RE: those silly Italians judges!

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: those silly Italians judges!

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: those silly Italians judges!

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: those silly Italians judges! - 11/5/2009 9:33:48 PM

Marc2b

Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline

quote:

So why don't you have any issue with the fact that what the Italians have tried these guys for is abducting somebody and shipping them off to be detained without the benefit of any legal proceedings? You're cool with that, but trying the spooks who abducted the lad is out of order? How does that work?

(In answer to Marc2b: no idea why it came up saying pahunkboy)

No, I am not cool with the fact that these people - allegedly! - abducted people. If they have refused to appear in court then, as I just said, use what legal means you have to compell their appearence. What I am also not cool with is that people are willing to violate the rights of the accused based solely on the fact that we don't like them as human beings. There are plenty of people out there who don't like you as a human beign, based upon your ethnicity, or religion, or behavior (damn S&M freaks! We ought to jail those perverts!).

< Message edited by Marc2b -- 11/5/2009 9:51:46 PM >

_____________________________

Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!

(in reply to Moonhead)

Post #: 41

RE: those silly Italians judges! - 11/5/2009 9:49:40 PM

Marc2b

Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline

quote:

I`m wounded by your right wing bluster,

On what basis do you presume I am right wing? Are you presuming that because I advocate for the rights of the accused I therefore approve of their actions? My advocacy for the rights of the accused has nothing to do with my opinion of them as human beings or disaproval of their actions.

I find it disappointing, and a little scary, that you consider concern for the rights of people (particularly the accused in a criminal proceeding) to be right wing bluster.

quote:

but wait, I remember some facts. The CIA station chief in Milan refused to co-operate with the court. He had said in an interview he was only doing as ordered by his superiors. Shades of Nuremberg there huh.

You overlook the fact he didnt take his chance to have his say in court, unlike the poor sucker that was kidnapped and tortured, and didnt get such an offer.

Irrelevant. My stance on this has nothing to do with who co-operated in any investigation or who showed up or didn’t show up for any court proceeding. My stance on this is that I firmly believe that in criminal proceeding, the accused has the right to confront their accusers, hear the testimony against them, see the evidence against them, have counsel, and be given adequate time to prepare a defense. It is therefore wrong to try people in absentia. The fact that the accused is out of reach of the jurisdiction (and is pissing us off by dodging justice) cannot be used as an excuse for violating their rights.

< Message edited by Marc2b -- 11/5/2009 9:56:34 PM >

_____________________________

Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!

(in reply to Politesub53)

Post #: 42

RE: those silly Italians judges! - 11/6/2009 1:25:03 AM

Politesub53

Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline

Irrelevant ? You have to be kidding me right, the accused had every chance to appear in court but decided not to turn up. There for the trial went ahead without them. That was their call, no one forced them not to turn up.

(in reply to Marc2b)

Post #: 43

RE: those silly Italians judges! - 11/6/2009 4:27:17 AM

SL4V3M4YB3

Posts: 3506
Joined: 12/20/2007
From: S.E. London U.K.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b
Irrelevant. If the accused has not shown up in court then you use whatever legal means (having the police catch them if they are in your jurisdiction, extradition if they are caught in the territory of a nation you have an extradition treaty with) you have to compel them to appear in court. This has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with one’s feelings on the matter. The whole point is to be dispassionate. That is the first, necessary, step to protecting the rights of everyone. You can not let your emotions to allow you to make exceptions. The moment you allow for exceptions you lose both the moral and intellectual standing in which to assert your own rights.

This is nothing new or exceptional, if there is enough supporting evidence of involvement to prosecute a case then the actual accused not being there won't affect the process a great deal. You don't get such freedom in picking your defence team as you do in the US so their options in that respect would be limited anyway and they could obviously opt to represent themselves but they'd be fools to do that. The courts are clear that if you fail to appoint someone then someone will be appointed on your behalf.

So I don't see how their presence in court or lack of it would affect the outcome. If you are accused of a crime yes you get to stand up in court and make a statement but you have to accept you'd then be subject to cross examination and therefore a lot of people choose instead not to. The trial does not end if people fail to make statements to defend themselves it is just assumed they have more to lose by doing so and can't be compelled to incriminate themselves.

If the people involved wanted to clear their name then they should have turned up in court otherwise the process will continue regardless as it has done in many previous cases. This is not new I heard a case a few weeks ago where a British woman had been convicted of a crime in France in her absense. This occured quite some time ago but she was never exdrodited for whatever reason at the time.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8169357.stm

< Message edited by SL4V3M4YB3 -- 11/6/2009 4:46:49 AM >

_____________________________

Memory Lane...been there done that.

(in reply to Marc2b)

Post #: 44

RE: those silly Italians judges! - 11/6/2009 5:03:03 AM

Marc2b

Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline

quote:

Irrelevant ? You have to be kidding me right, the accused had every chance to appear in court but decided not to turn up. There for the trial went ahead without them. That was their call, no one forced them not to turn up.

No. I’m not kidding you. If the accused were not in court – for whatever reason – then the trial should not have proceeded but been postponed until the accused were in court. This is not about them (the accused) but all of us. You’ve accepted that it is okay violate other people’s rights (based upon your dislike of the accused and their lack of co-operation). Having accepted that it is okay to make exceptions when it comes to people’s rights, on what basis will you protest if your rights should be violated?

_____________________________

Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!

(in reply to Politesub53)

Post #: 45

RE: those silly Italians judges! - 11/6/2009 5:06:16 AM

Marc2b

Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline

This is nothing new or exceptional, if there is enough supporting evidence of involvement to prosecute a case then the actual accused not being there won't affect the process a great deal. You don't get such freedom in picking your defence team as you do in the US so their options in that respect would be limited anyway and they could obviously opt to represent themselves but they'd be fools to do that. The courts are clear that if you fail to appoint someone then someone will be appointed on your behalf.

quote:

So I don't see how their presence in court or lack of it would affect the outcome. If you are accused of a crime yes you get to stand up in court and make a statement but you have to accept you'd then be subject to cross examination and therefore a lot of people choose instead not to. The trial does not end if people fail to make statements to defend themselves it is just assumed they have more to lose by doing so and can't be compelled to incriminate themselves.

If the people involved wanted to clear their name then they should have turned up in court otherwise the process will continue regardless as it has done in many previous cases. This is not new I heard a case a few weeks ago where a British woman had been convicted of a crime in France in her absense. This occured quite some time ago but she was never exdrodited for whatever reason at the time.

The fact that trial in absentia occurs is not a legitimate defense of trial in absentia. You are basically saying "well, people's rights are violated all the time so it's okay to violate people's rights."

_____________________________

Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!

(in reply to SL4V3M4YB3)

Post #: 46

RE: those silly Italians judges! - 11/6/2009 6:07:20 AM

pahunkboy

Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Eigenaar

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Well, theyve really gone and done it now havent they?

An Italian court today sentenced a whole bunch of former CIA operatives to 8 years in prison for the kidnapping by way of "extraordinary rendition" of an Egyptian who was taken from Italy for "special interrogation techniques".

Sadly, or rather happily, depending on point of view, the trial and sentencing took place in absentia and the Italian government is refusing to seek extradition of those responsible. Personally I think happily, because as guilty as they may have been proven to be, I dont think the operatives should be the ones facing the music.

E

They should even put the cleaning woman of Guantanamo away for life if she knew it was wrong, as they should the clergyman who was on Dutch tv and got emotional saying he left because he no longer did want to be part of the injustice.

The war was sold on lies.

No one seems to know how to stop it.

The pics that others see- we never see in the US.

But nor do we have much of a voice in governance. It is not that people don't care... some do. But as a group we have no figured out how to put some sanity into the runamuck war machine.

The world has always been corrupt- but in recent years we see greater heights of the corruption.   Blackwater is being sued.   The premise being that there can not be no law. In absence of any law international law would apply.   This bears watching closely.

The trans national corporations are about to wipe out the American middle class. Succeeding well at it. There has been very little protest over it. (TARP)

One thing to consider in all the picture. The media plays off one group against the other. I seen where in EU/Germany they said it was unfair to subsidize GM. That it was unfair competition. Meanwhile here- the too big to fail argument kicked in.   And a good amount went to Brazil.

Americans do not have a long history of oligarks wiping out the peons. We could learn from our roots in Europe-

But one thing I will tell you- there very much IS an element of this country who knows what is going on.   Not all of us are sold on the state propaganda.

(in reply to Eigenaar)

Post #: 47

RE: those silly Italians judges! - 11/6/2009 6:20:46 AM

SL4V3M4YB3

Posts: 3506
Joined: 12/20/2007
From: S.E. London U.K.
Status: offline

People have different rights according to which nation they are in at the time.

For example you only think you have the right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty but in France the onus is on you to prove your innocence. Meaning the police there can arrest you for a crime and gather evidence to build a case whereas in the UK/US they'd have to have some evidence to even arrest the person. You'll not see many wrongful arrest cases in France because anyone can be held and charges don't have to be specified. Like if I'm arrested for breaching the peace in the UK that charge can't then be upgraded to something else unless I am rearrested for the new offence. People should be aware when they travel through Europe that each member state has developed their own procedures that may be alien to English law that US laws are loosely based on.

You have to imagine the situation in the US i.e. each state having their own procedure but then magnify with the idea that all these state laws developed from square one and didn't derive from anything else at the federal level, this is how Europe is. As long as there has been English law there has been French law or German law or Spanish law. No one in Europe will ever be able to say “I know we’ll base all our laws and processes on English law and start from there.”

_____________________________

Memory Lane...been there done that.

(in reply to Marc2b)

Post #: 48

RE: those silly Italians judges! - 11/6/2009 6:23:34 AM

Moonhead

Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline

Now you mention that, I think the Italian legal system is one of the odder ones, isn't it?

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to SL4V3M4YB3)

Post #: 49

RE: those silly Italians judges! - 11/6/2009 6:31:59 AM

kittinSol

Posts: 16926
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3

For example you only think you have the right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty but in France the onus is on you to prove your innocence.

No.

Article preliminaire du code de procedure penale:
« III. - Toute personne suspectée ou poursuivie est présumée innocente tant que sa culpabilité n'a pas été établie. Les atteintes à sa présomption d'innocence sont prévenues, réparées et réprimées dans les conditions prévues par la loi. »

_____________________________

(in reply to SL4V3M4YB3)

Post #: 50

RE: those silly Italians judges! - 11/6/2009 6:44:38 AM

SL4V3M4YB3

Posts: 3506
Joined: 12/20/2007
From: S.E. London U.K.
Status: offline

Yes as I thought, according to my translation of that French text I am absolutely right

_____________________________

Memory Lane...been there done that.

(in reply to kittinSol)

Post #: 51

RE: those silly Italians judges! - 11/6/2009 7:05:05 AM

kittinSol

Posts: 16926
Status: offline

Whack.

_____________________________

(in reply to SL4V3M4YB3)

Post #: 52

RE: those silly Italians judges! - 11/6/2009 12:05:18 PM

slvemike4u

Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

Irrelevant ? You have to be kidding me right, the accused had every chance to appear in court but decided not to turn up. There for the trial went ahead without them. That was their call, no one forced them not to turn up.

No. I’m not kidding you. If the accused were not in court – for whatever reason – then the trial should not have proceeded but been postponed until the accused were in court. This is not about them (the accused) but all of us. You’ve accepted that it is okay violate other people’s rights (based upon your dislike of the accused and their lack of co-operation). Having accepted that it is okay to make exceptions when it comes to people’s rights, on what basis will you protest if your rights should be violated?

This brings to mind the old court room joke....seems a young man had been found quilty of murdering his parents.....when given the chance to address the judge before sentencing...the man had the temerity to ask for mercy...."after all your honor I am an orphan.

_____________________________

If we want things to stay as they are,things will have to change...Tancredi from "the Leopard"

Forget Guns-----Ban the pools

Funny stuff....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwFf991d-4

(in reply to Marc2b)

Post #: 53

RE: those silly Italians judges! - 11/6/2009 12:53:37 PM

Marc2b

Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline

quote:

People have different rights according to which nation they are in at the time. (etc...)

I am aware of that (all too aware). I am proceeding from my own philosophical out look on what rights human beings should have and, more importantly, my firmly held belief that rights should be universal. I am under no delusion that, should I be arrested in another country, demanding a lawyer will automatically result in my getting one.

The main point that I am trying to get across (and failing spectacularly it seems) isn’t that I consider trial by absentia wrong but that when we make exceptions to people’s rights – because we dislike them so much (whether it be for a bigoted reason like their ethnicity or because of the heinous nature of the alleged crime) – then we diminish our own rights.

Consider the shooting that just occurred in Fort Hood, Texas. People are going to be screaming for the shooter’s head. I myself would like to plant a hatchet in his skull (I have an honorary niece whose husband is stationed at Fort Hood – thank the Lord both are okay). Because of the high emotions it is all the more imperative that we adhere to the rule of law and that he be accorded all the rights due him. Because if he isn’t, if we get too much into the habit of letting our emotions rule, rather than our intellect – then we run the risk of trampling over an innocent's rights even though they may appear guilty.

A good example of that is the Duke Lacrosse “Rape” Case. When it first broke the news my first reaction was: a bunch of privileged, drunken, frat boy’s party devolves into a gang rape? Yeah, I can believe that. They’re guilty, the fucking bastards. Once my initial emotions about the matter (and I can become very emotional about rape) calmed down and I allowed reason to reassert itself I reminded myself that: I wasn’t there, I have no idea what may or may not have occurred, and privileged jocks from wealthy Northeastern families have the same rights as everyone else. This was something a great many people (i.e. the Group of 88, the New Black Panthers) didn’t do. People demanded they be found guilty because they were a bunch of rich, white, racist assholes and therefore just had to be guilty.

Well... what do you know? Turns out they are not racist, and that they are not guilty (I haven’t met them personally so I don’t know if they are assholes or not – but I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt).

_____________________________

Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!

(in reply to SL4V3M4YB3)

Post #: 54

RE: those silly Italians judges! - 11/6/2009 12:58:40 PM

Marc2b

Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline

quote:

This brings to mind the old court room joke....seems a young man had been found quilty of murdering his parents.....when given the chance to address the judge before sentencing...the man had the temerity to ask for mercy...."after all your honor I am an orphan.

To which, if I were the Judge, I would respond: "Yes, that's very sad. You have my sympathy - and two life sentense to be served back to back."

< Message edited by Marc2b -- 11/6/2009 12:59:27 PM >

_____________________________

Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!

(in reply to slvemike4u)

Post #: 55

RE: those silly Italians judges! - 11/6/2009 1:52:19 PM

Moonhead

Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

The main point that I am trying to get across (and failing spectacularly it seems) isn’t that I consider trial by absentia wrong but that when we make exceptions to people’s rights – because we dislike them so much (whether it be for a bigoted reason like their ethnicity or because of the heinous nature of the alleged crime) – then we diminish our own rights.

That's a healthy point, Marc, but it isn't (quite) what's happened in this case. The spooks are only being tried in absentia because the local CIA has refused point blank to recognise that a country other than America has any right to try American intelligence operatives. The last time I heard that line (about not recognising a court) it was Saddam Hussein coming out with it...

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to Marc2b)

Post #: 56

RE: those silly Italians judges! - 11/6/2009 1:56:17 PM

slvemike4u

Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline

Seems You missed the point entirely Marc,railing about the trial in absentia....while the defendandt essentially told the Italian Court to go fuck themselves is a tad....ironic.

_____________________________

If we want things to stay as they are,things will have to change...Tancredi from "the Leopard"

Forget Guns-----Ban the pools

Funny stuff....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwFf991d-4

(in reply to Moonhead)

Post #: 57

RE: those silly Italians judges! - 11/6/2009 1:58:12 PM

Marc2b

Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline

quote:

That's a healthy point, Marc, but it isn't (quite) what's happened in this case. The spooks are only being tried in absentia because the local CIA has refused point blank to recognise that a country other than America has any right to try American intelligence operatives. The last time I heard that line (about not recognising a court) it was Saddam Hussein coming out with it...

The excuses, legal dodges, whatever, being used by the accused is not (IMHO) relevant to the fact that trial by absentia is wrong. As much as it sucks, sometimes you have to wait for justice and sometimes it never happens at all. How many years has the U.S. been waiting to jail that child rapist, Polanski?

_____________________________

Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!

(in reply to Moonhead)

Post #: 58

RE: those silly Italians judges! - 11/6/2009 2:01:14 PM

slvemike4u

Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

That's a healthy point, Marc, but it isn't (quite) what's happened in this case. The spooks are only being tried in absentia because the local CIA has refused point blank to recognise that a country other than America has any right to try American intelligence operatives. The last time I heard that line (about not recognising a court) it was Saddam Hussein coming out with it...

The excuses, legal dodges, whatever, being used by the accused is not (IMHO) relevant to the fact that trial by absentia is wrong. As much as it sucks, sometimes you have to wait for justice and sometimes it never happens at all. How many years has the U.S. been waiting to jail that child rapist, Polanski?

Apples and Oranges Marc...Polanski pled out before fleeing a publicity driven Judge who was going to toss out a plea agreement.

_____________________________

If we want things to stay as they are,things will have to change...Tancredi from "the Leopard"

Forget Guns-----Ban the pools

Funny stuff....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwFf991d-4

(in reply to Marc2b)

Post #: 59

RE: those silly Italians judges! - 11/6/2009 2:30:29 PM

Moonhead

Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

That's a healthy point, Marc, but it isn't (quite) what's happened in this case. The spooks are only being tried in absentia because the local CIA has refused point blank to recognise that a country other than America has any right to try American intelligence operatives. The last time I heard that line (about not recognising a court) it was Saddam Hussein coming out with it...

The excuses, legal dodges, whatever, being used by the accused is not (IMHO) relevant to the fact that trial by absentia is wrong. As much as it sucks, sometimes you have to wait for justice and sometimes it never happens at all. How many years has the U.S. been waiting to jail that child rapist, Polanski?

So what, they should send their own spooks to abduct the spooks in question from the 'States and set off a massive and ugly international incident instead of a minor one?

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to Marc2b)

Post #: 60

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: those silly Italians judges!

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.125