42
   

Snowdon is a dummy

Forums: Politics, Snowden, Asylum, Nsa, Snowdon
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Fri 19 Jun, 2015 09:46 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

So you want a rigged trial, because any trial where the defendant is not allowed to defend themselves cannot be described as fair.


It is you who wants a rigged trial, Izzy.

Why on Earth are you suggesting that Snowden will not be allowed to defend himself. That would be unfair.

If Snowden is put on trial...he WILL be allowed to defend himself. My guess is his defense team will be formidable...and will use every device allowed to defense lawyers to defend him.

He, more than likely, will not be allowed to invent a defense that does not exist and if his defense team tries to invent one, it more than likely will be ruled inadmissible.

But those rulings can be appealed...all the way up to the Supreme Court.

That is fair.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Fri 19 Jun, 2015 10:17 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Talk about wanting a rigged trial!

How do you come to that conclusion?


Because you keep saying you do not think he can get a fair trial...when I see little doubt that he will get one.



Not thinking he'll get a fair trial does not equate to wanting a rigged trial.

Your supposition is a non sequitur.



Frank wrote:
Really! I think you do.
InfraBlue wrote:
I don't want a rigged trial.

See my reply above.

Frank wrote:
If you want a fair trial...let him come back. He will get a fair trial.


Your belief is showing.

Frank wrote:
InfraBlue wrote:
I'm skeptical about the fairness of any trial that Snowden might be brought to.



Why?


Because the regime has decided for itself that it hasn't violated the constitution and this self-absolution eliminates Snowden's defense.
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Fri 19 Jun, 2015 10:35 am
@InfraBlue,
This post of yours is so preposterous, I won't bother much with it except to laugh at it.

I want a fair trial.

You apparently do not.

We disagree.

That's the way things go.

We'll see how this works out.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Fri 19 Jun, 2015 10:38 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Ha ha ha...

I met with a few spooks in my life, a couple CIA dudes in Peshawar, a French "barbouze" in Addis Abeba, a Belgian retiree in Thailand... I've also been spied upon in Tajikistan. The point is that none of them looked particularly well informed to me, least of all the French guy. Maybe they were just playing dumb... But drink and eat, that they could do alright.

Come to think of it, the only spy I've met whom I had respect for was a British lad operating as an NGO staffer in Afghanistan. He spoke dari AND pasthu (the first is easy and I speak it too, the second is hard as hell). He knew many important commanders. A fine gentleman, reportedly gay, with some fantasy of "Lawrence of Arabia" and a passion for local music. He would organize min-concerts at his place for us foreigners.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  -1  
Fri 19 Jun, 2015 10:39 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
If Snowden is put on trial...he WILL be allowed to defend himself. My guess is his defense team will be formidable...and will use every device allowed to defense lawyers to defend him.


Guess away, his lawyers will be hamstrung by the fact that all his defence will be deemed inadmissible by the judge looking to be appointed to the Supreme Court as a reward.

That's what the trial will be, anything else is pure fantasy.
izzythepush
 
  -1  
Fri 19 Jun, 2015 10:44 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
It had everything to do with justice. You are just angry because you do not agree with the verdict...or the sentence.




It had everything to do with revenge, 30 years for showing civilians being killed by drone strikes while the killers walk free.

Murderers get less, it was a show trial.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Fri 19 Jun, 2015 10:47 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
If Snowden is put on trial...he WILL be allowed to defend himself. My guess is his defense team will be formidable...and will use every device allowed to defense lawyers to defend him.


Guess away, his lawyers will be hamstrung by the fact that all his defence will be deemed inadmissible by the judge looking to be appointed to the Supreme Court as a reward.

That's what the trial will be, anything else is pure fantasy.


The only defenses that will be deemed inadmissible, Izzy, are invented defenses that simply cannot be used.

The entire justice system of the United States will rule on that.

Now of course, you are going to claim the justice system of the United States sucks so much...you should make the decisions instead of them.

Good luck with that. Wink
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Fri 19 Jun, 2015 10:48 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
It had everything to do with justice. You are just angry because you do not agree with the verdict...or the sentence.




It had everything to do with revenge, 30 years for showing civilians being killed by drone strikes while the killers walk free.

Murderers get less, it was a show trial.


It was a fair trial.

Get over it, Izzy. Or don't. Either way is a hoot! Razz
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Fri 19 Jun, 2015 11:02 am
What Izzy is not mentioning is...

...that the "public interest defense" has been removed from the Official Secrets Act of the UK.

It is a defense that someone in the UK doing what Edward Snowden did...

...would be prohibited from using...just as Snowden would be prohibited from using it here.

Yeah...and the United States justice system is a piece of dung in his estimation, in part for having that exclusion.

InfraBlue
 
  0  
Fri 19 Jun, 2015 11:06 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

This post of yours is so preposterous, I won't bother much with it except to laugh at it.

What's laughable are your assumptions, non sequiturs, and beliefs.
Frank wrote:

I want a fair trial.

Understood, but saying that you want a fair trial and believing that he would get a fair trial are two different things.

Frank wrote:
You apparently do not.

I don't think he should be tried for exposing this regime's violation of the US Constition in the first place.

I'm skeptical of any fairness in a trial that he would be brought to.

Frank wrote:

We disagree.

That's the way things go.

We'll see how this works out.


Agreed.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Fri 19 Jun, 2015 11:20 am
@InfraBlue,
I do not do "believing", Blue...but I sure enjoy watching you try to stretch this into belief.

You are a gas. Wink

Be as skeptical as you want; what will happen will happen.

If there is a trial, it will be a fair trial. Almost everything you write seems to indicate that a "fair trial" is the last thing you want. I suspect that is the last thing Snowden wants also.

As I said...we'll see how that goes.
Thomas
 
  2  
Fri 19 Jun, 2015 01:24 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
You, Thomas, apparently do not want a fair trial...you want an acquittal. You want a rigged trial.

Thanks for informing me about what I want. I'm not saying a fair trial is undesirable, I'm saying it's unrealistic. Realistically, Snowden is facing a choice between a trial rigged in favor of his accusers (if he returns to the US), and no trial at all (if he stays abroad). I think he's choosing wisely by staying abroad.
izzythepush
 
  -1  
Fri 19 Jun, 2015 01:40 pm
@Frank Apisa,
He was tortured, that alone means a fair trial is an impossibility.
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Fri 19 Jun, 2015 01:45 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
You, Thomas, apparently do not want a fair trial...you want an acquittal. You want a rigged trial.

Thanks for informing me about what I want.


I am not telling you what you want...I am telling you what it appears you want. My reading of what you are saying is that you do not want a fair trial...but instead want a rigged trial in favor of Snowden.

If I am wrong...I apologize.

So your thanks, while welcome, are inappropriate.



Quote:
I'm not saying a fair trial is undesirable, I'm saying it's unrealistic.


And I am saying that supposing it to be unrealistic is simply you deciding that a "fair trial" is one that will not find Snowden guilty.

There is absolutely NOTHING unrealistic about a fair trial for the man. What is unrealistic is a trial rigged so that he cannot be found guilty.


Quote:
Realistically, Snowden is facing a choice between a trial rigged in favor of his accusers (if he returns to the US)...


No rigging done. He is accused of stealing classified government documents and releasing them to unauthorized persons. If the prosecution can prove that he did in fact do that...where is the "rigging?"

What you want is for him to be able to invoke a defense that is precluded by law. In other words, you want a rigged trial...not a fair trial.

Quote:
...and no trial at all (if he stays abroad). I think he's choosing wisely by staying abroad.


So do I.

All of my comments have been addressed to the proviso that he returns. If he does not return...no trial. I have no problem with that.

So?
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  -1  
Fri 19 Jun, 2015 01:46 pm
@Frank Apisa,
What would happen in the UK is not the issue. Although nobody would get 30 years for whistleblowing, 10 would be considered excessive.

One major difference is that our judges aren't motivated by politics, they don't rely on political favour to get appointed to the supreme court. So even with the public defence provisions he'd undoubtedly get a fairer trial in the UK. Given the choice of facing prosecution in the UK or US any sane person would opt for the UK, (unless they're accused shooting a black kid obviously.)
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Fri 19 Jun, 2015 01:49 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

He was tortured, that alone means a fair trial is an impossibility.


One...you do not know Manning was tortured. He may have been; he may not have been.

Two...even if he was...that does not mean the trial was not fair.

Three...Snowden has not been tortured. Not sure why you think they would torture him to get him to admit he stole classified government documents and released them to unauthorized persons. He seems to be bragging about it without torture.
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Fri 19 Jun, 2015 01:55 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

What would happen in the UK is not the issue. Although nobody would get 30 years for whistleblowing, 10 would be considered excessive.


Bottom line: The defense you seem to be demanding for Snowden here in the US...would not be available to him in the UK...and it is not available here.

If you do not like the sentencing done in the US (I don't particularly)...don't commit crimes here. (I don't do that, either.)


Quote:

One major difference is that our judges aren't motivated by politics, they don't rely on political favour to get appointed to the supreme court. So even with the public defence provisions he'd undoubtedly get a fairer trial in the UK. Given the choice of facing prosecution in the UK or US any sane person would opt for the UK, (unless they're accused shooting a black kid obviously.)


I'm sane...and I would opt for the US system every time.

Your considerations about the United States and the UK are farcical. I thank you for entertaining me. I continue to be very positive toward the UK despite the conduct of people like you.

Anyway...if Snowden returns to the US, he will get a fair trial.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  0  
Fri 19 Jun, 2015 01:57 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

I do not do "believing", Blue...but I sure enjoy watching you try to stretch this into belief.


Frank wrote:
Be as skeptical as you want; what will happen will happen.

Just as water is wet.

Quote:
If there is a trial, it will be a fair trial.

There's your belief again, contrary to what you asserted above.
Frank Apisa
 
  -1  
Fri 19 Jun, 2015 02:04 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

I do not do "believing", Blue...but I sure enjoy watching you try to stretch this into belief.


Frank wrote:
Be as skeptical as you want; what will happen will happen.

Just as water is wet.

Quote:
If there is a trial, it will be a fair trial.

There's your belief again, contrary to what you asserted above.


There are no "beliefs" here, Blue...no matter how much you want there to be.

If you want to call it a guess...do so. I will not contest.

I have no idea of what you were trying (unsuccessfully, it seems) with the other two items.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Fri 19 Jun, 2015 02:38 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
One...you do not know Manning was tortured. He may have been; he may not have been.


I'll take the word of an expert on this. He was tortured.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/12/bradley-manning-cruel-inhuman-treatment-un<br />
Frank Apisa wrote:
Two...even if he was...that does not mean the trial was not fair.


Yes it does, not being tortured goes to the heat of a fair trial.

If Bradley Manning's trial is your idea of a fair trial you have no understanding of the concept.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND - Discussion by Foxfyre
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Fellow Bostonians: How many of us wished we had an assault weapon last night? - Question by maxdancona
What should be first on the agenda of the winner in November? - Discussion by Frank Apisa
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Snowdon is a dummy
  3. » Page 645
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 09/19/2024 at 10:35:49
▲ ▼