Jump to content

American Politics MDCLXVIII - Warning! May contain non SB1070 posts


lokisnow

Recommended Posts

No, but the judiciary is part of the government.

Says who? India has an independent judiciary. And while corruption is, of course, present, the Supreme Court, at least, is pretty clean, and has never simply sided with the government. It is really difficult to remove a Supreme Court judge, so the Government doesn't have that strong a hold on them.

Look at the recent decriminalization of homosexuality rulings. The government certainly wasn't close to making this happen, so the Delhi HC took matters into its hands when a PIL came its way. The government considered contesting the judgment, but they knew they had no leg to stand on in the Supreme Court, so despite no support for the move in the government, homosexuality is decriminalized in India.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

India has an independent judiciary. And while corruption is, of course, present, the Supreme Court, at least, is pretty clean, and has never simply sided with the government. It is really difficult to remove a Supreme Court judge, so the Government doesn't have that strong a hold on them.

Ah, I get it. We're using the term "government" differently. I believe you're using it in the parliamentary sense where "the government" is the particular group in power. In the U.S., "the government" generally refers to the overall governmental organization as an institution. It's like when you parliamentary types say "the government is falling" when you really mean the people in power are about to lose it. The same statement would mean something far more profound here.

Anyway, to avoid a purely semantic disagreement, the link claims that the investigation after the incident was impeded by "the government" of India, however you might choose to define that. Since that evidence is now stale and/or simply gone, I could see the validity of an argument that a truly fair trial is impossible at this point even if the judiciary in India is completely impartial. After all, a court can only look at the evidence before it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Dems will hold onto 59 seats, but I think this helps illustrate why the Republican's momentum for November has dried up. I have serious doubts they win a majority of either House. And it couldn't happen to a nicer group of people.

Democrats chances of retaining 59 seats improve

Thanks Arizona!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. That said it still irritates the piss out of me that the taxpayers of any State end up funding elections for two private organizations. If the Democratic Party and the Republican Party want to hold mass elections to select their nominees let them pay for the polling sights, poll workers, and voting machines. Primaries aren't playoffs leading up the finals. They are elections by two private groups to select nominees for the only election that matters in the U.S. (not counting local elections for local offices), the General Election in November.

Completely agree. The government should not endorse or enable any parties, and certainly it should not enshrine the two-party system by ignoring the other parties if it must stick its nose into the business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, I get it. We're using the term "government" differently. I believe you're using it in the parliamentary sense where "the government" is the particular group in power. In the U.S., "the government" generally refers to the overall governmental organization as an institution. It's like when you parliamentary types say "the government is falling" when you really mean the people in power are about to lose it. The same statement would mean something far more profound here.

Anyway, to avoid a purely semantic disagreement, the link claims that the investigation after the incident was impeded by "the government" of India, however you might choose to define that. Since that evidence is now stale and/or simply gone, I could see the validity of an argument that a truly fair trial is impossible at this point even if the judiciary in India is completely impartial. After all, a court can only look at the evidence before it.

And said court can also declare mistrial if there is insufficient evidence. That's for the court to decide, not Union Carbide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's exculpatory evidence that may be missing, so a mistrial wouldn't be the issue. And its not union carbide that is at issue -- it's an individual.

I'm totally failing to see the logic here. A man who stands accused of certain crimes states he won't face justice because evidence in his favor has been obliterated.

Fair enough, but you can argue that in the court. Using that to justify not facing trial is the action of a guilty person, IMO.

If he can show that there was sabotage, and if he can show that all evidence related to that has been tampered with by the government, the Court is going to either exonerate him or demand that the government account for its actions.

So there is no justification for not extraditing him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm totally failing to see the logic here. A man who stands accused of certain crimes states he won't face justice because evidence in his favor has been obliterated.

Fair enough, but you can argue that in the court. Using that to justify not facing trial is the action of a guilty person, IMO.

Personally, I think even an innocent person would not be thrilled with standing trial in.a foreign country where the government already has demonstrated bias against his position, and there will be enormous popular pressure to convict.

If he can show that there was sabotage, and if he can show that all evidence related to that has been tampered with by the government, the Court is going to either exonerate him

That's a reversal of the usual burden of proof.

So there is no justification for not extraditing him.

We obviously disagree. It seems odd, though, that the government of India has never really pressed for this. One could speculate that the government is fully aware of the problems in trying to comvict this guy, and is concerned that an acquital could have nasty popular repercussions. In other words, they'd prefer to let sleeping dogs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I think even an innocent person would not be thrilled with standing trial in.a foreign country where the government already has demonstrated bias against his position, and there will be enormous popular pressure to convict.

Well, this is a trial, not an amusement park ride. Being thrilled doesn't enter into it.

By this measure, Osama Bin Laden can ask whichever country he is in to not extradite him because he knows the U.S. government has made up its mind about him, and he feels that evidence that will exonerate him has been tampered with.

That's a reversal of the usual burden of proof.

No it isn't, because the claim that evidence has been doctored is being made by the defendant. If every criminal who makes this claim is allowed to avoid a trial on this basis, the legal system would become a joke. Anyone can claim that to gain sympathy.

We obviously disagree. It seems odd, though, that the government of India has never really pressed for this. One could speculate that the government is fully aware of the problems in trying to comvict this guy, and is concerned that an acquital could have nasty popular repercussions. In other words, they'd prefer to let sleeping dogs.

Well, its only because the Indian legal system is slow enough, and in a case of this magnitude and with this many people involved, things have taken even longer. But the pressure at home is building up to request his extradition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...