Free The Five
Name: Antony Loewenstein
Home: Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
See my complete profile
posted by Antony Loewenstein at 11/12/2005 01:26:00 pm
Old, old, old. Charles Manson was guilty and everyone new he was guilty and he even admited he was guilty.And he still received a fair trial.
Ibrahamav said... "Old, old, old. Charles Manson was guilty and everyone new he was guilty and he even admited he was guilty.And he still received a fair trial."1. Why did they bother with a trial for Manson at all then? Yes, your implicit suggestion is right. We should dispense with the whole trial process and just get on with the hangin' - after all, we all know their guilty. Yes, yes, we should get back to the good ol' days of angry mobs. Oh, wait. I seem to remember that led to pogroms against a particular ethnic group. Maybe not such a good idea after all, Ibrahamav. *rolls eyes*2. If you are trying to suggest that we all know they are guilty already, so the media is simply reiterating established knowledge, I would love to know how YOU know what the evidence is against them when, as yet, the prosecution hasn't revealed it you. Do you have special psychic powers? And are they the same psychic powers that enable you to "see" all the Islamo-fascist terrorists hiding under everyone's beds?
Disposal of the trial is your suggestion not mine. And since your totolatarian leanings are quite well known, it is not shocking that you suggested it.In certain cases, all of the evidence is known, but in most cases it is not. And in an adversarial criminal court system, a trial must and should be held so that all the evidence is exposed.Such as the Pollard case. He was guilty, he pled guilty, yet the government refused to provide all of the evidence and we all wonder why he has a lifetime sentence when ALL others guilty of the same crime received 2 to 4 year sentences.
Ibrahamav said... Disposal of the trial is your suggestion not mine. And since your totolatarian leanings are quite well known, it is not shocking that you suggested it."All I'm doing is something you don't seem to have the intellectual capacity for: viz. following your suggestions through to their logical conclusions.You stated that the authorities had a trial for Manson even though everyone knew he was guilty. Now TRY to think beyond you're next indignant breath: If that were true, there is no need for a trial at all. [Now think a bit more.] Why? Because the purpose of a trial is to discover the truth. THUS: Since they already knew the truth about Manson, there was no need for a trial, and the authorities could have moved, on your logic, directly to the sentencing phase without perverting the course of justice. [And thinking a bit more...] The same reasoning applies in all other cases where it is already known that the accused is/are guilty - e.g. as YOU claim in the case of the alleged terrorists.I know logical inference can be difficult for children untrained in the discipline, but I trust you are learning.
I would be curious as to whether some evidence in the trial gainst Pollard was witheld for reasons of national security. It was after all, a case involving the sale of national secrets.National security and states secrets are cites at the drop of a hat in court hearings these days.
Seems as if the tag-team idiots, edddie and addamo, are at it again.Eddie, you followed your own suggestion, not mine. Don't attach your stupidity to anything but your butt.Addamo - Of course the gov't claimed national security reasons to withold the evidence.
Ibrahamav, I think you are a little jealous that no idiots will tag team with you.
Ariel Sharon and Alan Dershowitz are too busy, you see, fighting Palestinian terrorism and rampant anti-Semitism.
"Ibrahamav, I think you are a little jealous that no idiots will tag team with you."Maybe people are are put off by where Ibraham's right hand has been.
So much for the discussion of justice.As in most arab countries, justice is stifled by fools such as antony, addamo and dirt.
Ibrahamav said... "As in most arab countries, justice is stifled by fools such as antony, addamo and dirt."*wipes brow*! אֵל שַׂגִּיאI'm off the Dangerous Persons List.
Re a fair trial. In the best of worlds suspected would-be bombers should be tried without the value laden word "terrorist". Particularly in this case where no ones been bombed.The word "terrorist" excites vengence in many (perhaps the jury) and advertises/dramatises the cause of those accused. Of course "terrorist" will be used because charges are/will be laid under "terrorism" laws.
And so continues Ibraham's completely meaningless ramblings and facile non contributions to the debate.Yes Gigolo, the terrorism label is designed to circumvent the law and bring eh government to account. The FBI has saisd they cannot allow Jose Padilla to be tried ina coutr of law, becasue he woudl probably be exhonorated. Doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the "evidence" they have against the guy.
And so continues addamo's worthless comments on graet thoughts.
Did you hear that Gigolo? You have a fan.
Post a Comment