Replace the "pilot helmet" haircut with a stylish "do" of shoulder length or longer, and I expect many FReepers would vote, "not guilty"...
Posted on 03/09/2016 6:04:12 PM PST by annalex
“1. Not supported by your evidence.”
The Russians ADMITTED THEY CAPTURED HER IN UKRAINE and now deny it.
“2. Many countries, including the US, permit the criminal prosecution of attacks against their citizens on foreign soil.”
Name one time when the United States permitted an active duty soldier of a foreign nation recognized by treaty by the United States to be charged with murder for an act he could not have been connected with by time and when the deaths were a normal part of combat. Name one.
“3. Ever hear of ‘rendition’?”
Yes, that is not what this is. Those who are shipped under the U.S. rendition program are not brought to the U.S. but to third parties. Russia is not a third party but an active battle field participant in Ukraine. Also, those rendered have sworn allegiance to a non-state entity not recognized by the United States. They are not protected by the Geneva Convention. This woman is protected by the Geneva Convention.
“Ever hear of Eichmann?”
Yes.
“And have you ever heard of Adolf Eichmann?”
Yes. Are you honestly comparing this woman who did nothing wrong and it is known she did nothing wrong to Eichmann? You’re wrong on the morals of the situation. You’re also wrong on the laws governing the situation. Eichmann was an internationally wanted and known war criminal. This woman is not. An arrest warrant for Eichmann was issued in 1946 at the Nuremberg Trials. Eichmann was on the run using forged identity papers for more than 14 years. No such thing happened with this woman.
“4. Would you really prefer her to have been tried by a more efficient court martial where she wouldn’t have had a platform for her posturing?”
Yes. A Ukrainian military court is just fine. She was a Ukrainian pilot so let her be tried by her military in her own land for a “crime” supposedly committed in her own land. If there was a Chicano secessionist revolt in Arizona and an American woman in the U.S. forces sent to defeat it was in a unit that killed two Mexican reporters embedded with the rebels in combat, we would tell Mexico to go pound sand if they demanded she be tried in Mexico. And you KNOW that’s true.
“5. In the statement here, she seems to be targeting for the content of their reporting. “They are guilty of lying and of providing false, distorted information regarding events in Ukraine, the world, and in Russia.””
It’s just a fact that the Russian media - much of which is OWNED by the government lies about Ukraine. Do you think NPR tells the truth about Obama?
“6-7 She doesn’t seem to be asserting such claims in her closing statement.”
About the phone: It was proved true at her trial. The phone company already verified this. Look it up online. About her capture: the Russian media has already admitted she was captured IN Ukraine. So did the Russian rebels.
“8. You probably need to re-word that one so it makes sense in English.”
It made sense. You just can’t answer the question. Russian commies always used mental hospitals to detain, abuse, and brainwash political opponents. This practice has been revived under Putin. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-24451016 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-insanity-of-protesting-against-putin
“9. The purpose of a psychiatric evaluation is to determine whether someone is competent for trial. If they are competent, you try them. If they aren’t, they should be treated in an effort to make them competent. This is a separate determination from that as to whether they are not guilty by reason of insanity.”
That isn’t what happened in this case. This is just the old commie tactic revived.
“10. She appears to have abandoned any such claims in her closing argument.”
She focused on the fact that the Russians lie and that they have no right to try her.
“By the way - who is George Soros pulling for in the current US elections.”
PAR35?
Replace the "pilot helmet" haircut with a stylish "do" of shoulder length or longer, and I expect many FReepers would vote, "not guilty"...
Courage is appealing with any haircut.
Nadiya is not her lawyer here. Her closing statement -- not argument -- was simply that she is ready to die from the hand of the court which barely deserves her middle finger. No discussion of the case was done in her statement, nor did it have to be.
This is how citizens of civilized nations behave. Glory to the heroes, glory to Ukraine.
Nadiya Savchenko’s Book: “It’s a Strong Name, Hope” – Chapter 1, Part 2 (conclusion) #FreeSavchenko
.
Delightfully, the Soviet blogosphere is offended. Good girl. Please pray for her freedom.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.