US and its two faced legal system

A

assassin

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
516
Reaction score
8
Iraq has criticised a US judge's decision to dismiss charges against private security guards accused of killing Iraqi civilians.

The five guards from the company Blackwater Security had been charged with killing 14 unarmed Iraqi civilians during an attack at a busy Baghdad roundabout in 2007.

But now a US judge has dismissed manslaughter charges against them because of mistakes by the prosecution.

Iraq's Human Rights Minister says she is "astonished" by the decision.

Link


Just goes to show, when the terrorists attacked America. The US did everything in its power to display a semblance of justice.

But when the roles are reversed its a different story.
 
weird how concerned you are about the US legal system and not a peep from you (or any other Muslim on this forum) condemning the killing of 88 innocent muslim civilians today by al qaeda

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSSGE5BU0CQ20100101

not a single peep or murmur on the thread about this on mybb, not one Muslim here has stood up and condemned these vile attacks directed at other muslims by muslims.

Your silence says it all.
 
Last edited:
assassin said:
Just goes to show, when the terrorists attacked America. The US did everything in its power to display a semblance of justice.

But when the roles are reversed its a different story.
Click to expand...

Didn't you read the whole article, this isn't a political decision: "prosecutors violated their [fifth amendment] rights by using incriminating statements they had made under immunity during a State Department probe to build their case" ... these rights are highly fundamental in US law (which is actually a very good thing in general, even though sometimes it means guilty people get off on what amounts to technicalities) - prosecutors are not SUPPOSED to violate your fifth amendment rights to build their case (duh), and judges are pretty much required (even if against their own wishes) to uphold the constitutional rights of those on trial, because the US constitution is the highest law of the land (again, a good thing). Imagine if all judges decided to overlook little things like 5th amendment violations, it would be a disaster. But hey, don't let little things like, oh, "the facts" get in the way of your little anti-US rant, spin it all you can.
 
Last edited:
Turtle said:
Didn't you read the whole article, this isn't a political decision: "prosecutors violated their [fifth amendment] rights by using incriminating statements they had made under immunity during a State Department probe to build their case" ... these rights are highly fundamental in US law (which is actually a very good thing in general, even though sometimes it means guilty people get off on what amounts to technicalities) - prosecutors are not SUPPOSED to violate your fifth amendment rights to build their case (duh), and judges are pretty much required (even if against their own wishes) to uphold the constitutional rights of those on trial, because the US constitution is the highest law of the land (again, a good thing). Imagine if all judges decided to overlook little things like 5th amendment violations, it would be a disaster. But hey, don't let little things like, oh, "the facts" get in the way of your little anti-US rant, spin it all you can.
Click to expand...

This.
 
US federal judge Ricardo Urbina on Thursday dismissed the charges against the five, saying prosecutors violated their rights by using incriminating statements they had made under immunity during a State Department probe to build their case.
Click to expand...
To the O/P - Did you not understand this section. What about the concepts of immunity and protection against self incrimination?
 
No surprise to see the liberal media having hissy fits over this. :o

The U.S legal system is very strict on these matters. You'd be shocked to see how many criminals get off on technicalities.


I couldn't be a DA sitting there in the court room knowing the defendant is a murderer but can't put forward a key piece of evidence because some knucklehead messed up making it inadmissible. If you lose he walks out a free man. :sick:
 
Last edited:
Knucklehead ??????

Alan said:
I couldn't be a DA sitting there in the court room knowing the defendant is a murderer
but can't put forward a key peace of evidence because some knucklehead messed up making it inadmissible.
If you lose he walks out a free man. :sick:
Click to expand...

"Knucklehead" ???? -- OR -- very clever lawyer ????

You really need to think outside the box -- sorry -- normal concept of justice

Do a bit of research on the American legal system -- AND -- the "Patriot-Act"

and BTW -- do a bit of reading up on "Blackwater"

then

re-consider point one above

I rest my case


MW
 
MidnightWizard said:
"Knucklehead" ???? -- OR -- very clever lawyer ????

You really need to think outside the box -- sorry -- normal concept of justice

Do a bit of research on the American legal system -- AND -- the "Patriot-Act"

and BTW -- do a bit of reading up on "Blackwater"

then

re-consider point one above

I rest my case

MW
Click to expand...

Tinfoil hat stuff /me thinks

Oh I've corrected the error. Why do I only notice them after I've been quoted ffs :D
 
Alan said:
The U.S legal system is very strict on these matters. You'd be shocked to see how many criminals get off on technicalities.
Click to expand...

A fundamental error made by all posters is that it is OK to impose American forms of justice in a foreign country. I have a severe problem with this. I can understand US justice being administered in American zones (compounds & such) against Americans and Iraqi’s – that’s legitimate, its US jurisdiction. But to impose American druthers in areas that have FA to do with them and where Iraqi law should prevail doesn’t seem right. I can see the American’s getting tense if Iraqi justice involved execution or lopping-off hands, but short of that it should be allowed to take its course. No wonder the American’s are experiencing such hostility. Not everyone (even in the West) thinks the Amurican way is best.
 
za1 said:
weird how concerned you are about the US legal system and not a peep from you (or any other Muslim on this forum) condemning the killing of 88 innocent muslim civilians today by al qaeda

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSSGE5BU0CQ20100101

not a single peep or murmur on the thread about this on mybb, not one Muslim here has stood up and condemned these vile attacks directed at other muslims by muslims.

Your silence says it all.
Click to expand...

In the artical it speaks about how the people of that village are forming an anti taliban malitia. You would think that they'd get a hint that they are not welcome. Fscing extremists should crawl under the rocks they belong to.
 
Palimino said:
A fundamental error made by all posters is that it is OK to impose American forms of justice in a foreign country. I have a severe problem with this. I can understand US justice being administered in American zones (compounds & such) against Americans and Iraqi’s – that’s legitimate, its US jurisdiction. But to impose American druthers in areas that have FA to do with them and where Iraqi law should prevail doesn’t seem right. I can see the American’s getting tense if Iraqi justice involved execution or lopping-off hands, but short of that it should be allowed to take its course. No wonder the American’s are experiencing such hostility. Not everyone (even in the West) thinks the Amurican way is best.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, but in this case the law breakers are Americans and broke the law on US occupled soil. The Laws most definatly apply. These okes are murderers that got off on a technicality.
 
Security some contractors are no longer immune since the Iraqi SOFA pact was instituted in January.

As for anti U.S "no wonder they don't like them" drivel you ignore the vast majority who do not gun down anybody that moves. :rolleyes:

Anyway last month there were no U.S soldiers killed in combat in Iraq. Seems the hostility to the so called "occupation" continues to decrease contrary to your predictions. So much for pissing them off :o
 
assassin said:
Iraq has criticised a US judge's decision to dismiss charges against private security guards accused of killing Iraqi civilians.

The five guards from the company Blackwater Security had been charged with killing 14 unarmed Iraqi civilians during an attack at a busy Baghdad roundabout in 2007.

But now a US judge has dismissed manslaughter charges against them because of mistakes by the prosecution.

Iraq's Human Rights Minister says she is "astonished" by the decision.

Link


Just goes to show, when the terrorists attacked America. The US did everything in its power to display a semblance of justice.

But when the roles are reversed its a different story.
Click to expand...

and yet everybody in the US cries foul when the authorities in the USA now want to try this Nigerian would-be bomber as a civilian in the US instead of as an enemy combatant. I agree, it appears to be a travesty... but the US legal system is one of the best and fairest in the world... and if there were errors made by the prosecution then it was in the interests of fairness to dismiss the trial. They strike a balance between the rights of the accused and the rights of the public for justice. You would not want them glossing over errors in the trial just so that they can railroad the accused into a conviction now would you? What kind of trial would you want if that was you being accused? A railroad job where errors are allowed and overlooked, or a fair trial where you also have some rights? You also believe in a fair trial don't you? I thought so. :)
 
assassin said:
But when the roles are reversed its a different story.
Click to expand...

and by the way... that was what the trial was all about. Was to determine whether were guilty or not. That had not yet been established in a court of law. So for you to call them terrorists means you are judging them without a fair trial. Not really fair is it?
 
In typical Democrat fashion Obama is going to be a one term president.
 
Garyvdh said:
In typical Democrat fashion Obama is going to be a one term president.
Click to expand...
IIRC since FDR (22nd amendment) the republicans and democrats have been pretty close in that regard.
 
bwana said:
IIRC since FDR (22nd amendment) the republicans and democrats have been pretty close in that regard.
Click to expand...

The only Democrat to be elected twice since then was Bill Clinton. There were four Republican Presidents who were elected twice in that time.
 
daveza said:
Under Obama the term ' enemy combatant' is no longer in use.

Not a great chapter in Americas legal history.
Click to expand...

Just the term. People are still being held. But that's the kind of fickle spin you fall for.



Garyvdh said:
The only Democrat to be elected twice since then was Bill Clinton. There were four Republican Presidents who were elected twice in that time.
Click to expand...

Three not four. Eisenhower, Reagan, Dubya compared to just Clinton
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X