Casson went straight ot jail, Pinochet doesn't even ahve to go to court!
Philip Walton
Pinochet head of regime reponsible for deaths of thousands AND gross human
rights violations!
Casson straight to prison.
Pincochet doesn't even have to go to court.
Justice Bunkum!
Richard Miller
<xd...@dial.pipex.com> writes
and called a priest.
He'll be answering to a much higher authority before long.
--
Richard Miller
A. McCardle.
a.
rob a bank.
b.
pay some pet quack to say I am having a heart attack and may be dying.
c.
retire to some sunny beach to enjoy my ill-gotten gains.
super.
--
andy
Richard Miller <rich_an...@seasalter0.NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote in
message news:2Vw4DdAz...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...
Paul Burridge
<xd...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>Casson 2 accidental deaths
>Pinochet head of regime reponsible for deaths of thousands AND gross human
>rights violations!
>Casson straight to prison.
>Pincochet doesn't even have to go to court.
Steady on, Philip. Pinochet hasn't been convicted of anything yet!
--
Noverint universi per presentes et futuri...
Paul Burridge
<rich_an...@seasalter0.NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>He'll be answering to a much higher authority before long.
One hopes the process 'up there' is somewhat speedier.
A. McCardle.
is he.
--
andy
Paul Burridge <Pa...@osiris1.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:37fc79ce...@news.freeserve.co.uk...
> On Wed, 6 Oct 1999 18:44:55 +0100, "Philip Walton"
> <xd...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
> >Casson 2 accidental deaths
> >Pinochet head of regime reponsible for deaths of thousands AND gross
human
> >rights violations!
> >Casson straight to prison.
> >Pincochet doesn't even have to go to court.
>
> Steady on, Philip. Pinochet hasn't been convicted of anything yet!
Richard Miller
<Pa...@osiris1.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>On Wed, 6 Oct 1999 22:45:23 +0100, Richard Miller
><rich_an...@seasalter0.NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>He'll be answering to a much higher authority before long.
>
>One hopes the process 'up there' is somewhat speedier.
Well, I suppose God may have to apply to Satan for extradition....
--
Richard Miller
Ruth Hine
news:rvp927...@corp.supernews.com...
> Paul Burridge <Pa...@osiris1.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:37fc79ce...@news.freeserve.co.uk...
> > On Wed, 6 Oct 1999 18:44:55 +0100, "Philip Walton"
> > <xd...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Casson 2 accidental deaths
> > >Pinochet head of regime responsible for deaths of thousands AND gross
> human
> > >rights violations!
> > >Casson straight to prison.
> > >Pincochet doesn't even have to go to court.
> >
> > Steady on, Philip. Pinochet hasn't been convicted of anything yet!
> and he's not likely to be as long as he is allowed to avoid going to trial
> is he.
This is not a trial - it's a preliminary application
--
Ruth Hine
" What about Magna Carta? Did she die in vain?"
Galton and Simpson's "Twelve Angry Men"
Paul Burridge
<rich_an...@seasalter0.NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Well, I suppose God may have to apply to Satan for extradition....
And in good time no doubt Satan will serve God with a Writ for habeus
corpus.
:->
Andrew Nichols
ion.madasafish.com> writes
>and he's not likely to be as long as he is allowed to avoid going to trial
>is he.
unless the extradition application succeeds. That's the whole point of
the extradition.
--
Andrew Nichols
NB spamtrap
replace nospam by solicit
Owen Lewis
>On Wed, 6 Oct 1999 18:44:55 +0100, "Philip Walton"
><xd...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
>>Pincochet doesn't even have to go to court.
>
>Steady on, Philip. Pinochet hasn't been convicted of anything yet!
Now don't be a spoilsport. Philip only wants something he can kill and then
stamp on whilst reasoning that his frisson is virtuous and pure.
Owen
Marshall Rice
<rich_an...@seasalter0.NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <37fc7b71...@news.freeserve.co.uk>, Paul Burridge
><Pa...@osiris1.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>><rich_an...@seasalter0.NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>He'll be answering to a much higher authority before long.
>>
>>One hopes the process 'up there' is somewhat speedier.
>
He wouldn't stand a chance. The devil has all the best lawyers :-)
--
Marshall Rice
Philip Walton
Paul Burridge wrote in message <37fc79ce...@news.freeserve.co.uk>...
>On Wed, 6 Oct 1999 18:44:55 +0100, "Philip Walton"
><xd...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
>>Pinochet head of regime reponsible for deaths of thousands AND gross human
>>rights violations!
>>Casson straight to prison.
>
>Steady on, Philip. Pinochet hasn't been convicted of anything yet!
>
>Noverint universi per presentes et futuri...
attend at common magistrates court though rather than being allowed to
avoid it. BTW I enjoyed yours and Richards celestial legal arguments, very
amusing. Will you be a prosecution or defence lawyer in the afterlife?
A. McCardle.
to avoid investigation on the basis of a possible risk to their health,
after all if that sort of excuse had been put forward to attempt to prevent
someone like hyndley or west from being taken to trial or preliminary
hearing do you think it would have worked for them, I don't think so,
And if its only a preliminary hearing to determine
whether or not there are sufficient grounds for taking him to trial there is
not any real need for him to attend in person as he will no doubt have all
the most prominent legal firms fighting to defend him so he would be well
represented.
--
andy
Ruth Hine <hi...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:7tj382$bbv$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
> A. McCardle. <a...@corruption.madasafish.com> wrote in message
> news:rvp927...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > Paul Burridge <Pa...@osiris1.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:37fc79ce...@news.freeserve.co.uk...
> > > On Wed, 6 Oct 1999 18:44:55 +0100, "Philip Walton"
> > > <xd...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Casson 2 accidental deaths
> > > >Pinochet head of regime responsible for deaths of thousands AND gross
> > human
> > > >rights violations!
> > > >Casson straight to prison.
> > > >Pincochet doesn't even have to go to court.
> > >
> > > Steady on, Philip. Pinochet hasn't been convicted of anything yet!
>
> > and he's not likely to be as long as he is allowed to avoid going to
trial
> > is he.
>
Fergus O'Rourke
>Preliminary hearing, trial, pleading diet or whatever no one should be able
>to avoid investigation on the basis of a possible risk to their health,
He isn't
Owen Lewis
--
Owen
To mail me, remove jam from address
Richard Miller wrote in message ...
>In article <37fc7b71...@news.freeserve.co.uk>, Paul Burridge
><Pa...@osiris1.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>>On Wed, 6 Oct 1999 22:45:23 +0100, Richard Miller
>><rich_an...@seasalter0.NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>He'll be answering to a much higher authority before long.
>>
>>One hopes the process 'up there' is somewhat speedier.
>
>Well, I suppose God may have to apply to Satan for extradition....
>--
>Richard Miller
Owen Lewis
>In article <37fc7b71...@news.freeserve.co.uk>, Paul Burridge
><Pa...@osiris1.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>>On Wed, 6 Oct 1999 22:45:23 +0100, Richard Miller
>><rich_an...@seasalter0.NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>He'll be answering to a much higher authority before long.
>>
>>One hopes the process 'up there' is somewhat speedier.
>
>Well, I suppose God may have to apply to Satan for extradition....
It's warming you know that you believe in the power of repentance
and redemption.
Puts me in mide of a joke, the punchline of which is a comment from
St Peter that Rudy Valentino driving aroung Heaven in a BMW coupe
had just knocked a Pope off his roller skates.
Owen
Owen Lewis
>In article <HgxmBYAWMO$3Ew$$@seasalter0.demon.co.uk>, Richard Miller
><rich_an...@seasalter0.NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> writes
>>
>
I didn't know you all sang, as well.
Owen
Richard Miller
<xd...@dial.pipex.com> writes
>Agreed...And the betting is he won't be either. I would like him to have to
>attend at common magistrates court though rather than being allowed to
>avoid it. BTW I enjoyed yours and Richards celestial legal arguments, very
>amusing. Will you be a prosecution or defence lawyer in the afterlife?
I'd always fight for the underdog.:-)
--
Richard Miller
Philip Walton
Richard Miller wrote in message ...
That is a good lawyer's answer, maybe a short stay in purgatory would make
you give answers which are easier to comment on. I have had only a few
dealings with lawyers, and have never had an answer that is anything like
black and white, usually ensuring that I have a headache in deciding the
answer to my question myself anyway. Having said this, if the Almighty is
not sure which way I am going, you are hired....Philip,
>--
>Richard Miller
Philip Walton
Owen Lewis wrote in message
<939402701.26728.1...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>><xd...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Pincochet doesn't even have to go to court.
>>
>>Steady on, Philip. Pinochet hasn't been convicted of anything yet!
>
>stamp on whilst reasoning that his frisson is virtuous and pure.
>
the eyes of the law. Nobody will convict Pinochet of anything, so I would
like to see a little judicial hay made during his stay in this country. I
cannot believe that he had no way of stopping some of the worse atrocities
that occured during his dictatorship, and that he had no inkling that they
were occuring. If I am proved wrong however (whilst reasoning that my
frisson....) little harm will have come by a visit to a magistrates court, I
am not asking for the man to be hung, which during my periods of
hyperexcitability and lack of rationality, I think is too good for him.
Philip
>Owen
>
>
A. McCardle.
avoiding trial/prosecution
investigation for alleged crimes?,
by claiming he is too unfit to withstand the rigours of an investigation.
I, and, I suspect, a lot of others would disagree.
a lot of prisoners in various jails suffer from heart problems, tumours and
other serious health issues , yet the courts didn't say it was all right for
them to avoid being tried till they were well and fit.
--
andy
Fergus O'Rourke <sit...@tinet.ie> wrote in message
news:7tkp4p$pea$2...@scotty.tinet.ie...
Paul Burridge
<xd...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>Agreed...And the betting is he won't be either. I would like him to have to
>attend at common magistrates court though rather than being allowed to
>avoid it. BTW I enjoyed yours and Richards celestial legal arguments, very
>amusing. Will you be a prosecution or defence lawyer in the afterlife?
Osiris, ideally: the Judge of the Dead. Can't see it happening,
though. I know my limits. :-)
Paul Burridge
<xd...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> I
>am not asking for the man to be hung, which during my periods of
>hyperexcitability and lack of rationality, I think is too good for him.
I think your views are understandable. However, I don't really see why
a) the Spanish are seeking to try him
or
b) he is fighting the extradition
because under Spanish law he cannot be imprisoned due to his age,
anyway. :-/
Fergus O'Rourke
>Isn't what?,
>avoiding trial/prosecution
>
>investigation for alleged crimes?,
>by claiming he is too unfit to withstand the rigours of an investigation.
>
>I, and, I suspect, a lot of others would disagree.
>
>a lot of prisoners in various jails suffer from heart problems, tumours and
>other serious health issues , yet the courts didn't say it was all right
for
>them to avoid being tried till they were well and fit.
>
>--
>andy
>
>
>Fergus O'Rourke <sit...@tinet.ie> wrote in message
>news:7tkp4p$pea$2...@scotty.tinet.ie...
>> A. McCardle. wrote in message ...
>> >Preliminary hearing, trial, pleading diet or whatever no one should be
>able
>> >to avoid investigation on the basis of a possible risk to their health,
>>
>>
>> He isn't
...avoiding any of those things, as you probably realise by now. All he was
doing was staying away for the day
Richard Miller
<Pa...@osiris1.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>> I
>>am not asking for the man to be hung, which during my periods of
>>hyperexcitability and lack of rationality, I think is too good for him.
>
>I think your views are understandable. However, I don't really see why
>a) the Spanish are seeking to try him
>or
>b) he is fighting the extradition
>
>because under Spanish law he cannot be imprisoned due to his age,
>anyway. :-/
Indeed. If he wants to get home quickly, his best bet is simply to go
and face the trial, and then head back to Chile.
--
Richard Miller
Owen Lewis
--
Owen
To mail me, remove jam from address
Richard Miller wrote in message ...
>In article <7tk866$dgn$1...@lure.pipex.net>, Philip Walton
><xd...@dial.pipex.com> writes
>>Agreed...And the betting is he won't be either. I would like him to have
to
>>attend at common magistrates court though rather than being allowed to
>>avoid it. BTW I enjoyed yours and Richards celestial legal arguments,
very
>>amusing. Will you be a prosecution or defence lawyer in the afterlife?
>
>I'd always fight for the underdog.:-)
>--
>Richard Miller
Owen Lewis
>In article <7tk866$dgn$1...@lure.pipex.net>, Philip Walton
><xd...@dial.pipex.com> writes
>
>I'd always fight for the underdog.:-)
Then, methinks you are bound to be a prosecutor. Did you not know
that Heaven is filled only with sinners whose excuses have been
believed?
OTOH you could always practice in the other place but I doubt
the Legal Aid Scheme is up to much there.
Owen
Owen Lewis
>
>Owen Lewis wrote in message
>>Now don't be a spoilsport. Philip only wants something he can kill and
then
>>stamp on whilst reasoning that his frisson is virtuous and pure.
>>
>Seeing him humiliated will do Owen... Old men should be treated equally in
>the eyes of the law. Nobody will convict Pinochet of anything, so I would
>like to see a little judicial hay made during his stay in this country. I
>cannot believe that he had no way of stopping some of the worse atrocities
>that occured during his dictatorship, and that he had no inkling that they
>were occuring. If I am proved wrong however (whilst reasoning that my
>frisson....) little harm will have come by a visit to a magistrates court,
I
>am not asking for the man to be hung, which during my periods of
>hyperexcitability and lack of rationality, I think is too good for him.
:-) Very good. But look at it thus. Where is the rectitude in a law that it
only partially applied and is therefore partial in the administration of
justice?
I am as certain - probably more so - that the leaders of Sinn Feinn have
ordered murder and torture. In at least one case, the man has committed
those acts in person. Now, UKG know all that I know and more besides
as regards these gentlemen and yet they take tea in Downing Street with
no thought of arrest and trial.
Actually, I think it is right that they be left alone. The killing in NI
must
stop sometime (one hopes) and amnesty is essential to any hope of peace,
short of killing the dissidents close to the last man.
To return to Chile. In creating - perhaps for ther first time -a national
consensus that must underwrite any democratic system, the Chillian
have given amnesty to some, including P who might otherwise have
been tried. Again, I feel that this was for the general good.
How what right does this country have to refuse to respect such a
pragmatic amnesty when it is busy handing out its own.
What right does Spain, a country well littered with amnestied
assassins and torturers, old and young, have to refuse to respect the
amnesty the Chilians decided upon.
Human Rights?? Pah! The thing - or at least the application of the
thing - is a detestable and morally worthless sham. Even worse;
in practical terms is is thoroughly dangerous. It has involved us in
one war already and without doubt will involve us in other and
far more costly action in time to come.
Owen
Philip Walton
Owen Lewis wrote in message
dilutes arguments for any justice. Why should an old man who defaulted on
his poll tax go to prison (and the pictures of him help bring down the
Conservative government?) when the man in control of a regime responsible
for gross human rights violations not even face justice? Comparisons in the
judicial system will always make the legal process look pathetic. I too
believe in amnesty for peace, but think there may be a good case for
amnesties granted in one country not being transferable to other countries.
There has to be some deterrent rulers who consider themselves above any law.
WRT Human Rights in general, I wonder how you would feel if it was your
family that was suffering gross violations, and nobody bothered about your
plight.
Richard Miller
Lewis <o...@jameloka.demon.co.uk> writes
>Richard Miller wrote in message ...
>>In article <7tk866$dgn$1...@lure.pipex.net>, Philip Walton
>><xd...@dial.pipex.com> writes
>>> Will you be a prosecution or defence lawyer in the afterlife?
>>
>>I'd always fight for the underdog.:-)
>
>Then, methinks you are bound to be a prosecutor. Did you not know
>that Heaven is filled only with sinners whose excuses have been
>believed?
>
>OTOH you could always practice in the other place but I doubt
>the Legal Aid Scheme is up to much there.
On the contrary, Owen, only the Devil himself could have dreamt up the
tortures of the current Legal Aid Scheme - or at least its
administration.
--
Richard Miller
Owen Lewis
>>Comparing atrocities and resultant meted out justice in Human Rights
cases
>dilutes arguments for any justice. Why should an old man who defaulted on
>his poll tax go to prison (and the pictures of him help bring down the
>Conservative government?) when the man in control of a regime responsible
>for gross human rights violations not even face justice?
No, surely one must compare like with like. If those who could pay poll tax
but chose not to do so all stood an equal chance of beib=ng dealt with in
the same manner, that is proper. If one is prosecuted because he is not
popular and another is not prosecuted because he is popular that is
iniquitious.
Compare the handling of the P matter with the handling of the Sinn Fein
leadership or old Francoists in Spain and you have in my view both inequity
and iniquity.
>I too
>believe in amnesty for peace, but think there may be a good case for
>amnesties granted in one country not being transferable to other countries.
What do you belive that the case for such might be?
> I wonder how you would feel if it was your
>family that was suffering gross violations, and nobody bothered about your
>plight.
Long ago, I decided that the only things in which I could repose absolute
trust were the strength of my own right arm, the strength of my nerve and
the quickness of my mind. I understand with a fair measure of exactitude the
weakness and failings of each and therefore they rarely disappoint me in the
protection of me and mine.
In general, countries get the rulers they deserve. That sounds hard but
history would seem to bear it out. Saddled with a bad ruler, it is the ruled
who must change sufficiently and then go through the pain of undoing what
they themselves have created. Almost every 'bad' regime collapses from
internal strife. Had France and Britain, in particular, supported the
advanced planning to dispose of Hitler and the Nazis in the late thirties.
Rather they chose to withhold their approval and tacit support and thus
blessed us with the most costly war in history.
IMO, the thought that others with no more understanding of the causes of
strife than 30 mins watching CNN can judge matters in another culture that
have take years - centuries even - to ferment is worse than foolish; it is
very dangerous. Persisted with, it will lead to the deaths of tens of
thousands, perhaps many times more. I hope I do not live to see it but I
expect to do so.
What chokes in my throat is the moral arrogance which will cause it to come
about. Truly, it's the New Crusade.
Owen
Owen Lewis
>On the contrary, Owen, only the Devil himself could have dreamt up the
>tortures of the current Legal Aid Scheme - or at least its
>administration.
As I said then, the scheme is not up to much :-) And your personal penance
for all eternity shall be to try and make it work.
Nah. Settle for the soft option and be a prosecutor in Heaven.
Owen
Fergus O'Rourke
(snip)
>Long ago, I decided that the only things in which I could repose absolute
>trust were the strength of my own right arm, the strength of my nerve and
>the quickness of my mind.
>IMO, the thought that others with no more understanding of the causes of
>strife than 30 mins watching CNN can judge matters in another culture that
>have take years - centuries even - to ferment is worse than foolish; it is
I cannot go with him on Pinochet, comrades, but hark to what he says:
there is much wisdom in it
Philip Walton
>amnesties granted in one country not being transferable to other countries.
What do you believe that the case for such might be?
Well it seems to me that some leaders freely kill rape and worse in their
own countries, and then flee to more civilised places where they are
protected, or agree some sort of amnesty to protect themselves within the
confines of their own shores. I see no reason why their actions should be
immune from foreign prosecution if they decide to move outside their
protected environment. There should be some crimes internationally
recognised as gross violations of HR, making those that commit them
international pariahs, and liable to prosecution. I cannot understand how
the Argentine generals who threw many live people into the Atlantic to die
by drowning for instance, could be allowed to visit Britain without fear of
prosecution for crimes that will not be prosecuted in their own country. If
war has been declared, I think that the rules change somewhat, but otherwise
we should act to ostracise those that grossly harm civilians, with a total
disregard to HR.
Richard Miller
Lewis <o...@jameloka.demon.co.uk> writes
Too damn right I would with that choice!!!!
--
Richard Miller
A. McCardle.
committed for trial.
--
andy
Fergus O'Rourke <calla...@tinet.ie> wrote in message
news:7toc60$9f3$1...@scotty.tinet.ie...
Owen Lewis
>but think there may be a good case for
>>amnesties granted in one country not being transferable to other
countries.
>
>What do you believe that the case for such might be?
>
>Well it seems to me that some leaders freely kill rape and worse in their
>own countries, and then flee to more civilised places where they are
>protected, or agree some sort of amnesty to protect themselves within the
>confines of their own shores.
Actually, to my knowledge, few actually do and AFAIK P is not amongst their
number.
P was a head of state where, beyond reasonable doubt, some very unpleasant
actions were carried out. I do not believe that any (other than, as for your
good self, by strong inference) have suggested that he carried out any of
these acts personally or that he personally ordered that they should be
carried out. Rather he was the head of a state where sundry state
functionaries carried out these acts, either of their own volition or under
orders the nature of and authority for which has not yet been determined.
AIUI, the argument runs that as head of state - and for that alone - P
should be held accountable for the sundry actions of those ultimately
answerable to him. Now, it is worth comparing this with with practice in
this country today. Lte us hypotherise that the upcoming Bloody Sunday
re-enquiry shall find that British soldiers committed cold blooded murder in
an organised or quasi-organised manner. Do you suppose for one moment that
either the Queen (who cannot be tried in her own courts?) or the PM of the
day will be charged with murder? Unless there was clear evidence that they
themselves had committed the acts or had ordered that the acts be done, I
really cannot see it, can you? Yet the howling for P's head is deafening,
even amongst people one takes to be rational and reasonable.
Now, compare this with Bokassa (in whose fridge the heads of some of those
he did not like were found) or Idi Amin, who also killed and ate some of
those who irritated him. These are known facts and not some cloud of student
political myth. Why is it P and not they who is so publicly (and for cheaply
curried favour) denounced ad "unspeakable" by Our Tone?
>I see no reason why their actions should be
>immune from foreign prosecution if they decide to move outside their
>protected environment.
Do you mean their own country? If so why has there been no action to bring
Bokassa and Amin to trial? Surely not just because they are both black?
>There should be some crimes internationally
>recognised as gross violations of HR, making those that commit them
>international pariahs, and liable to prosecution.
I part company with you half way. Yes there are crimes which are recognised
as such internationally (HR claptrap need not be brought into it). Amongst
these are murder and torture. However they happen from time to time, even in
the nicest places.
Where they happen they are (in most countries at least) criminal acts under
the law of the land where they occur and the perpetrators stand to be
arrested and tried.
Now, where for compelling reasons of their own, that nation amnesties such
persons, only harm and a form of international anarchy looms if nations
refuse to accept both the law and the lawful judgement of another state for
actions committed in that states jurisdiction and by its people.
> I cannot understand how
>the Argentine generals who threw many live people into the Atlantic to die
>by drowning for instance, could be allowed to visit Britain without fear of
>prosecution for crimes that will not be prosecuted in their own country.
Why do suppose that practice to be particular to the Argentine? I could (but
will not) name at least half a dozen countries (some closer to home than you
might think) where such arbitrary action has been taken. I do not say that
those who did such acts do not stand to be tried and punished. I say that it
is a dangerous nonsense to try the head of state at the time for such acts
unless there is evidence of personal involvement.
>If
>war has been declared, I think that the rules change somewhat, but
otherwise
>we should act to ostracise those that grossly harm civilians, with a total
>disregard to HR.
This world has probably saw its last formal declaration of war between
states with the Brazilian declaration of war on Germany in 1944. Since '45,
wars have been 'police actions' or 'low intensity operations' or 'counter
insurgency operations'. Yet millions have died, many more millions made
homeless and an unknown (but in my view large) number tortured.
This world is far from a perfect place. True, we should seek to make it a
better place. I do not think we do this by the wealthiest nations arrogating
to themselves the right and power to interfere in the internal affairs of
those who do not think as they do.
Owen