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.