r2i forum

spa2;126628AN, when you say "Gujarat", do you mean Godhra, or the reaction to it? It is very important not to forget what CAUSED Gujarat to burn the way it
did.

One can call it State Terrorism, or whatever they choose. But the fact is that Gujarat did morally better than what the USA did when some muslims attacked on 9-11. While the US didn't wait for the "law" to take it course before counter-attacking muslim areas of the world, the ones in Gujarat acted after the pandering pseudos and apologists brushed off the Godhra incident.

The immigrant pseudos in the USA didn't quite protest the US reaction the way they did for Gujarat. But then, they are pseudos. So pathetic. So rootless and insecure. So they have to hang on to every opportunity to be holier-than-thou. For some moral high ground applause they so badly crave.

Oh, BTW, by "meaningful action", I meant becoming aware of the pseudo menace, recognizing the severity of that threat, and exposing that danger. Hope more of us do that.

spa2;126617
But in all this, the pseudos are our most dangerous enemies, because they are fanning the flames, and bringing out the worst on both sides.

sandeepskar;126553 Eg: Hindu Terrorism's playing field is only India - not international. The modus operandi is clear and open - not blowing up human bombs - but more like riots, bashing up people, burning houses and also people, etc. (I hope you understand that I am merely pointing out differences not judging one as less or more bad). [/quote] I understand you are pointing out differences.

Talking about bombs, BTW, here is a news item from today that is buried in newspapers and not on front pages.

http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/sep/30malegaon.htm

I agree that differences matter in terms of appropriate response. The response when Sena goons go into Dharavi and Govandi and terrorize residents is non existent.

sandeepskar;126553When comparing the religious terrorisms and evaluating the appropriate level and kind of response to be taken, one has to analyze the differences. I think that Islamic terrorism differs from the other terrorisms in at least the 3 points that I asked to AN. Hence I asked the question that way. [/quote] Islamic terrorism may differ but the examples you asked for from AN needed to be limited by your 3 conditions specified because you framed your question in such a way.

You asked for examples of religious terrorism and in limiting it to 3 conditions excluded all but the Islamic. In other words your query sought out to limit his response. It asked for examples of other religous terrorism but framed conditions around it that limited the response to be only Islamic.

Perhaps you did not mean to frame it that way.

[quote]
No one is to be given a pass at all if one breaks the law. Based on all the excellent AAPs that you so generously do for people in this forum, I have no doubt that you clearly understand what "allocation" of avaliable resources means.
Thanks.
[/quote]

I just stated my view that I am against any one getting a pass for reasons of resources.

And I am certain that police must be devoting responses in proportion to intensity - after all, these guys cannot be incompetent.

Chicago Desi;126565I am so sick of the p-secs who see a group of people making a whole nation bleed and yet not condemn that group of people in no uncertain terms.

We have people on this very board who do not even want to call these terrorists Islamic. Oh, there are terrorists in every religion they say. Take off those glasses, you people. You make me sick. Don't tell me their religion has nothing to do with their terrorist activities. We see a lot of sympathy for those whose human rights are supposedly trampled because of the way they are treated after they are caught engaging in terrorist activities. Lets see you condemn those activities first in no uncertain terms. When will we see some sympathy for those who got killed, including those who were killed in the line of duty? When will you call a spade a spade?

The problem with India is half of its citizens are shameless and blind to such atrocities on their own fellow human beings. We never see Indians rally up against a common enemy. It did not happen in our first 5,000 years of history and will not happen in the next 5,000 years. And how we love to analyze every single thing and lap up those numbers! [/quote] Oh man, CD, do you need a soapbox? I have a spare one.

There is so much I can say on that post, let me comment against the one in red font. I agree, we should forget the data and analysis and act out of emotions just like a lynch mob. Shouldn't we?

Chicago Desi;126565
Lets see you condemn those activities first in no uncertain terms. [/quote] I second CD, I agree. Members must condemn terrorism in absolutely unequivocal terms. They must say "I condemn terrorism". In fact, if they are telling the truth, they must like a Kindergardner repeat this in ten posts. If they don't, then the brilliant conclusion should be that they support terrorism and that they are P-secs. I think that is a reasonable conclusion to draw about educated Indians on this forum, don't you?

Chicago Desi;126565When will we see some sympathy for those who got killed, including those who were killed in the line of duty? When will you call a spade a spade?[/quote]

Sympathy is great, facts are better.

maadhuribiscuit;140898Like I mentioned before, there are lot of people on this forum may agree with you in principle, but if we were to take a poll, I feel that we may find 90% of people on this forum will support scenario 1 (after considering the scenario B) Not that its going to prove much but it may give us some idea why indian public on the whole don't mind encounters of hard core criminals. [/quote]OK, so you think 90% of people on this forum will disagree with me - so be it.

maadhuribiscuit;140898In fact this reminds me, In UK soon after 07/07 bomb blasts in tube etc, there was another attempted attack that failed on 21/07. Should police still play this by the book or we would prefer them to foil 2nd wave of attack by beating the confession out of captured terrorist or terrorist acomplish.

Beat the yogurt out of him - that is what police do! Hang him by his nails till he confesses that there is another bombing planned.

boca2blr;140932
[quote] Originally Posted by Desi
The constitution demands that a citizen be afforded legal representation if he/she cannot afford it.

The constitution does not forbid a state to provide such legal representation to a non-citizen.
[/quote]
The question was not about legal representation, but "free" (state paid) legal representation. Under the Article 39A, it is only guaranteed for "citizens". In the constitution, wherever there is a mention of "citizen", it means that such articles, unless overridden by another article or an amendment, explicitly will only apply to "citizens". There need not be a mention of non-applicability.[/quote]The guarantees explicitly MUST apply to citizens (constitutional mandate), but does it mean that applicability to non citizens is forbidden? I do not think so. All that means is that a non-citizen cannot demand that under the auspices of the constitutional right.

re "free": Sure, the constitution does not forbid the state from not providing free legal representation to non-citiznes if the state so deems necessary ( does not forbid a state to provide). the constitution just mandates as to where they absolutely MUST provide. The rest is left to the judgement of the state and legislative bodies.

boca2blr;140932The dilemma is that Article 25 conflicts with Article 39A in this instance. As a result, the Government has to find some way of getting legal representation for Kasab without paying for it. Or, there will be genuine PIL cases that could go up to the SC, and will delay the prosecution.[/quote] I do not see what part of Article 25 applies, hence I do not see the conflict.

boca2blr;140932My post #1499 should clarify the usage of "collective conscience". There is nothing sinister about its usage that one should read some inconvenient meaning. The "influencing factor" concoction is falling into the same trap of "trial by media".[/quote]

Here is what the SC said:

“The incident, which resulted in heavy casualties, had shaken the entire nation and the collective conscience of the society will only be satisfied if capital punishment is awarded to the offender.”

The above tells me that the capital punishment was awarded to satisy the collective conscience - ie a lynch mob approach

boca2blr;140932
Again, Section 302 in conjunction with 120B and 109 is legally sound to address conspiracy and the sentencing. There is no question on legal validity of this sentencing under 120B/109/302.

SC Judgment - http://www.outlookindia.com/author.asp?name=P.+Venkatarama+Reddi

It was a special court's verdict. There was an appeal to the Delhi High Court and the court upheld the decision of the special court. Subsequently, there was an appeal (weak, if one reads the SC judgment) that was well addressed by the SC and they upheld the verdict for Afzal. SC did not sentence, their job is to uphold the lower court's verdict, unless they find enough evidence to the contrary, which they did not in the appeal. Again, SC job was not to start the prosecution or defense from the beginning.

Specifics of SC evaluation of contention relating to Afzal Guru can be found here -> http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20050804&fname=geelani&sid=6
[/quote]

Thanks for the links and information re, the SC involvement. It seems I will have to register with Outlook India before I can access the transcripts. Tomorrow, I will attempt to do that.

RaReSha3;140936http://law.jrank.org/pages/5225/Citizens-Rights-U-S-Citizens.html
"U.S. citizens, of course, must observe and obey the laws of other countries while they are visiting, but if a U.S. citizen is arrested, a representative from the U.S. ambassador's office can visit him or her and inform the foreign government that the treatment of the U.S. citizen will be scrutinized. ". Your question is valid only if your home country abandons you and that is the case with captured perpetrator.[/quote] You sidestepped the queries I posed. If I have no legal representation and US does not provide me with a defender or say I am from Botswana or some Zululand, should I be given a public defender?
=======================================

RaReSha3;140936[quote]
Originally Posted by Desi
[quote]
Originally Posted by RaReSha3
Desi,
So why should the uninvited foreign citizen whose main purpose was to create mayhem be given legal access if his home country is refusing to own him as theirs?
[/quote]

What do you think should be done to Kasab? Who decides this and how if we are not going to go to court? Is it the local police chief of Colaba or is it Chief of the the Police of Bombay or is it the CM - whose decision reigns supreme? in what should be done to Kasab?

[/quote]
The current law mandates a trial. Like boca2blr indicated, this is more about 'govt paid' legal representation and majority of tax players oppose govt. wasting their money if the trial prolongs and human right activists jumping in the fray to prolong the circus. [/quote]I understand that and that is why laws are framed and not changed everyday based on the whim of the taxpayers on that day. The question that remains unanswered is who should represent Kasab at trial, since you seem to think that he should not be provided legal represenation at the expense of taxpayers? Should he represent himself? A competent representation is one which understands the intricacies of the law, understands the penal code and can prepare an adequate defence. A defendent is rarely capable of such. Then for a court of civilized country to allow a defendent in a trial without competent representation is a miscarriage of justice. However my views not withstanding, the question to you is then what is it that you are supporting, if no state provided free legal representation? He has no money? And if no pro bono lawyer comes forward, should he be left to defend himself in court without representation? That RRS is the question to you.

A civilized society does not leave mentally infirm or those legally challenged to their own devices in a trial conducted in a court of law. Kasab clearly falls in the category of legally challenged.

============================================================

RaReSha3;140936
[quote]
Originally Posted by Desi
Also, are you 100% certain that what police is saying as his confessions actually are? Even if you are 100% certain what if certian section of populace has doubts? Don't you think that wi where the courts come in as neutral party that hear only the evidence presented and rule based on law keeping emotions aside?
[/quote]Do you have doubts? If so, based on what? Data please, besides hypothesis.
[/quote]I have no doubts. However, I also believe that police has not released everything he has said and they should not. The point here is very simple - You asked why should he be given legal access and my query to you is, if he is not given legal access, what should be done of him and who decides and based on what? Based on what police is saying and what if someone has doubts that police is not being entirely honest and you and I do not have such doubts, so are we any better than some other citizen xyz who has doubts? This is why we have courts so that it is not your or my or xyz or police decision but a decision of the court after hearing all the evidence and examining the authenticity of the evidence. The verdict and sentencing in a civilized society should be beyond reproach.

Desi;140907
Beat the yogurt out of him - that is what police do! Hang him by his nails till he confesses that there is another bombing planned.[/quote]

It seems that you would rather offer tea and biscuit to kasab then get vital information out of him by "tedhi ungli".

In your opinion, Whose human rights are more inportant? Kasab or another hemant karkare or omble?