RE: those silly Italians judges!

RE: those silly Italians judges! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Politesub53 -> RE: those silly Italians judges! (11/6/2009 3:12:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b 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? Rights violated, for people who decide not to appear in court ? Are you serious ? What part of "they have had every chance to appear in court but chose not to" dont you understand ?

Politesub53 -> RE: those silly Italians judges! (11/6/2009 3:17:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u 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. Which is basically what I am saying. I am glad someone else can see it.

slvemike4u -> RE: those silly Italians judges! (11/6/2009 3:19:00 PM)
Well as you stated previously.....I'm flawless.[:)]

Politesub53 -> RE: those silly Italians judges! (11/6/2009 3:21:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Well as you stated previously.....I'm flawless.[:)] At least i got something right today then.....lol

Marc2b -> RE: those silly Italians judges! (11/6/2009 7:31:59 PM)
quote: Apples and Oranges Marc...Polanski pled out before fleeing a publicity driven Judge who was going to toss out a plea agreement. I am well aware of that (please reference post 32 of this thread). My point is that everyone seems to have a “we have to get these guys and fuck their rights if that’s what it takes,” attitude. My point is that sometimes, as much as it sucks, sometimes justice cannot be served in order to protect the rights of all of us.

Marc2b -> RE: those silly Italians judges! (11/6/2009 7:34:56 PM)
quote: 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? Two wrongs don't make a right. What they should do is leave the charges on the books until such time as the accused can be brought to trial.

Marc2b -> RE: those silly Italians judges! (11/6/2009 7:41:28 PM)
quote: violated, for people who decide not to appear in court ? Are you serious ? What part of "they have had every chance to appear in court but chose not to" dont you understand ? What part of this isn't about them it's about all of us, don't you understand? Your posistion is that it is perfectly okay to violate the accused rights becasue they are bad people who won't show up in court to answer the charges. You have therefore accepted the principle that it is okay to violate people's rights. Thus, you have also lost all moral and intellectual standing to assert your own rights. After all, if it's okay to violate other people's rights, then it is certainly okay for others to violate your rights.

slvemike4u -> RE: those silly Italians judges! (11/6/2009 9:37:23 PM)
Justice delayed is justice denied....or something like that.

Politesub53 -> RE: those silly Italians judges! (11/7/2009 1:31:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: violated, for people who decide not to appear in court ? Are you serious ? What part of "they have had every chance to appear in court but chose not to" dont you understand ? What part of this isn't about them it's about all of us, don't you understand? Your posistion is that it is perfectly okay to violate the accused rights becasue they are bad people who won't show up in court to answer the charges. You have therefore accepted the principle that it is okay to violate people's rights. Thus, you have also lost all moral and intellectual standing to assert your own rights. After all, if it's okay to violate other people's rights, then it is certainly okay for others to violate your rights. You miss the crucial point that they went to Italy, violated Italian Law, and were tried under Italian law. Trials in absentia are legal in Italy, so that produces two questions for you. Do you think anyone, American or otherwise, has the right to go abroad, break the law, and not be held accountable by the law of the land ? IE when in Rome ect ect Next, how would you try someone who doesnt wish to appear in court, such as Bin Laden ?

Marc2b -> RE: those silly Italians judges! (11/7/2009 5:32:56 AM)
quote: Justice delayed is justice denied....or something like that. Yes it is and it fucking sucks. But what price are you willing to pay to see justice done? How many times have we seen somebody escape justice because the evidence against them was thrown out by a judge because the police violated the accused's Fourth Amendment rights? We could solve that problem easily by repealing the Fourth Amendment (violating everybody's rights, in other words) - but is that a price you're willing to pay to see someone convicted?

Marc2b -> RE: those silly Italians judges! (11/7/2009 6:10:43 AM)
quote: You miss the crucial point that they went to Italy, violated Italian Law, and were tried under Italian law. Trials in absentia are legal in Italy, so that produces two questions for you. Do you think anyone, American or otherwise, has the right to go abroad, break the law, and not be held accountable by the law of the land ? IE when in Rome ect ect I have already spoken to this point. Please reference post 54 of thise thread. I recognize that other nations have their own laws - that is not the point. The point is: are those laws just? Do they protect or violate human rights? In Iran being homosexual can get you arested, thrown into prison, even exacuted. By your "reasoning," this is okay because, after all, it's their law. Bullshit. I recognize that I am utterly powerless to affect Italian law but that doesn't mean I don't have the right to call bullshit on it. quote: Next, how would you try someone who doesnt wish to appear in court, such as Bin Laden ? By catching him (within legal means) and dragging his scrawney ass into court. I'm not sure if Bin Laden is the best example for that, however, because he is more akin to a military commander who is violating accepted rules of war. Any attempt to capture him would be more akin to a military action than a police action - which means we can shoot the mother fucker on site. A better example would be Ira Einhorn, the low life, piece of shit, who murdered his ex-girlfriend and shoved her body into a trunk in his closet. He fled to europe to avoid prosecution. He was tried in absentia. That was wrong. The charges simply should have been allowed to stand (there is, after all, no staute of limitations on murder) until such time as he could be located and returned to the United States for a proper trial. He eventually was found and returned (after much international legal haggling) to the States - so it can be done. Unfortunately his convition in absentia was upheld - it should have been over turned and a new trial granted. Then we could have convicted the evil shithead properly, with his rights - WHICH ARE ALSO OUR RIGHTS! - protected.

DesFIP -> RE: those silly Italians judges! (11/7/2009 6:15:02 AM)
Trial in absentia is common here. If you get a speeding ticket and don't show up in traffic court, then you are assumed to be pleading guilty and you'll get a letter in the mail telling you what your fine is and when it has to be paid. If you ignore that, then your license will be suspended. They don't let you keep driving recklessly until you wander into court and ask to be tried.

DarkSteven -> RE: those silly Italians judges! (11/7/2009 6:22:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b A better example would be Ira Einhorn, the low life, piece of shit, who murdered his ex-girlfriend and shoved her body into a trunk in his closet. He fled to europe to avoid prosecution. He was tried in absentia. That was wrong. The charges simply should have been allowed to stand (there is, after all, no staute of limitations on murder) until such time as he could be located and returned to the United States for a proper trial. He eventually was found and returned (after much international legal haggling) to the States - so it can be done. Unfortunately his convition in absentia was upheld - it should have been over turned and a new trial granted. Then we could have convicted the evil shithead properly, with his rights - WHICH ARE ALSO OUR RIGHTS! - protected. I think of it differently. Einhorn, like all of us, had been given the right to defend himself in court. He chose not to exercise it. He fled because he believed that he would be convicted if he showed. I feel like he waived his right when he did not show in court.

Marc2b -> RE: those silly Italians judges! (11/7/2009 6:44:51 AM)
quote: Trial in absentia is common here. If you get a speeding ticket and don't show up in traffic court, then you are assumed to be pleading guilty and you'll get a letter in the mail telling you what your fine is and when it has to be paid. If you ignore that, then your license will be suspended. They don't let you keep driving recklessly until you wander into court and ask to be tried. I'm not really sure if that's a good analogy because violations are not in the same league as misdemanors or felonys. But I do know, at least where I live, that in such a situation the judge would issue a bench warrant for your arrest for not having shown up in court. Edited to add: I am presuming that you were addressing me and not pahunk.

Marc2b -> RE: those silly Italians judges! (11/7/2009 6:56:33 AM)
quote: I think of it differently. Einhorn, like all of us, had been given the right to defend himself in court. He chose not to exercise it. He fled because he believed that he would be convicted if he showed. I feel like he waived his right when he did not show in court. I understand the argument - I'm just not accepting it. If we accept trial by absentia then we accept the principle that it is okay to try people without them being present. In that case why bother leting the accused participate in their trial at all? I know some people will roll their eyes and make wisecracks about the "slippery slope," but those people are people who have never been on the slippery slope, plunnging towards the abyss. It is easy to have high moral standards as long as the consequences don't affect you. This whole debate reminds me of the old saying about Liberals who get mugged and Conservatives who get arrested. What I see here are a whole bunch of Conservatives who have never been tried in absentia.

HunterS -> RE: those silly Italians judges! (11/7/2009 7:09:37 AM)
quote: How many years has the U.S. been waiting to jail that child rapist, Polanski? It is a strange world you live in where you can change the meaning of words to suit your own bias. Polanski pled guilty to carnal knowledge of minor not rape...so no mater how much you want it to be different it is not. H.

kdsub -> RE: those silly Italians judges! (11/7/2009 7:43:03 AM)
Dateline- Seoul- December 6, 2010 At the G-20 summit Italy apologizes to the United States for detaining its citizens and agrees to pay restitution to the captives and their families. In return the United States agreed to remove economic sanctions imposed on December 6, 2009 that severely crippled Italy’s economy. In this amazing turn of events unnamed sources in the Chamber of Deputies say the surprising lack of support Italy received from France, Germany, and Great Briton forced Italy to agree to the settlement.

kdsub -> RE: those silly Italians judges! (11/7/2009 8:18:29 AM)
Dateline- Washington DC November 2, 2012 On the coat tails of anger at the imprisonment of American citizens in Italy, Dick Cheney has been elected as President of The United States. This coincides with control of both houses of Congress. He pledges that his first duty will be to investigate the possibility that Al-Qaeda may be stockpiling weapons of mass destruction in Italy.

slvemike4u -> RE: those silly Italians judges! (11/7/2009 8:18:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: Justice delayed is justice denied....or something like that. Yes it is and it fucking sucks. But what price are you willing to pay to see justice done? How many times have we seen somebody escape justice because the evidence against them was thrown out by a judge because the police violated the accused's Fourth Amendment rights? We could solve that problem easily by repealing the Fourth Amendment (violating everybody's rights, in other words) - but is that a price you're willing to pay to see someone convicted? Justice is not solely a concern of the accused....it is important for the victim,in some cases a form of much needed closure.....how would your veiwpoint take into account the needs of the victim...specifically in this case?

LadyEllen -> RE: those silly Italians judges! (11/7/2009 8:21:40 AM)
I am not convinced that the operatives should be the ones facing the music for this, as I mentioned in the OP; not on the grounds they were "only following orders" but on the grounds that others far more culpable should face trial before the operatives who it seems to me are being held accountable since those more culpable may never be known. Trial in absentia is perfectly normal and acceptable, despite any misgivings about the violation of the accused rights in this instance. The accused had the right to attend Court and face their accusers, give or participate in a defence and yet they chose not to do so; as such they waived that particular right, having been notified of it. But then to presume they waived it, rather than being directed to not attend by those more culpable, may be premature. Had the accused attended Court to provide and support their defence, then it would be inevitable in establishing that defence that they would have to name those more culpable than themselves. This would clearly present some large problems for them since in doing so they would have to reveal such top secret confidential information that their liberty would have been jeopardised either way; had they not pleaded as here then on the fact of the case they must be found guilty and face imprisonment in Italy - had they pleaded then they might have been found guilty or innocent as far as the Italian case went, but if found innocent in Italy would certainly have faced imprisonment on return to the US. It is therefore in my opinion unreasonable to try the operatives, given that effectively their liberty was prejudicially jeopardised whether they appeared or not. Rather it is necessary and entirely reasonable that those more culpable, those directing the activities the operatives were fulfilling, be tried in the first instance. This of course is unlikely to occur, however that is no reason to then identify and try others who simply would be unable to win. E

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

7.788086E-02