14:4014:40, 11 June 2009diffhist−134
Cuban Five
They were charged and convicted of espionage...The court does not reverse... read the opinion (try pages 32 and 50)
14:3414:34, 11 June 2009diffhist+1,140
Cuban Five
If the opinions of international bodies, which have no bearing on what US courts will do, can be included, then the opinions of exiles are fair game.
01:0601:06, 11 June 2009diffhist+1,140
Cuban Five
Let's try it like this. Explain to me how the international criticism (which is not dispositive) is more relevant than that of Cuban-Americans (who were victims of the crime)
00:5100:51, 11 June 2009diffhist−23
Cuban Five
FYI, appellate courts don't make findings of fact. The panel did not hold that there was no espionage (in fact, the opinion agrees upholds the lower courts ruling on that point).
00:1400:14, 11 June 2009diffhist+1,140
Cuban Five
Their views are no more irrelevant than the Cuban regime's. You are needlessly removing sourced material.
14:4014:40, 11 June 2009diffhist−134
Cuban Five
They were charged and convicted of espionage...The court does not reverse... read the opinion (try pages 32 and 50)
14:3414:34, 11 June 2009diffhist+1,140
Cuban Five
If the opinions of international bodies, which have no bearing on what US courts will do, can be included, then the opinions of exiles are fair game.
01:0601:06, 11 June 2009diffhist+1,140
Cuban Five
Let's try it like this. Explain to me how the international criticism (which is not dispositive) is more relevant than that of Cuban-Americans (who were victims of the crime)
00:5100:51, 11 June 2009diffhist−23
Cuban Five
FYI, appellate courts don't make findings of fact. The panel did not hold that there was no espionage (in fact, the opinion agrees upholds the lower courts ruling on that point).
00:1400:14, 11 June 2009diffhist+1,140
Cuban Five
Their views are no more irrelevant than the Cuban regime's. You are needlessly removing sourced material.