Ambition Spa
Toronto Escorts

Air India Verdict

red

you must be fk'n kid'g me
Nov 13, 2001
17,572
8
38
This is a real shame. The destruction of evidence by CSIS agents is outrageous. I cannot believe that no-one is being held accountable for this.
 

Peeping Tom

Boil them in Oil
Dec 24, 2002
803
0
0
Hellholes of the earth
Seeing this is enough to leave one in utter disbelief - is this 16th century feudal France or what? A judge decides Candian citizens are too irrational (read: the children might actually convict) so he holds a secret no jury trial. After much delay and adjustment of the evidence, he issues a 500 page word salad and sets free the perpetrators of the second most severe terrorist atrocity in global history.

What this was is a farce, to set future jurisprudence. Of course if AQ was caught here it stands to reason (by contemporary Candian standards) that they could never be convicted.
 

ice_dog

Member
Jan 13, 2002
667
0
16
Not guilty does not mean innocent. It is a shame that it took 20 years to reach such a verdict. Some of the witnesses deceased already. Looks like those murderers can walk free.
 

antaeus

Active member
Sep 3, 2004
1,693
7
38
the court of public opinion always convicts whoever the hell they want...

The judge seemed quite clear in dismissing charges due to extraordinarily bad police work. If so, justice was done properly. Though tough pill to swallow.

"What if they have the wrong man and what if that man is you." -J. Biafra
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
Peeping Tom said:
Seeing this is enough to leave one in utter disbelief - is this 16th century feudal France or what? A judge decides Candian citizens are too irrational (read: the children might actually convict) so he holds a secret no jury trial. After much delay and adjustment of the evidence, he issues a 500 page word salad and sets free the perpetrators of the second most severe terrorist atrocity in global history.

What this was is a farce, to set future jurisprudence. Of course if AQ was caught here it stands to reason (by contemporary Candian standards) that they could never be convicted.
Where do you get your stuff from.

The defendants choose trial by judge or by judge and jury, that's how it's done in this country. Obviously, they think their choice was wise.

The judgement was 600 pages.

You give us no clue what "delay and adjustment" you think went on. But what would you expect when over 90% of the physical evidence is on the ocean floor; a huge part of the witness evidence is national security stuff that the spyguys destroyed rather than share and fought tooth and nail not to reveal at all (in the US they just don't reveal it, end of story); the security bodies were squabbling bitterly (where have I heard that before) while the prime witnesses were assasinated and last but never least, cultural confusions muddied all?

But what a good, good thing you know they were the perpetrators; I assume you have alerted all the relevant authorities and that only some horrible conspiracy is keeping it out of the media.

BTW, relative to Canada's population Air India was every bit as "severe' as 9/11, which was equally unforseen by those 'national security' agencies and hasn't produced a trial yet. The biggest difference: in the aftermath we didn't use it as an excuse to go to wars or jail people without trial. Or without any charges at all.

Your last sentence still makes me laugh. If the Leap of Logic was an Olympic event, it would be you and papasmerf all the way.

PS: before you put words in my mouth, I bet at least one of them is guilty; in the accounts I've read, only one has said "I'm innocent, I didn't do it" in so many words. I'd bet as well that the judge would have preferred the Scottish verdict of Not Proven. But that's not evidence, and I'm neither judge nor jury who has heard and seen it all.

Unlike you (who must surely have closely scrutinized all the evidence to speak as you have) I'm in no position to say whether the verdict was the proper one. I will say I admire the judge for making up his own mind and speaking it, in the face of the overwhelming desire of Canadian society to have a bad guy they can exact some revenge upon. I'm proud also that we didn't leap to abolish civil rights in the name of security, as the US has, though I'll bet the victims' minority status had as much to do with that as our commitment to real justice.

Which is done in courts thank God, not in discussion groups.

Now where's the Roll up Our Sleeves and get to the Bottom of This Inquiry into the "unacceptable negligence" of these so-called security agencies? They would have produced better result pasting all their so secret files on all the lamp posts in Vancouver. Secrecy is NOT equivalent to security nor necessary to ensure it, in spite of what the bullyboys say. It just keeps them busy. Unfortunately.
 

Peeping Tom

Boil them in Oil
Dec 24, 2002
803
0
0
Hellholes of the earth
In a post of BS, there is always a few gems scattered around. OTOH it makes the reply simple - no point in contesting the rest of the crap.

oldjones said:
I'm proud also that we didn't leap to abolish civil rights in the name of security, as the US has,
 

batista7777

Unleash "The Animal"
Feb 23, 2005
354
0
0
www.bao.on.ca
ice_dog said:
Not guilty does not mean innocent. It is a shame that it took 20 years to reach such a verdict. Some of the witnesses deceased already. Looks like those murderers can walk free.
It's a shame. After 20 years of OUR-taxpayers money, and the end result is "Not Guilty" -Hilarious, just hilarious!
If it was in the US, there can be a re-trial,if future evidence was to be found. Unfortunatley in Canada when a case is closed there cannot be a re-trial. As well after all these years, makes one wonder where the money was actually spent???
I call it The Canadian Unjustice System. :mad:
 

UMustang

Member
Jan 16, 2004
267
0
16
batista7777 said:
If it was in the US, there can be a re-trial,if future evidence was to be found. Unfortunatley in Canada when a case is closed there cannot be a re-trial.
I was always under the impression that once someone was found "not guilty" in the States, they couldn't be tried for the same crime again. They could be found not guilty, stand up, and proclaim that they committed the crime in front of the judge and jury, but they couldn't retry them for the crime. I'm pretty sure that this isn't the case in Canada
 

ice_dog

Member
Jan 13, 2002
667
0
16
batista7777 said:
It's a shame. After 20 years of OUR-taxpayers money, and the end result is "Not Guilty" -Hilarious, just hilarious!
If it was in the US, there can be a re-trial,if future evidence was to be found. Unfortunatley in Canada when a case is closed there cannot be a re-trial. As well after all these years, makes one wonder where the money was actually spent???
I call it The Canadian Unjustice System. :mad:

It is under review by the BC Attourney General. They have 30 days to decide if they want to launch an appeal.
 

Nameless_1

New member
Nov 7, 2002
1,103
0
0
antaeus said:
The judge seemed quite clear in dismissing charges due to extraordinarily bad police work. If so, justice was done properly. Though tough pill to swallow.

"What if they have the wrong man and what if that man is you." -J. Biafra
I, for one, am content that the case was tried in an open and fair court of law and not by the media who are acountable to no one and do so much to shape public opinion to THEIR views. I've seen no reason to suppose that the judge in this case was either biased, incompetent, or coerced. Remember he has lived daily through 100% of the trial; armchair newbies who get their information from a few minutes of TV coverage have little credibility with me. Guilty or not, due process seems to have been followed and the judge decided there was insuffiecent credible evidence to convict. We must abide by this and not have such decisions made by those who tuned in to the evening news.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
UMustang said:
I was always under the impression that once someone was found "not guilty" in the States, they couldn't be tried for the same crime again. They could be found not guilty, stand up, and proclaim that they committed the crime in front of the judge and jury, but they couldn't retry them for the crime. I'm pretty sure that this isn't the case in Canada
You're right; it's called "double jeopardy" and that is how it works in the US.
 

Peeping Tom

Boil them in Oil
Dec 24, 2002
803
0
0
Hellholes of the earth
bbk: my comments in part derived from what I heard on cbc - tv. There was a statement to the effect that the judge made the call because he couldn't trust a jury. Hence the nature of my outburst. I can't verify the accuracy of this particular reporter (IIRC cbc's Montreal station) but, if true, such a statement should give cause for concern. Very serious concern.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
Peeping Tom said:
bbk: my comments in part derived from what I heard on cbc - tv. There was a statement to the effect that the judge made the call because he couldn't trust a jury. Hence the nature of my outburst. I can't verify the accuracy of this particular reporter (IIRC cbc's Montreal station) but, if true, such a statement should give cause for concern. Very serious concern.
You see: never trust the media. I've heard it said they're all leftist liars. Read the judgement for yourself. BTW the CBC has an extensive website where you can listen to replays like Terry Malewski's report of the verdict. No need to wonder "if true" Do your homework.
As to outbursts: remember the old maxim "Be sure brain is engaged before operating tongue". Cheers
 
Last edited:

fullmetal

Guest
Mar 9, 2005
65
0
0
Only in Canada where Terrorists can literally get away with terrorism . Canada has a soft spot for terrorists and dont want to be labelled as racial profiling , its no wonder Canada especially Toronto has the highest refugee claimants from muslim and arab countries.
 

slowpoke

New member
Oct 22, 2004
2,899
0
0
Toronto
fullmetal said:
Only in Canada where Terrorists can literally get away with terrorism . Canada has a soft spot for terrorists and dont want to be labelled as racial profiling , its no wonder Canada especially Toronto has the highest refugee claimants from muslim and arab countries.
In your previous life, did you perhaps call yourself Peeping Tom? Sorry if I seem greedy for such minor details but could you also share the source of your information about Toronto having "the highest refugee claimants from muslim and arab countries"? I'll understand entirely if you can't accomodate my request but I'm sure you'll also appreciate my reluctance to just accept a claim from someone whose posts seems so remarkably similar to those of our notoriously idiotic Peeping Tom.
 

Cardinal Fang

Bazinga Bitches
Feb 14, 2002
6,576
467
83
I'm right here
www.vatican.va
fullmetal said:
Canada has a soft spot for terrorists and dont want to be labelled as racial profiling , its no wonder Canada especially Toronto has the highest refugee claimants from muslim and arab countries.
Again, show me a source for this statement. Is the implication that all arabs are terrorists?

Pathetic.

This case was unbelievable from the start. Twenty years after the deaths of hundreds of people we are no closer to having someone other than the bomb maker himself held accountable. It must be noted that the bomb maker got a severely reduced sentence because of a plea bargain. And even then he refused to testify against any of the alleged men involved in the trial. The case dragged on for over a year with piles of testimonies from witnesses who were either notorious liars or had axes to grind. It’s sad and regrettable that this was the best the crown attorney’s could have come up with but as many people have noted already there appears to be evidence that the investigation itself was marred with problems. From CSIS destroying hours of wire tapping to witnesses refusing to testify. [font=&quot]

Had they been found guilty we would be praising the justice system. Now we are condemning it because the outcome was not to our liking. The emotion of the case is hard to overcome. At the very least there should be a public inquiry to determine what went wrong in the investigation.[/font]
 
Y

yychobbyist

One of the thing that I think many of you are overlooking is that a trial like this one is an amazingly complex undertaking. I can't even begin to imagine how prosecutors approached this thing from a practical standpoint.

I think it's a natural thing to be disappointed at the outcome of the trial but I think it's also important to understand that there are times when trials just don't work out the way we want. I don't think it's the fault of prosecutors that their witnesses were of questionable character - they may have been the best or the only witnesses available. After all, from what I understood of the case it wasn't as if any of the people involved in this whole thing were really guys you'd want to have your daughter marry.

I don't think we need inquiries or commissions or anything else into the trial - we have enough of those processes in Canada and we don't need another one.
 
Y

yychobbyist

Cardinal Fang said:
We didn't overlook it. We left it on purpose so that you could post about something other than your "open letters" in the lounge.
Oh. Ok.
 
Toronto Escorts