Yet another intelligence failure?
- Thread starter charrison
- Start date
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
MonstaThrilla
Golden Member
- Sep 16, 2000
- 1,652
- 0
- 0
Odd that you didn't quote the third, and most positive paragraph of the article. It says the prosecutor has till the end of the year to present her case, and that she is confident that she will win a conviction for genocide. Furthermore, it says that Slobodon has a whopping two years for defense. I'm no expert on international crimes against humanity, but i guess they take a long time.
More importantly, what exactly are you implying by posting this?
More importantly, what exactly are you implying by posting this?
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Odd that you didn't quote the third, and most positive paragraph of the article. It says the prosecutor has till the end of the year to present her case, and that she is confident that she will win a conviction for genocide. Furthermore, it says that Slobodon has a whopping two years for defense. I'm no expert on international crimes against humanity, but i guess they take a long time.
More importantly, what exactly are you implying by posting this?
Why does it take 2 years for what is supposed to be an open and shut case.
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Odd that you didn't quote the third, and most positive paragraph of the article. It says the prosecutor has till the end of the year to present her case, and that she is confident that she will win a conviction for genocide. Furthermore, it says that Slobodon has a whopping two years for defense. I'm no expert on international crimes against humanity, but i guess they take a long time.
More importantly, what exactly are you implying by posting this?
Why does it take 2 years for what is supposed to be an open and shut case.
Thier is no such thing as an open and shut case when you are dealing with an international tribunal and charges of genocide on massive scales. Thier are thousands of witnesses over many countries, reams of evidence etc. The tribunal also has a large set of procedures for the defense as well. It is a very painstaking process.
You also have to realize that thier is a huge difference from proving that Milsovec is a bad guy who killed a lot of people to proving the charge of Genocide which carries very specific legal requirements. The case must be built very carefully in order to ensure the fariness and legitimacy of the proceedings.
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Odd that you didn't quote the third, and most positive paragraph of the article. It says the prosecutor has till the end of the year to present her case, and that she is confident that she will win a conviction for genocide. Furthermore, it says that Slobodon has a whopping two years for defense. I'm no expert on international crimes against humanity, but i guess they take a long time.
More importantly, what exactly are you implying by posting this?
Why does it take 2 years for what is supposed to be an open and shut case.
Who exactly said this was an "open and shut case" by the way?? Where are you getting that. I can't imagine that any of the proescutors said that.
Also, we are not talking about intelligence in this case. The realms of intelligence and criminal investigations and evidence collection for a criminal prosecution are very different. A criminal investigation and the building of a solid case against the defendent requires very high standards not present in a lot of intelligence estimates as we have so recently learned.
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Odd that you didn't quote the third, and most positive paragraph of the article. It says the prosecutor has till the end of the year to present her case, and that she is confident that she will win a conviction for genocide. Furthermore, it says that Slobodon has a whopping two years for defense. I'm no expert on international crimes against humanity, but i guess they take a long time.
More importantly, what exactly are you implying by posting this?
Why does it take 2 years for what is supposed to be an open and shut case.
Who exactly said this was an "open and shut case" by the way?? Where are you getting that. I can't imagine that any of the proescutors said that.
Well given the media coverage a few years back....
I wonder if the same thing would apply to a WMD program in a country that had many years to hide it?Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Odd that you didn't quote the third, and most positive paragraph of the article. It says the prosecutor has till the end of the year to present her case, and that she is confident that she will win a conviction for genocide. Furthermore, it says that Slobodon has a whopping two years for defense. I'm no expert on international crimes against humanity, but i guess they take a long time.
More importantly, what exactly are you implying by posting this?
Why does it take 2 years for what is supposed to be an open and shut case.
Thier is no such thing as an open and shut case when you are dealing with an international tribunal and charges of genocide on massive scales. Thier are thousands of witnesses over many countries, reams of evidence etc. The tribunal also has a large set of procedures for the defense as well. It is a very painstaking process.
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Odd that you didn't quote the third, and most positive paragraph of the article. It says the prosecutor has till the end of the year to present her case, and that she is confident that she will win a conviction for genocide. Furthermore, it says that Slobodon has a whopping two years for defense. I'm no expert on international crimes against humanity, but i guess they take a long time.
More importantly, what exactly are you implying by posting this?
Why does it take 2 years for what is supposed to be an open and shut case.
Who exactly said this was an "open and shut case" by the way?? Where are you getting that. I can't imagine that any of the proescutors said that.
Well given the media coverage a few years back....
So now you judge the process of justice by what the media says??
Remember the OJ trial? Give me a freaking break.
You do realize that we are talking about a 66 count indictment for events in the early 90s in Yugoslavia, Bosnia, Croatia, etc. as well as later charges for the Kosovo actions. Actions spanning over a decade with only relatively recently the subject being turned over to the tribunal. Very very complex case.
MonstaThrilla
Golden Member
- Sep 16, 2000
- 1,652
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: alchemize
I wonder if the same thing would apply to a WMD program in a country that had many years to hide it?Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Thier is no such thing as an open and shut case when you are dealing with an international tribunal and charges of genocide on massive scales. Thier are thousands of witnesses over many countries, reams of evidence etc. The tribunal also has a large set of procedures for the defense as well. It is a very painstaking process.
Making a comparison between the complicated legal process of building a war crimes case to be tried before an international tribunal and the process of looking for 10,000 liters of WMD in a country that is being occupied by the greatest military history has ever known is obviously reaching for straws.
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Check out the indictment and tell me that is an open and shut case.
Link to Full text of Indictment
Definatly a bad guy, but was it genocide?
OH it is? There aren't thousands of witnesses, and reams of evidence? OH you are right Saddam and his regime was actively covering up his program *gasp*. Possibly even he destroyed as much as he could when we came in. That would mean less evidence, fewer witnesses.Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Originally posted by: alchemize
I wonder if the same thing would apply to a WMD program in a country that had many years to hide it?Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Thier is no such thing as an open and shut case when you are dealing with an international tribunal and charges of genocide on massive scales. Thier are thousands of witnesses over many countries, reams of evidence etc. The tribunal also has a large set of procedures for the defense as well. It is a very painstaking process.
Making a comparison between the complicated legal process of building a war crimes case to be tried before an international tribunal and the process of looking for 10,000 liters of WMD in a country that is being occupied by the greatest military history has ever known is obviously reaching for straws.
You are right, I think finding the WMD is even harder.
MonstaThrilla
Golden Member
- Sep 16, 2000
- 1,652
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Check out the indictment and tell me that is an open and shut case.
Link to Full text of Indictment
Definatly a bad guy, but was it genocide?
Who are we to say? Maybe they should have some sort of international tribunal decide that. Oh wait...
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Check out the indictment and tell me that is an open and shut case.
Link to Full text of Indictment
Definatly a bad guy, but was it genocide?
That's the whole point. Mister Open and Shut case. What are you arguing here? It escapes me.
Originally posted by: alchemize
OH it is? There aren't thousands of witnesses, and reams of evidence? OH you are right Saddam and his regime was actively covering up his program *gasp*. Possibly even he destroyed as much as he could when we came in. That would mean less evidence, fewer witnesses.Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Originally posted by: alchemize
I wonder if the same thing would apply to a WMD program in a country that had many years to hide it?Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Thier is no such thing as an open and shut case when you are dealing with an international tribunal and charges of genocide on massive scales. Thier are thousands of witnesses over many countries, reams of evidence etc. The tribunal also has a large set of procedures for the defense as well. It is a very painstaking process.
Making a comparison between the complicated legal process of building a war crimes case to be tried before an international tribunal and the process of looking for 10,000 liters of WMD in a country that is being occupied by the greatest military history has ever known is obviously reaching for straws.
You are right, I think finding the WMD is even harder.
No it isn't. "We know where the weapons are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad." All you have to do to prove that WMD exist, is to find some.
Totally different thing to prove crimes against humanity. Apples and oranges.
MonstaThrilla
Golden Member
- Sep 16, 2000
- 1,652
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: alchemize
OH it is? There aren't thousands of witnesses, and reams of evidence? OH you are right Saddam and his regime was actively covering up his program *gasp*. Possibly even he destroyed as much as he could when we came in. That would mean less evidence, fewer witnesses.Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Originally posted by: alchemize
I wonder if the same thing would apply to a WMD program in a country that had many years to hide it?Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Thier is no such thing as an open and shut case when you are dealing with an international tribunal and charges of genocide on massive scales. Thier are thousands of witnesses over many countries, reams of evidence etc. The tribunal also has a large set of procedures for the defense as well. It is a very painstaking process.
Making a comparison between the complicated legal process of building a war crimes case to be tried before an international tribunal and the process of looking for 10,000 liters of WMD in a country that is being occupied by the greatest military history has ever known is obviously reaching for straws.
You are right, I think finding the WMD is even harder.
What point are you arguing? Are you being sarcastic? I honestly can't decipher your response.
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: alchemize
OH it is? There aren't thousands of witnesses, and reams of evidence? OH you are right Saddam and his regime was actively covering up his program *gasp*. Possibly even he destroyed as much as he could when we came in. That would mean less evidence, fewer witnesses.Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Originally posted by: alchemize
I wonder if the same thing would apply to a WMD program in a country that had many years to hide it?Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Thier is no such thing as an open and shut case when you are dealing with an international tribunal and charges of genocide on massive scales. Thier are thousands of witnesses over many countries, reams of evidence etc. The tribunal also has a large set of procedures for the defense as well. It is a very painstaking process.
Making a comparison between the complicated legal process of building a war crimes case to be tried before an international tribunal and the process of looking for 10,000 liters of WMD in a country that is being occupied by the greatest military history has ever known is obviously reaching for straws.
You are right, I think finding the WMD is even harder.
No it isn't. "We know where the weapons are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad." All you have to do to prove that WMD exist, is to find some.
Totally different thing to prove crimes against humanity. Apples and oranges.
I stand corrected, I didn't realize you were a former international war crimes tribunal member AND a weapons inspector. Cause they both sound pretty darn tough to me.
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Check out the indictment and tell me that is an open and shut case.
Link to Full text of Indictment
Definatly a bad guy, but was it genocide?
That's the whole point. Mister Open and Shut case. What are you arguing here? It escapes me.
So since it is not an open and shut case, it seems we might have sent troop to oust milosovich on bad intel...
MonstaThrilla
Golden Member
- Sep 16, 2000
- 1,652
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: charrison
So since it is not an open and shut case, it seems we might have sent troop to oust milosovich on bad intel...
And so he admits that this is just yet another thinly veiled partisan attack against President Clinton.
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Originally posted by: charrison
So since it is not an open and shut case, it seems we might have sent troop to oust milosovich on bad intel...
And so he admits that this is just yet another thinly veiled partisan attack against President Clinton.
Did I say anything about Clinton?
MonstaThrilla
Golden Member
- Sep 16, 2000
- 1,652
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Originally posted by: charrison
So since it is not an open and shut case, it seems we might have sent troop to oust milosovich on bad intel...
And so he admits that this is just yet another thinly veiled partisan attack against President Clinton.
Did I say anything about Clinton?
Sorry bro, you don't have George Tenet to fall on his sword for you.
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Originally posted by: charrison
So since it is not an open and shut case, it seems we might have sent troop to oust milosovich on bad intel...
And so he admits that this is just yet another thinly veiled partisan attack against President Clinton.
Did I say anything about Clinton?
Sorry bro, you don't have George Tenet to fall on his sword for you.
Who said anything about Tenet?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
AnandTech is part of Future plc, an international media group and leading digital publisher. Visit our corporate site.
© Future Publishing Limited Quay House, The Ambury, Bath BA1 1UA. All rights reserved. England and Wales company registration number 2008885.
Facebook
Twitter