combatant'.
Really, you think this is crazy talk? Read "It Can't Happen Here' by Sinclair Lewis. If you're not a big fan of books, watch, of all things, the mini-series "V" from the early 1980s. There's more to it than lizards in human costumes eating mice.