bub

because a fair trial in the USA is different from a fair trial in any other country?

A hamburger contains meat, bread and ketchup. If we remove the bread, then it's not called an hamburger anymore, even if we are in Sudan.

A fair trial involves the respect of certain rights (fair tribunal, remedy, no degrading treatment...). If these rights are violated, then the trial is unfair, even if you are in Guantanamo.

__________________
===|:-)

bub

Thank you

Of course I know, but I'm trying to explain that the definition of a fair trial is valid worldwide, even in Guantanamo. Some details may change, of course, but basic rights like "no degrading treatment", the right to be judged by a fair tribunal or the right to remedy are not limited in space.

I know that the USA never signed the ECHR chart, so I can't blame them if the trial is unfair, but then I'd like them not to call it a "fair trial"

Yes you are right. And if OBL was captured I would not blame you for executing him on the spot. But this guy was not a mass murderer, he was just a driver AND even the military tribunal said he was not guilty for the conspiracy.

As for your comparison, you can see that those who were executed were
- high ranking officiers responsibles for the murdering of so many people
- low rank soldiers who carried out executions (like the guards of Auschwitz, who were killed by the inmates)
We did not kill Hitler's cook or Hitler's personal secretary

bub

you forgot the end of the sentence:

I could not describe these procedures with precision, of course, but I know enough to affirm that the trial was unfair: it was too long, he has endured degrading treatments, has been judged by an unfair tribunal and has no remedy. That is the evidence of an unfair tribunal, independently of the "processes and procedures".

Goobieman

No. I didn't.
Nothing you said after what I quoted makes any difference.

You admit that you cannot describe the process of and procedures in the trial, and you cannot compare and contrast them to those in US criminal trials.

Given that, you cannot, with any competence whatsoever, argue as to the 'fairness' of the trial.

You're trying to review a movie you haven't seen, bub.

__________________
Haven't you noticed? We've been sharing our culture with you all morning.
-- King Leonidas

bub

I don't see why I should be able to describe the procedures when "exterior" elements such as degrading treatment, long delays or lack of remedy are enough to conclude that the trial was unfair.

Read that post
http://www.debatepolitics.com/war-te...post1057689983 (Is that a joke?)

If there is a picture of naked girls on the box, if the movie is called "anal whores" and if there is a logo saying that the movie is forbidden to minors, I don't need to see the movie to conclude that I should not offer it to a 6 yo girl

Goobieman

In order to make a crticial determination about subject X, one must be able to cite the relevant particlars of subject X.

You admit you cannot. That's all that needs to be said.

bub

Your answer is dishonest, as I told you that "exterior" elements such as degrading treatment, long delays or lack of remedy are enough to conclude that the trial was unfair.

It's quite simple

But then, if you can't admit that, I guess the discussion is over!

Goobieman

No. Your charade here is dishonest.

You -admit- you cannot speak to the processes and procedures of the trial.

This necessitates that you cannot speak to the 'fairness' of the trial inany way shape or form.

Continue with this farce if you like., but until you speak to the specifics of the trial, you're simply putting your bias and your -admitted- ignorance on display for all to see.

Naturally, as I dont care if people find you ignorant, I won't try to stop you from doing that -- so, rant on!

bub

ok i keep on

I re-take a previous analogy:


A hamburger contains meat, bread and ketchup. If we remove the bread, then it's not called an hamburger anymore, even if we are in Sudan.

A fair trial involves the respect of certain rights (fair tribunal, remedy, no degrading treatment...). If these rights are violated, then the trial is unfair, even if you are in Guantanamo.

Your argument is that I don't know details that don't matter in this case (as external elements are enough to see that the trial obviously doesn't fit with any definition of fair trial)

Do I need to know the precize recipe of bread to conclude that if there is no bread, there is no hamburger?

Goobieman

As I dont care if people find you ignorant, I won't try to stop you from repeating posts that illustrate said ignorance -- so, rant on!