3 ms·
He never said anything about agreeing or disagreeing with his conduct. I disagree with his conduct but I could never condone his treatment because yes, fundame
by jpgvm 5y ago
He never said anything about agreeing or disagreeing with his conduct.
I disagree with his conduct but I could never condone his treatment because yes, fundamentally the actions of the US government here are as close to fascism as we see in the modern age.
It's putting international justice to shame.
If they don't have a sound case then he shouldn't be persecuted until such time they do. If he truly committed a crime there must be evidence, they should find it and bring proceedings against him in a fair manner.
Unfortunately there is little evidence to suggest the US government is interested in a fair trial and much more that they are just being punitive to trying make an example of him.
It's disgraceful and we should demand better.
- jimkleiber 5y agoI guess for me, I have a hard time judging it as an unfair trial when there hasn't even been a trial. If the trial happens and it's unfair, then I think we discuss that. Right now it seems as if we're discussing how it is unfair for them to indict him and seek extradition to conduct the trial. At least for how I understand the US justice system as an American, if I'm indicted, even if I think it's a sham indictment, I don't think I can fight it at the indictment phase. I fight it at trial. Now, if I think the trial won't even be fair, then I'd probably flee, but now I'm a fugitive in the eyes of the law and it doesn't seem to give the trial a chance to be fair. So I'm confused, what should we demand better of? That the government shows more evidence to the indictment in order to gain the right for a trial? How much evidence needs to be shown before trial vs during the trial? *edit: deleted duplicate sentence