France makes demands and the US laughs hysterically

[Kropotkin]

Well US shouldn't be blamed for their Taliban laws, should they?

[DanS]

I think we need to make a distinction between political crimes and other crimes when we talk about regimes such as China's.

The US doesn't put people to death or torture, etc. for political positions that they hold, but rather for acts that do or are conspiring to do. I think the laws themselves would be acceptable in any country. China does otherwise, where these distinctions aren't made.

France has a legitimate interest here. They can and should lobby hard for their position. But realistically, as our system is structured, the lobbying is probably not going to be effective. So France has to make a hard choice of whether the common interest is served by cooperating with American law enforcement officials or not. France is in a tough position, because they have competing interests here.

[Roland]

Originally posted by DanS
The US doesn't put people to death or torture, etc. for political positions that they hold, but rather for acts that do or are conspiring to do.

Now there's an interesting quote....

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by DanS
The US doesn't put people to death or torture, etc. for political positions that they hold, but rather for acts that do or are conspiring to do.

No. Also for political positions.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


OK, if the American was assured of a fair trial, you can certainly feel free to remind me of my statement.

Whilst I don't doubt the integrity of the US judicial system, how can we be sure that this man will have a fair trial? The fact that many are calling for the DP or calling for the DP not to be used, before the trial has begun makes me think that many presume him guilty to begin with. Unintentional prejudices exist given the very nature of the crime that was commited on 11/9 (9/11 as you would say).

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
Well US shouldn't be blamed for their Taliban laws, should they?

Stop being purposefully absurd.

Roland: No, but France has a legitimite interest in the case from consular protection. What's the problem with that ?

The problem is that the right to consular protection only allows a State to defend the rights of thier citizens. No allegation that Moussaoui's are being violated has been made in any of France's threats or lobbying efforts.

[Kropotkin]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Stop being purposefully absurd.

Sorry, It's not me being absurd but life itself

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Personnaly I don't care about this guy. I choose his life and have to face to the consequence.

What I doubt, that he will correctly trialed. What I think, You will trial him and then execute him. If you don't understand what is wrong is the previous sentence, nobody can help you.

Then if some people in France think that they have the right to prevent the death penalty for this guy, wtf ?

Such thread title shows only a sad picture of a conceited and self-sufficient USA.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by ZoboZeWarrior
Such thread title shows only a sad picture of a conceited and self-sufficient USA.

I would like to be able to say it's just Dinodoc but...

[Kyle]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin


Whilst I don't doubt the integrity of the US judicial system, how can we be sure that this man will have a fair trial? The fact that many are calling for the DP or calling for the DP not to be used, before the trial has begun makes me think that many presume him guilty to begin with. Unintentional prejudices exist given the very nature of the crime that was commited on 11/9 (9/11 as you would say).

No, they're saying what the punishment will be if he is convicted. The same thing that happens with all prosecutions.

[Dauphin]

Surely that decision should be made after the facts are presented and his involvement known? Normally the nature of the crime (rather than the charge) as presented at trial would prescribe the punishment, wouldn't it?

So how can the punishment be decided before the facts are known unless people assume they know them already. Its not as simple as Conspirator = DP, Non-conspirator = freedom as people seem to be saying. Is there no middle ground where he was a minor participant and thus guilty of acrime but DP woudl be an overkill (forgive the apparent pun).

No-one has even mentioned how many and what charges are being presented, just what punishment is due!!!

[Kyle]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
Surely that decision should be made after the facts are presented and his involvement known? Normally the nature of the crime (rather than the charge) as presented at trial would prescribe the punishment, wouldn't it?

Well, no. Upon conviction, they go to a penalty phase. The jury hears arguments from the prosecution as to what they want the punishment to be. The defense does their thing. Usually, there's at least two choices for the penalty (the Andrea Yates trial for example, the one who drowned her children. They could've given her the death penalty or life in prision). The jury then weighs the crime and decides the penalty.


If you're charged with first degree murder, they're either going to push for the DP or life in prision. It's known before hand; this is no different.


But, just because they ask for the death penalty, doesn't mean they're going to get it.

[Dauphin]

The jury then weighs the crime and decides the penalty.

But they would decide based on the particular circumstances, not the blanket statement of the crime of "X". Why then are people pushing for the DP before the details of involvement are known.

Do prosecutors normally push for a sentence before they have reviewed all the evidence. In this case they obviously don't have all the evidence- the French have the a large amount of evidence that they are withholding at the present time.

[Saint Marcus]

if france refuse to disclose any evidence regarding the alleged crimes commited by the guy, the US can't convict him in a fair trial. Seems the US has two options. Either make sure the guy doesn't get executed if convicted, or refuse to give the guy a fair trial.

[Kyle]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin

The jury then weighs the crime and decides the penalty.

But they would decide based on the particular circumstances, not the blanket statement of the crime of "X". Why then are people pushing for the DP before the details of involvement are known.

Do prosecutors normally push for a sentence before they have reviewed all the evidence. In this case they obviously don't have all the evidence- the French have the a large amount of evidence that they are withholding at the present time.

Well yeah. They have prosecutorial evidence, the whole reason they're bringing charges up. Surely you've seen any number of the US cop shows (Homicide, NYPD Blue, Law and Order)...?

When the defense presents their evidence, they may decide to change the sentence they are going after.

if france refuse to disclose any evidence regarding the alleged crimes commited by the guy, the US can't convict him in a fair trial. Seems the US has two options. Either make sure the guy doesn't get executed if convicted, or refuse to give the guy a fair trial.

Well of course, the US couldn't possibly have their own evidence to convict him with.

They must feel they have very good evidence, otherwise they wouldn't be going for the DP.