I mistyped. I meant terrorists, as stated previously (Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda). not the 19 hijackers.
Forget it though. I pretty much lost me mojo.
@mike The title of this thread was edited, and now does not accurately represent my viewpoint. Therefore I have no response as the basis of your argument is not related to the claim I originally made.
I concede before I even start.
@Mick the link was supposed to show that the justice dept never indited any of the hijackers. As for all the other stuff it contained, that was not my argument.
Many people are under the assumption that there is proof positive of Al-Qaeda carrying out the attacks. This is far from the truth.
Testimony obtained through torture is not convincing to me.I disagree- the evidence from the KSM and the Moussaoui trials is quite convincing in my- and apparently the court's- opinion.
Courts do rule on evidence and testimony - of both science and others. And they are subject topoor presentation, good presentation, etc just like anyone else.
Science is not a democracy - it does not matter how many courts rule "against" fluoridation - or for it for that matter - the rulings do not make it a good thing or a bad thing.
From hereIn announcing his decision, Holder blasted Congress for imposing restrictions on the Justice Department's ability to bring the men to New York for civilian trials -- a course of action he promised in 2009.
"After thoroughly studying the case, it became clear to me that the best venue for prosecution was in federal court. I stand by that decision today," Holder said.