PDA

View Full Version : Schapelle Corby Trial


freddie
28-05-2005, 21:26
This (http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,15429371%255E661,00.html) is complete bullshit. It's obvious Indonesian courts are completely shambolic affairs, with utter disregard of the most basic of criminal trial principles. There was no way a legaly competent judge could find her guilty from all the flaws in the process and the evidence presented, unless the trial was one of those pirate type things where the accuser is standing on the edge of the wooden board, during the trial already, with nothing but bottomless sea and some hungry sharks waiting for him once he makes the next step, while the "prosecuting pirate" is poking him in the back with a dagger. Haaarrrrr.

Then there's a little thing of respecting international collision laws, that forbid you to try a foreigner for anythning else then conspiracy to commit mass-murder/genocide, international espionage, planning to overthrow a goverment, commiting crimes against humanity and similar shit like that. Having pot in your suitcase? Get serious. That's not even an offence in legaly literate countries. No way anyone can get away with going against a foreigner for such bogus charges, no matter what their national laws are. The sheer fact is that International Law Commission finds legislature like that grossely unproportional and unfair. Indonesia's territorial soverignity crumbles like a cookie against those arguments. If they want to presnet themselves as even the slight resemblance of the rule of law obeying country they must stop this nonsense now and extradite her, because that is ALL that's in their jurisdiction. If all those United Nation's fancy sub-organizations like ILO or ILC have any kind of influence on stupid idiots misrepresenting the rule of law, they have to act NOW and isolate Indonesia from the international legal community. Because seriously, what's next? Sheriat law in all the Arab countries? Middle eastern people will have a blast watching unfaithful women and gays being stoned to death, instead of a sunday soccer game. What a fucking stupid world, we're living in. o_0

I'd go defend her pro bono, right now, if I could.

luxxi
30-05-2005, 16:12
Then there's a little thing of respecting international collision laws, that forbid you to try a foreigner for anythning else then conspiracy to commit mass-murder/genocide, international espionage, planning to overthrow a goverment, commiting crimes against humanity and similar shit like that.

WTF???? :confused:

You can try anybody who brakes your laws on your territory. Look at how many Slovenians are in British jails for smuggling heroin to UK. Are they being held agaisnt int'l laws? Since you seem to claim they are why aren't you raising stink about that? FREE SLOVENIAN SMUGGLERS.


Having pot in your suitcase? Get serious. That's not even an offence in legaly literate countries.

Each nation has a right to prohibit things they deem necessary, unless this violates human rights. And having 4 kilos of pot is not a human right.


No way anyone can get away with going against a foreigner for such bogus charges, no matter what their national laws are.

You can argue that trial was not handled correctly but you shouldn't argue agaisnt severity of known punishment. How would you feel if Italians would say that fee for driving drunk on Slovenian roads are too high. And that alcohol limit should be raised to 0,1%? Would you say "Yes, you are absolutly right. Our laws are too harsh. We will reduce fees immediatly and raise allowed alcohol level". Or would you say "Our country, our laws."?

In Singapore you are fined if you throw cigarette butt on street. Does anybody (e.g. you) argue that foreigners should be fined for such trivial matters? Or that International Law Commission finds legislature like that grossely unproportional and unfair? I mean, it's only littering. It's not as if you killed somebody, right?


If they want to presnet themselves as even the slight resemblance of the rule of law obeying country they must stop this nonsense now and extradite her, because that is ALL that's in their jurisdiction.


Bullshit. She was acussed of breaking Indonesian law. Indonesia had every right to try her under Indonesian law. If some Turk would be caught with 5 kilos of heroin in Slovenia would Slovenia be allowed to try him under Slovenian law and sent him to slovenian jail (if found guilty) or would we be only allowed to sent him to Turkey?

Hint: look at what happens to people who smuggle illegal migrants.

:newyear:

freddie
02-06-2005, 20:04
All your answers revolve around the same point so I'll answer in one go:

It all comes down to the question of terrotorial soverignity of a country. It's been established a long time ago that a country definitely has unlimited personal soveriginity (over it's own citizens, wherever they might be... see the law collision here?), while it's disputed whether a country has absolute territorial jurisdiction over anyone that transits through it's borders. Granted, a foreigner in a country is to obey the internal rule of law of a country. There's no doubt about it... but the question here lies in the mockery that is the Indonesian legal system. The trial was not held within the international standards (most basic of priniples of a criminal case weren't followed - I won't get into it, but I can if you want) and the sheer reason for the existance of international legal community is to remedy such situations. And you can't compare a country like the UK, with any sorts of Asian justice system (not to mention the UK HAS to follow certain rules and bilateral agreements enforced by the EU). Besides the trial not being fair (so the judicial branch of Indonesian goverment is flawed), there's also a question of ridiculous legislation with death sentance threatened for pot smuggling (thus legislative branch of Indonesian goverment is flawed). That's something that just doesn't cut it - a country has free hands to enforce her rule of law, but up to an extent. There has to be a minimum treshold of human rights provided to the defendant. And in this case... both legislative and judicial branches worked against that. This case is completely similar to the sheriatic laws in certain muslim courts, where a woman can be legaly stoned to death in case she has sex outside of wedlock. This is where international legal community with it's instruments of in-direct power comes in... or at least they should.

spyretto
02-06-2005, 21:08
She had 3 kilos in her buggage. That's not what I'd call a little bit.
As for Indonesia, they're SE Asia's most fanatic Islamist state alongside Malaysia. So what did you expect, really.
The legal systems differ from country to country. In the UK a murderer might get 10 years while in the US, the same murderer might go on death row.
Bottomline: if you mix with the bran you'll be eaten by the chicks. ( it's an old Greek saying ).

freddie
03-06-2005, 00:50
The fact is that some universal legal principles weren't followed during the trial. Some principles that are essencial to the validity of the case and justice system in general.

Not to mention that you just CANNOT sentance people to death or even 20 years inprisonment because they smuggled pot. (I'm not saying she wasn't planted the drug, I'm just saying that even if she was a smuggler she still didn't deserve what she got).

luxxi
03-06-2005, 11:55
It all comes down to the question of terrotorial soverignity of a country. It's been established a long time ago that a country definitely has unlimited personal soveriginity (over it's own citizens, wherever they might be... see the law collision here?), while it's disputed whether a country has absolute territorial jurisdiction over anyone that transits through it's borders. Granted, a foreigner in a country is to obey the internal rule of law of a country. There's no doubt about it... but the question here lies in the mockery that is the Indonesian legal system.

Each country has jurisdiction over anybody on their territory. You cen persecute anybody who breaks national laws on thier territory. Nations don't have jurisdiction over their citizens beyond their border. Therefore if smoking pot is illegal in your country country can't persecute somebody if they smoke pot in Netherlands.


The trial was not held within the international standards (most basic of priniples of a criminal case weren't followed - I won't get into it, but I can if you want) and the sheer reason for the existance of international legal community is to remedy such situations.

We can argue about how trial was handled. Was it fair or not and whatnot. But Indonesia has every right to set their laws as they see fit. If they want to set death penalty for drugs they are compeltly entitled to do so.

Whether death penalty is OK or not is different issue.


And you can't compare a country like the UK, with any sorts of Asian justice system (not to mention the UK HAS to follow certain rules and bilateral agreements enforced by the EU).



No, they don't. British legal system is independant. Granted, they have to comply with certain rules (like Schengen regime, flow of labour, tarriffs etc) but beyond that they are independant. If they want to have maximum santance life in prison without parole they cn have it. Nobody can force them to have max sentance 30 years with parole.


Besides the trial not being fair (so the judicial branch of Indonesian goverment is flawed),


As I said, that can be dabated.


there's also a question of ridiculous legislation with death sentance threatened for pot smuggling (thus legislative branch of Indonesian goverment is flawed).


NAtional sovereignity menas you are free to set up laws as you see fit. Is possesion of severla kilos of marihuana human right? No, it isn't. so banning it isn't violation of them.


That's something that just doesn't cut it - a country has free hands to enforce her rule of law, but up to an extent.

No. They only need to have fair trial. And inform embassy if foreigner is arrested.


There has to be a minimum treshold of human rights provided to the defendant. And in this case... both legislative and judicial branches worked against that. This case is completely similar to the sheriatic laws in certain muslim courts, where a woman can be legaly stoned to death in case she has sex outside of wedlock.

Bullshit. She was caught with drugs. Sentence for those are known. If trial was not fair is another matter. Possesion of drugs is not human right.



This is where international legal community with it's instruments of in-direct power comes in... or at least they should.

Why should ocutnries be forced to change their laws?

Does anybody compalin that littering is prohibited in Singapore? Does this violate your human right to throw trash on the ground? Where is outrage of unproportional penalties for that? 200$ (or whatever) for not flushing toilet? Where is outrage at that? that's so unfair and unproportional. Yet nobody cares.

People know the law so they should respect it. Ignorance is no excuse. If they don't like laws in certain country don't go there if you can't respect them.


Not to mention that you just CANNOT sentance people to death or even 20 years inprisonment because they smuggled pot. (I'm not saying she wasn't planted the drug, I'm just saying that even if she was a smuggler she still didn't deserve what she got).

Why not? Indonesia decided to go harsh on drugs. Good for them.

Why aren't you complaining about how much you have to pay in singapore for littering? Why aren't you compalining that you can loose your driving license if you have too much alcohol in you when driving? Why aren't you compalining about fees for speeding?

Are those things unproportinal as well?

:newyear:

freddie
03-06-2005, 12:36
Like I said: "minimum threshold of human rights". It's not a right for people to carry drugs. But

1) They DO have a right to a fair trial.

2) They DO have the right to a reasonable legislation.

And no... a country is not allowed to do as they please when it comes to legislation either - minimum standards apply here just as well. You need to have a certain level of standard to get credibility. And this is exactly why the International Law Organisation is distancing itself from sheriatic and other means of tribal legal systems and in the process forcing the goverments to make neccesary changes, if they want to remain a part of the international community. You're right - you can't force countries to change legislation. But you can indirectly "persuade" them to do so. After all... no one forced them to be members of the UN or other non-govermental orgs, did they? ;)

There's actually no real debate the trial itself was unfair: the police didn't took fingerprints of the pot bag. That was a major flaw in the pre-procedings, which should (in a legal country) be grounds for an immediate dismissal of the verdict. They dismissed all the claims of witnesses (they didn't state clear and consise reasons why they did so, they just said their statements will not be considered valid).... when you go through the whole process point by point it's easy to see the whole trial was nothing but a charade in which she was sentanced long before she entered the courtroom. In their mind they just can't allow themselves to let the drug smugglers go and whether they're deliberate or undeliberate, set-up offenders is of no importance to them.

(I think that taking someone's license in Slovenia is unconstitutional and I said that in an open letter to the minister of internal affairs. ... yet it doesn't exceed that minimum threshold of human rights I was talking about. Now were sentances for speeding range from 15 years inprisonment to a death sentance, that's where the international community should step in and tell us to get a grip.)

luxxi
04-06-2005, 14:28
2) They DO have the right to a reasonable legislation.


And what is reasonable legislation? One that westerners consider OK?


And no... a country is not allowed to do as they please when it comes to legislation either - minimum standards apply here just as well.

As long as they don't violate human rights they can set sentences as they see fit. 20 years for drug possesion? I see no problem with that. If I go there I'll amke sure I don't have any drugs with me.


(I think that taking someone's license in Slovenia is unconstitutional and I said that in an open letter to the minister of internal affairs.

I don't. If your behaviour on roads is so dangerous you should loose license. Better to take somebody's license when he is caught driving drunk then have him cause accident in which several innocent people die.


... yet it doesn't exceed that minimum threshold of human rights I was talking about. Now were sentances for speeding range from 15 years inprisonment to a death sentance, that's where the international community should step in and tell us to get a grip.)

At which I would protest about foreign interferance in our legislature.

Something people here have no troubles doing when Americans are accused of doing it. ;)

:newyear:

freddie
04-06-2005, 16:16
And what is reasonable legislation? One that westerners consider OK?

No. Some principles that have been there since the roman times and are widely accpeted all over the world as valid legal standards.


As long as they don't violate human rights they can set sentences as they see fit. 20 years for drug possesion? I see no problem with that. If I go there I'll amke sure I don't have any drugs with me.


I don't. If your behaviour on roads is so dangerous you should loose license. Better to take somebody's license when he is caught driving drunk then have him cause accident in which several innocent people die.

But lets be thorough here then. If you can take someone's license (which you aquired by going through a driving school, which is a form of education), why not take people's diplomas for doing bad in business and bancrupting a company? By piercing the corporate veil they'd also lose all their education till that point. The point is though: no education you get can be taken from you cause of an offence. Those are my arguments. Other points of view can be discussed as well, of course.

At which I would protest about foreign interferance in our legislature.

Something people here have no troubles doing when Americans are accused of doing it. ;)

:newyear:

You would? Then why don't you protest everyday, while the EU is dictating us what our legislature should be? Hell the EU even forced us indirectly to change our constitution which is the pillar of our whole system. Can't you see that it's happening everyday? Foreign legislation is literally beingforced upon us. And no one is really protesting about it. Yet Intrernational Legal Institutions should just sit and watch how terrorists who kill dosens of Australians in Bali, get 10 years, while a girl who was planted some pot gets 20 years and is even facing a death sentance?

luxxi
04-06-2005, 18:19
No. Some principles that have been there since the roman times and are widely accpeted all over the world as valid legal standards.

Such as?


But lets be thorough here then. If you can take someone's license (which you aquired by going through a driving school, which is a form of education), why not take people's diplomas for doing bad in business and bancrupting a company? By piercing the corporate veil they'd also lose all their education till that point. The point is though: no education you get can be taken from you cause of an offence. Those are my arguments. Other points of view can be discussed as well, of course.

Not same thing. We are talking about license to drive. Which is a piviledge. Which can be revoked if you don't follow the rules. Like practising law. It's a priviledge which can be taken away.


You would? Then why don't you protest everyday, while the EU is dictating us what our legislature should be? Hell the EU even forced us indirectly to change our constitution which is the pillar of our whole system. Can't you see that it's happening everyday? Foreign legislation is literally beingforced upon us. And no one is really protesting about it. Yet Intrernational Legal Institutions should just sit and watch how terrorists who kill dosens of Australians in Bali, get 10 years, while a girl who was planted some pot gets 20 years and is even facing a death sentance?

Who says I don't?

:newyear:

freddie
05-06-2005, 03:34
Such as?
Ne bis in idem, retroactivity is forbiden, everybody has a right to a fair trial, principles of objective truth (legal certainty not legal possibility) etc



Not same thing. We are talking about license to drive. Which is a piviledge. Which can be revoked if you don't follow the rules. Like practising law. It's a priviledge which can be taken away.

It's not a privilege these days. YOu pay to go through driving school, just like your pay for regular school. You're being taught skills which won't suddenly abandon you once you got too many points in your drivers license. It's an educational process, just like any University out there. And just so you don't say that it's different because you're endangering people's lives in trafic. Doesn't a CEO that drives a succesful company to the ground also put life of all the workers and their family in direct existential risk? A drunk motorist maybe puts one life in danger, a stupid/corrupted CEO puts thousands.



Who says I don't?
:newyear:

Even if you do, that's hardly the point. The point being that you can'd do anything about the supra-nationality of the EU legislture and and I are ordered to follow it, no matter what our countries best interest is. It's just one sui generis example of how an international legislation can get involved in internal politics of a country. Not just judicial, but also all other branches of the goverment.

luxxi
07-06-2005, 20:40
Ne bis in idem, retroactivity is forbiden, everybody has a right to a fair trial, principles of objective truth (legal certainty not legal possibility) etc

With the possible exception of fair trial nothing was violated here. and event hat is separate issue.



It's not a privilege these days. YOu pay to go through driving school, just like your pay for regular school.

No, it's different. Driving license is proof you know the rules and know how to use the car.


You're being taught skills which won't suddenly abandon you once you got too many points in your drivers license.

No, but that shows you are irresponsible driver and danger to others. And as such you should be prevented activities which could result in harm to others.


It's an educational process, just like any University out there. And just so you don't say that it's different because you're endangering people's lives in trafic. Doesn't a CEO that drives a succesful company to the ground also put life of all the workers and their family in direct existential risk? A drunk motorist maybe puts one life in danger, a stupid/corrupted CEO puts thousands.

Employees have a choice for who they want to work. You can't choose who else willb e on roads.


Even if you do, that's hardly the point. The point being that you can'd do anything about the supra-nationality of the EU legislture and and I are ordered to follow it, no matter what our countries best interest is. It's just one sui generis example of how an international legislation can get involved in internal politics of a country. Not just judicial, but also all other branches of the goverment.

And you forget that membership in eU is voluntary. And once you are in organisation you have to respect the rules.

:newyear:

freddie
07-06-2005, 21:05
Employees work to get money. No one will leave their livelyhood for an uncertain future, just because they hate their co-workers/superiours. This goes double for our country, I'm sure you know. You can argue differently, but at the same time I can say back that no one forces people to drive on the road. They do it out of their own conveniance. They could walk. I know it's a lousy argument but it goes hand in hand with your saying that employees can just CHOOSE who they'll work for at random.

EU membership is voluntary (okay, not really, since we're in-directly forced anyway, but that's not important here), as is the membership in UN. Indonesia is a member state, therefore it has to obey certain legal standards. Or at least it SHOULD if the UN in itself wouldn't be so damn ineffective. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the security council should all of a sudden level Indonesia with the ground because of this. They should just be persuaded in a friendly manner through international pressure. Like some Arab countries were when sheriatic law was in question.

You realize we're moving in a circle here, yes? You're all for terrotorial soverignity of a country at all cost, while I think a little international interventionism never hurt. Especially when shambolic asian courts are in question. I see your point, though. I just don't agree with it .

luxxi
07-06-2005, 21:18
Employees work to get money. No one will leave their livelyhood for an uncertain future, just because they hate their co-workers/superiours. This goes double for our country, I'm sure you know. You can argue differently, but at the same time I can say back that no one forces people to drive on the road. They do it out of their own conveniance. They could walk. I know it's a lousy argument but it goes hand in hand with your saying that employees can just CHOOSE who they'll work for at random.

No, but once you drive you have every right to expect others to follow rules. Same as you do.


EU membership is voluntary (okay, not really, since we're in-directly forced anyway, but that's not important here), as is the membership in UN. Indonesia is a member state, therefore it has to obey certain legal standards. Or at least it SHOULD if the UN in itself wouldn't be so damn ineffective.

Are those UN standards or are they just "international community" standards?


Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the security council should all of a sudden level Indonesia with the ground because of this. They should just be persuaded in a friendly manner through international pressure. Like some Arab countries were when sheriatic law was in question.


Like persuading Iraqi regime to step down? With 200.000 US troops to be more persuasive?


You realize we're moving in a circle here, yes? You're all for terrotorial soverignity of a country at all cost, while I think a little international interventionism never hurt. Especially when shambolic asian courts are in question. I see your point, though. I just don't agree with it .

So you agree with intervention as long as it enforces your views? But otherwise not?

Were US interventions in Haiti OK? In other LAtin American countries? Vietnam?

:newyear:

freddie
07-06-2005, 21:44
Endless circle? ... okay. One more go:


No, but once you drive you have every right to expect others to follow rules. Same as you do.
And when you don't respect them, you'll be punished accordingly. It's just the extent of the sentance in dispute here. And no... I don't consider it constitutional for someone to deny you of somthing you got through an education process. Drunk driving? Get them through an obligatory AA program and then allow them to drive again. Don't deny their basic ability to drive (one which they didn't LOSE in the process).

Are those UN standards or are they just "international community" standards?
UN standards come from the standards of League Of Nations (as a direct descendant) and those standards come from international legal customs. The customs that were being followed through a considerate amount of time by most countries and actually had a legal will (opinion iuris) to do so.


Like persuading Iraqi regime to step down? With 200.000 US troops to be more persuasive?
That was rather a perfect showing of the inefectiveness UN represents. The security council will never use it's option for a collective response (like desert storm), ever again. Fact is - Sadam should be removed from power a long while back. By UN itself, not the USA. America attacking was just a logical consequence of UNs stalling. There's a difference between a tiranic regime Sadam represented and a faulty judicial systems in Asian courts - there's still a lot of slack for diplomacy there. While there was absolutely none left in Iraq.


So you agree with intervention as long as it enforces your views? But otherwise not?

Were US interventions in Haiti OK? In other LAtin American countries? Vietnam?
? :newyear:

As long as it enforces international interests. The problem is that security council will never be a unified body, cause of it's block aragement (Russia-China on one side, France-USA&UK on the other, for the most part). It's everyone for themselves. That's why we have the General Assembly. That's why we have the General Secretary. That's why we have dimplomacy!... but mind you... we're way of track here. We started talking about collective military responses, while the initial subject was regulating the unjust legal regimes.

luxxi
09-06-2005, 09:51
Endless circle? ... okay. One more go:



And when you don't respect them, you'll be punished accordingly. It's just the extent of the sentance in dispute here. And no... I don't consider it constitutional for someone to deny you of somthing you got through an education process. Drunk driving? Get them through an obligatory AA program and then allow them to drive again. Don't deny their basic ability to drive (one which they didn't LOSE in the process).


You showed you don't respect the rules. You showed you are danger to others.


UN standards come from the standards of League Of Nations (as a direct descendant) and those standards come from international legal customs. The customs that were being followed through a considerate amount of time by most countries and actually had a legal will (opinion iuris) to do so.

There is a difference between UN document (either declaration or resolution) and int'l standards. One is writtens et of things, other is far more obscure.


That was rather a perfect showing of the inefectiveness UN represents. The security council will never use it's option for a collective response (like desert storm), ever again. Fact is - Sadam should be removed from power a long while back. By UN itself, not the USA.


No, if he should be removed by anybody it should be Iraqis themselves, Iranains and Kuwaitis. people that were directly affected by him, not by somebody taking moral stance "just because".


America attacking was just a logical consequence of UNs stalling. There's a difference between a tiranic regime Sadam represented and a faulty judicial systems in Asian courts - there's still a lot of slack for diplomacy there. While there was absolutely none left in Iraq.

So Us was justified in invading Iraq in 03?


As long as it enforces international interests.


And which are those? The ones you agree with? Are US and UK interests "international interests"?


The problem is that security council will never be a unified body, cause of it's block aragement (Russia-China on one side, France-USA&UK on the other, for the most part). It's everyone for themselves. That's why we have the General Assembly. That's why we have the General Secretary. That's why we have dimplomacy!... but mind you... we're way of track here. We started talking about collective military responses, while the initial subject was regulating the unjust legal regimes.

Unjust in your eyes. you acse US of enforcing their views on anybody else, yet you do same. Only you are "right" because it's your view. :rolleyes:

:newyear:

freddie
10-06-2005, 20:12
You showed you don't respect the rules. You showed you are danger to others.
And thus I should be appropriately punished. But not with a permanent driving ban, since that clashes with the permanent status of education.

[QUOTE=luxxi]There is a difference between UN document (either declaration or resolution) and int'l standards. One is writtens et of things, other is far more obscure.

UN documents all evolved from international standards & traditions. It's not like they made stuff up. Basic principles and goals were all in use for centuries before that by the international community. UN just codified it into a unified mould. It legalized things that were followed before as well.


No, if he should be removed by anybody it should be Iraqis themselves, Iranains and Kuwaitis. people that were directly affected by him, not by somebody taking moral stance "just because".

So Us was justified in invading Iraq in 03?


Desert Storm didn't happen "just because". The security Council has strickly written right to use collective actions (millitary & economic), to preserve peace and security. The only reason why the second attack on Iraq happened was because the allies didn't finish the job in the early 90s. Thus everything is down to inefficiency of the security council and general assembly. Was US justified? Depends how you look at it. You can say US made "sui generis" law, since the Security Council has been proved inaffective and divided sharply in blocks and interests. You can argue that the constitution of the UN has been changed with conclusive actions, since it's a "living charter", which changes if proven inaffective. International politics are too complicated to look at it with a simplicity of "right", "wrong". Eventhough US politics was too self-orientated you can't say it's nto a common thing to be done in politics. But we weren't talking about country relations before... we were talking about judicial ones. *my offtopic warning light's starting to flash now*

And which are those? The ones you agree with? Are US and UK interests "international interests"?

In that case - they had their own interests that contained some international interests as well. Like I said... int politics are to complicated to be viewed just from the "right"-"wrong" standpoint. It's all about all about diplomacy, compromise, ad hoc solutions etc Yeah, USA did enforce things on other people, but the ultimate sin happened before that. And once again. This is a seperate issue. *offtopic warning light flashing feverously*

Unjust in your eyes. you acse US of enforcing their views on anybody else, yet you do same. Only you are "right" because it's your view. :rolleyes:

:newyear:

*offtopic warning ligth explodes into thusands of little bits* "My views" are that everyone has a right to a fair trial, that they can't be exposed to legal regimes that don't satisfy the minimal legals standards. Do you really think this are my views only?

luxxi
13-06-2005, 19:12
UN documents all evolved from international standards & traditions. It's not like they made stuff up. Basic principles and goals were all in use for centuries before that by the international community. UN just codified it into a unified mould. It legalized things that were followed before as well.

Not everything that are int'l standards is codified by UN.



*offtopic warning ligth explodes into thusands of little bits* "My views" are that everyone has a right to a fair trial, that they can't be exposed to legal regimes that don't satisfy the minimal legals standards. Do you really think this are my views only?

What is fair trial depends form state tos tate. Would you support US forcing other countries to change their legal system so trial feature jury of their "peers"? Those are standards for fair trial in US, but not in Slovenia.

:newyear:

rosh
14-06-2005, 10:23
;) are you two still at it ? :p

freddie
14-06-2005, 14:01
Not everything that are int'l standards is codified by UN.

As a matter of fact it is. UN constitution is nothing but a collection of international practices used all over the globe. If it's used... you can bet UN's gonna incorporate it sooner or later. That's why I said it's constitution was "a living charter".

What is fair trial depends form state tos tate. Would you support US forcing other countries to change their legal system so trial feature jury of their "peers"? Those are standards for fair trial in US, but not in Slovenia.

:newyear:

Stalin killed millions of people based on a constitution that was established completely legaly.

are you two still at it ?

OMGOMG, you changed your avy! Now me and Echoed are the last two boring constant ones who never changed out original manga avatars.

luxxi
23-06-2005, 14:07
As a matter of fact it is. UN constitution is nothing but a collection of international practices used all over the globe. If it's used... you can bet UN's gonna incorporate it sooner or later. That's why I said it's constitution was "a living charter".

Laws regarding war on land aren't (Hague, Geneva concentions.....). There are numerous other things that predate UN and therefore are not "blessed" by UN.


Stalin killed millions of people based on a constitution that was established completely legaly.


Your point being? :confused:


OMGOMG, you changed your avy! Now me and Echoed are the last two boring constant ones who never changed out original manga avatars.

Can't see why everybody is so exstatic about Shane. :confused:

:newyear:

rosh
24-06-2005, 13:44
Can't see why everybody is so exstatic about Shane. :confused:
:newyear:

ah luxxi, just for you [when i have time] i will find an anastacia one ;)

luxxi
24-06-2005, 14:07
ah luxxi, just for you [when i have time] i will find an anastacia one ;)

Stacey avy? I have several of them, thank you. ;)

:newyear: