And that extends to letting mass murderers out of prison?
Oh, why didn’t you say it was clearly unlike any other trial? That would have wound up the argument immediately:
CRSP: It wasn’t a fair trial!
BRICKER: Yes, it was.
CRSP: It clearly wasn’t a fair trial!
BRICKER: Oh, NOW I see. Right you are, my good man!
:rolleyes:
Defense lawyers often don’t have access to all the documents the prosecution does. So what? What prejudice did the defendant suffer from not having access to those documents?
The jury, not you, got to see each witness, including Gauci, and evaluate his credibility. The mere fact that you don’t find him credible is utterly meaningless. The jury did, just like what happens in every single criminal trial everywhere.
As has been mentioned, there are serious doubts about the conviction, and at the time it was not believed he would live to see the appeal happen. This seems to me different than releasing, say, Charles Manson on the same grounds. As i said in the other thread in GD, it’s not a great compromise, but whatever was done would upset some people, and what was actually done seems fairest. But then, I’ve been wrong before (about 10 posts ago), so feel free to ignore me.
Suppose we catch Osama bin Laden tomorrow, and decide to give him a civilian criminal trial. You know, to show the world we believe in this justice thing we always talk about and that we’re not the Great Satan, etc.
Do you think it’s possible to find 12 American jurors who don’t assume bin Laden is guilty as a foregone conclusion?
Is their any chance the guy will be able to do anything else to hurt people? If not, why does it matter where he is?
If so, why would they let him out, not matter how compassionate they were being?
And, of course, I agree that the U.S. can’t demand anything. But I am surprised that he can’t be prosecuted over here, too, for killing American citizens Then again, I know next to nothing about the criminal justice system, especially with regards to international law.
I can find you 12 people who will swearup and down that it was all a plot by George Bush. Will they work? If you can convince them it was OBL, then you know you have a case.
He can be prosecuted over here, but the Libyans aren’t likely to hand him over again. Anyway, it would look awfully strange if we tried him in a civilian court, considering that we won’t extend that privilege to other terrorism suspects.
Well, that depends on whether they think OBL was in cahoots with Bush or whether it was entirely an inside job.
There was no jury.
Really? I’m surprised he could be considered to have committed any crime in American jurisdiction, and that’s ignoring the fact he’s already been convicted and punished. What could the US theoretically charge him with, assuming they got their hands on him?
What jury?
Oh really? You’re sure about the jury, are you?
He (allegedly) killed American citizens, on an aircraft registered in the US to a US company. That’s generally considered more than enough to be going on with.
Pretty much every country occasionally asserts extraterritorial jurisdiction. There are four ways: (1) one of your nationals commits the crime; (2) one of your nationals is the victim; (3) the crime occurs on a ship or aircraft which flies your flag or whose principal operator is based in your country (3) it’s held to be a crime by pretty much all states and it’s impractical for the country with primary jurisdiction to prosecute it (typically, war crimes and genocide).
I don’t know anything about the case and am enjoying learning about it, but I’m beginning to suspect there wasn’t a jury involved in the court proceeding. 
:rolleyes:? Now who looks like a twat? You keep talking about a jury. There was no jury.
The decision to hold the trial without a jury was made at the request of the Libyan government; it was a pre-requisite for handing the two accused over to the court.
From another source on the decision to release Al-Megrahi on “humanitarian” grounds:
*"Doctors said Megrahi, 57, was suffering from terminal prostate cancer and had less than three months to live. Well, guess what? Megrahi is very much alive and living free in Libya. It’s enough to give humanitarianism a bad name.
Perhaps Libya has a better hospice system than anyone realized, or perhaps Megrahi’s failing body was revitalized by the hero’s welcome he received when he returned home. But there is a less fanciful explanation for his resilience. Emerging evidence suggests the release was, at best, based on misguided notions of sympathy and bad medical advice; at worst, it involved a sleazy deal by British businesses — including, yes, BP — to improve commercial ties with Libya.
BP, which recently received approval to drill off the Libyan coast, has acknowledged that it urged the British government to sign a “prisoner transfer agreement” with Libya in 2007 but did not specify the Megrahi case. That might be a distinction without a difference, because Libyan officials have said Megrahi was the prisoner they had in mind."*
Again, what would have been the reaction in Britain if the U.S. had released a convicted terrorist found responsible for murders of many British citizens, and there was evidence of a giant U.S. oil company benefiting?
Yeah, same reason as why they had to make a bit of the Netherlands temporarily under Scottish jurisdiction. (Some of my dad’s old colleagues made a metric fuckton of money guarding the world’s smallest prison, with just two inmates) Just struck me as odd that someone was pontificating about a case, and yet didn’t even know that it wasn’t a jury trial.
What was the reaction to US courts releasing convicted terrorists found responsible for the murders of British citizens? Anger, according to this:
Admittedly there’s no obvious corporate scapegoat, but still.
I don’t now how accurate the wikipedia entry is, but it doesn’t sound like a very convincing case. Really, the defendant should have been the Libyan government. I doubt these guys were operating in a vacuum.
It was claimed the Maltese shopkeeper was given $2 million to testify. Has anyone heard that and is there any substance? His testimony seems awfully shaky and malleable, yet it’s supposed to be the most damning piece against Megrahi.
It also states that only the prison doctor made the diagnosis that Megrahi had weeks to live and four outside doctors refused to back him up.
I think another problem with this compassionate release law is that it makes bribery almost inevitable. (I’m not saying it happened in this case, just that it would be an obvious problem.)
I’m not sure I follow you, who are you suggesting would be bribed and why is it more likely under there circumstances?