I dont know, I find it far more disturbing that I am only reading about this now, which I guess means the media and general populace is not really interested in this new development. Final nail in the coffin perhaps for our justice system and a fatal blow to our RIGHT (meaning no exceptions) to due process as Americans. Where is the condemnation from liberals and conservatives alike? You would think this is ONE issue where they would find common ground on.
r****ded thread title. The American justice system doesn't operate in Pakistan or Afghanistan. Dr. Siddiqui, a scientist educated at MIT and Brandeis University, was seized in Pakistan for no known reason, sent to Afghanistan, and was held secretly for five years in the U.S. military’s notorious Bagram prison in Afghanistan.
There is only no evidence if you choose not to consider testimony as evidence. Of course, many cases are decided based on testimony, so you should have lost faith in the justice system a long time ago if you go that way.
My favorite part of the article was when it used Wikipedia as the cited source of information regarding the "unfairness" of the trial.
This statement, to me, sums up the entire problem with this article: try to paint the accused in as positive a light as possible, and ignore pertinent facts. According to the accounts I read, the weapon in question was not in the soldiers hands at the time she grabbed it and opened fire, thus her "frail and broken" stature matters not. She didn't "sieze" the weapon from a solider. That's blatantly misrepresenting the facts of the case, and makes the argument much weaker. Even if this case was mishandled, and was a miscarriage of justice (which I'm still not convinced it is. Her actions were somewhat shady, and she has had eyewitness and informant testimony against her), one faulty case does not represent the "death of the American justice (sic) system". Again, inflammatory and misleading headline = weak case.
There's a reason why I didn't actually state my opinion on the article. Because I personally don't know jack about the case, hence I don't want to talk out of my ass. I was just pointing out the fallacy in the post I quoted.
Dude, shut up. You don't know what you are talking about. I don't know what stupid "accounts" you've read about the incident, but Wikipedia says this poor innocent woman didn't do anything wrong and evil American racists convicted her because she's a Muslim. The next time Wikipedia lies to me will be the first!
Just so this entire thread isn't so focused on the author rather than the matter at hand, here's Time's version of the story. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1954598,00.html
A flaw in this case and many others... If we take the article at face value and there is no physical evidence...I would strongly consider this a show trial. Eyewitness accounts are often about as accurate as mud. If you're going to build a case on them entirely, well then, your case is on a very shaky foundation indeed.
The author isn't claiming she was denied her rights at trial in the US. He just doesn't like the outcome apparently. There's not enough information presented here to show she didn't get a fair trial. The writer seems to imply that she's entitled to Constitutional rights while being held in a foreign country.
You're right. How silly of me to question the all-powerful Wikipedia. She must have done it if Wikipedia says it. I recant! I recant! :grin: