Peru Won't Release Imprisoned N.Y. Woman

yahoo.com ^ | Sun Nov 21, 2004 | ap

[gitmo]

I haven't a clue. Can you fill in the blanks. The article certainly didn't.

[oceanview]

americans comitting crimes in foreign countries don't have any rights to trial by US standards. if the judges in Peru wear hoods, its probably because they are afriad that their identities are shown and terrorists would then kill them and their families.

[wtc911]

See post 23.

[wtc911]

I'm unimpressed by claims that a terrorist's trial lacks "due process" when it is terrorist attacks on the judiciary which necessitates the imposition of the "un-just" procedures to begin with.

__________________________________________

Well, then I'm glad I was just stating facts, and not trying to impress you. And, I'll tell you this; the day our judges hide behind hoods and our accused can't face their accusers, for any crime, is the day the second amendment will prove its value.

[gitmo]

Thanks.

[Captain Peter Blood]

I have read of this woman's crime and trial. I would have to say another case of an idiot Lefty going down to a third world country and trying to get involved without a clue as to the consequences.
Well the consequences are that you got caught where you should not have been with terrorists and you are now in prison for this.
This woman and her family begged and pleaded with Clinton to intervene and help which he did not. I wonder why the compassionate Bill Clinton did not come to her aid?
I would agree the penalty was harsh and we know the conditions in the prisons down there are barely out of the Middle Ages. I do have some sympathy, but not much.
She should have stayed home and kept out of things that were not her business.

[tarawa]

In many of these countries, the judges are hooded due to the very real threats against them from the terrorists and druglords.

[rogue yam]

In many of these countries, the judges are hooded due to the very real threats against them from the terrorists and druglords.

That was exactly my point. Some people enjoy pretending that the Bill of Rights is the one immutable foundation of our society. In fact, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. The rights afforded to citizens who offend in a largely stable society where criminal trials can safely and reliably be held is quite different to what is reasonable and just when the very foundations of that stable society are at risk. The bottom line is if you are in the business of shooting cops and judges and you are effective at what you do, it is neither rational nor moral to whine and cry if these same judges and cops subsequently go all medieval on you. That's just the way it is.

[rogue yam]

Ping to my reply #48

[Michael.SF.]

She's not a 'Rat, she's a Communist

That is a distinction w/o a difference.

[wtc911]

As I said, the day our judges wear hoods and our accused lose the right to face their accusers, for any crime, is the day that the second amendment earns its stripes.

[sport]

They should take her out and shoot her.

[montag813]

Oh enough with this b*tch already! They should have executed her. It would have served her right. But they were lenient. She should consider herself lucky and shut up.

[HitmanLV]

This story is still kicking around? Wow.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

It really irks me when the MSM exposes its bias by continuing to use softspeak like "alleged" ...even after the accused has been tried and convicted.

Whether they agree or disagree with the politics or the outcome of the verdict, the accused are still in a convicted state.

[gedeon3]

The slut should have been executed.