|
GET IT OFF YOUR CHEST - Who killed Aleksandr Litvinenko?
Notification. Thank you for visiting our Forum pages. We always appreciate your thoughts, but please note that Russia Today reserves the right to edit, exclude or paraphrase any messages. Please be polite - rudeness won't be accepted. Also keep in mind that it takes some time for your posts to appear in the threads.
- David July 25, 2008, 01:33
- Even if Lugavoy was sent back to england on the extreme demands of that gvt. it would a miss trial - trial by media. The media have already pronounced him guilty from make believe evidence therefore making the people of england believe he is guilty therefore any jury selected will have him guilty before he opens his mouth, or are the people of england so pure in their minds that this will not be the case? Get to grips. england is trying to play the boss man and bully Russia around showing total disrespect toward her law, recognised internationally. england is a loser or is england going to try an Iraq with Russia? The chance will be a fine thing. ha ha ha Lugavoy is in the best possible place.
- Sam July 20, 2008, 02:07
- Okey we have now agreed that Britain had no business requesting extradition from Russia.
So if the UK is keeping their evidence under wraps as sevodnya says.Then what ever they saw fit to provide the Russians is therefore half baked.They should not expect the Russians even to talk to them if they do not show what they have.
Then again,If UK adds Russia to its Extradition Act 2003,maybe Russia will do the same:)
Or maybe not,Just like the USA:)
- Sevodnya_Net July 18, 2008, 12:14
- Sam,
I don't understand your point about concealing evidence. Plainly evidence should not be concealed from a court.
I also made the point that the UK might want to protect its sources: rather understandable in the circumstances.
I also questioned why the UK went ahead with an extradition demand that was doomed to failure and suggested a cynical reason for this which I don't really believe.
As for the evidence being "half baked" no one knows that do they? As long as Britain thinks that there is a chance Lugovoy can be brought to trial then that evidence will probably stay under wraps.
But even if it is ever released without a trial there will be those who claim it is fabricated.
Finally, I don't think anyone believes Lugovoy is the really organ grinder. A trial might have brought out a lot more than a lot of people were prepared to stomach in open court as I suggested before.
Speculation, speculation :-)
- DaniYah July 18, 2008, 06:47
- Bravo Sam. Also have to agree strongly with Skeptic about why the UK does not want to provide evidence to Russian authorities.
Only I see a loophole in the way that Skeptic has so far (as S_N and others) been unable or refuse to consider both kinds of consequences. There are more than a couple variables at this point in the investigation of the L. poisoning case with regard to the nature of the evidence.
Also, it is a completely fair time to move into this spectrum of parity conjectures since complete negative and detrimental speculations about Russia (government and people) have nearly been exhausted by the US and UK press and general media.
Nevertheless congrats to Skeptic for taking the leap. Now for the bounds.
- Sam July 16, 2008, 11:25
- Now Sevodnya in the Zakaev's case,the Russians provided all the evidence against him,some of which appeared to be wrong.What has this got to do with concealing evidence? or if all the evidence is provided before or during a court hearing?
In a court of law,you simply cannt conceal evidence from a defence.This is called Disclosure and may lead to a mistrial.
Just because our dear government puts people on the plane to the USA without any evidence like a good boy,does not mean UK should expect Russia to be a poodle to the UK.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4650543.stm
Mr Johnson MP said in this matter of extraditing to the
USA without solid evidence "To call it poodling is an insult to poodles"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Act_2003
extract:(UK)Be satisfied that the request contains admissible evidence of the offence sufficient to establish a prima facie case against the person. This requirement does not apply in respect of extradition requests from the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Extradition laws in Russia are simple.We are nobodies poodles.You have a case against our citizen then come and we will judge it ourself.If not we will protect him or her.
So why is the UK bitter? This is what the UK should be doing for us,and not playing poodle with us.In this respect my hat is off for the Russians in every respect.
So again I ask.Why did the UK make a request in the first place?
Do they want the Russians to go back on their own law to give full protection to its nationals no matter how small he is?
If they wanted Russia to make a u-turn on its own law,do they really think that Russia will even listen to some half baked evidence they are providing?
Sceptic has a point that the UK may have withheld evidence as to not disclose their source for security reasons.Then they should have not bothered with a request in the first place.
- Yahshuah Tsidkenu July 16, 2008, 08:42
- Do me a favor, huh?!
Quit asking this stupid question.
You KNOW who did 911.
2 = 2 + 1 -.
The whole world knows simple math.
Especially when the one doing the dividing and the taking away is mad.
The real question is this: what is the mad subterranean subtraction contractor, with his covenant of death ADDING UP NEXT for us with his calculating mastermind of terror?
Better get your homework done. Tomorrow there may be a surprise test.
- Sevodnya_Net July 14, 2008, 15:34
- "This is not the court room drama you see on telly with surprise evidence popping up in mid trial:)"
You obviously don't know the Zakaev case then, where one of Mr Z's alleged murder victims turned up in court to give evidence. Now if that isn't a TV drama style surprise I don't know what is!!
"It is in the laws of most countries including ours that evidence most not be concealed from the other side. "
There is no extradition treaty between Britain and Russia as you well know.
As for concealing or withholding evidence, an extradition request is a one-sided deal: I don't imagine that any request for Lugovoy's, or anyone else's, extradition would include a case for the defence. That, along with all the evidence for the prosecution, will only come out during a court hearing. That's the way I'd expect a civilised handling of the matter to procede anyway.
On the subject of a trial in Moscow (too late for that now of course) Lord Skidelsky, no Russophobe, claimed in the Press last week that Britain should have gone for that option but on condition only that the full evidence was revealed in open court and that the Russians probably would have refused this, thus giving Britain "kudos". Rather a cynical point of view. I suspect that "kudos" lost by the British government will have been more than compensated for by avoiding the danger of an acquittal thus allowing Lugovoy to travel freely to countries where he is currently under threat of arrest.
One could argue the case the other way of course: Russia could have agreed under exceptional circumstances to allow Mr L to be extradited and could have had a whale of a time during the trial protraying him as a victim who at the end might well have got off anyway.
Unless of course ...
I don't know if anyone in the Kremlin is sweating over the potential release of the evidence - not in open court but in the open. Plainly the impasse won't be broken, unless a trial in an international court can be arranged but that seems equally unlikely. Litvinenko's side want the evidence out in the open now and it's hard not to sympathise with them.
- Democracy Sceptic July 14, 2008, 00:56
- David, for your guidance - touché - Etymology: French past participle of toucher (to touch) used as an acknowledgement of a hit in fencing, or the success of an argument, or the accuracy of an accusation.
I do not believe that your response to my last post can be perceived as touché in any way whatsoever. I always try to produce both aspects of any argument for and against the proposition, even though I may favour a certain conclusion. This is not typical of contributors like you, who have their own agenda to pursue, a dogma that is unquestionably biased towards a personal hatred, post after post. In your case you are vehemently anti-British. There are also others (but of less number) who are similarly blinkered anti-Russian contributors.
It would seem fairly obvious to me that the reason the British will not submit the necessary information to the Russian authorities to be used as convicting evidence against an accused person, is that such evidence would indicate the means by which that evidence was obtained. This would be damaging to Britain’s intelligence gathering and detrimental to their associates. It might be worth their while if that evidence was released at a British court hearing, from which a guilty verdict was achieved, being of some gain. However, if that evidence was embarrassing to the Russian authorities, then it might be “edited” or omitted from a Russian court hearing. The guilty verdict might not then be proven to the advantage of that accused person. The knowledge gained from that British evidence could then be exploited by the Russian authorities to curtail Britain’s access to their future information source.
Clearly, in the Pan AM bombing over Lockbie, Scotland the evidence provided on that occasion was regarded as not being damaging to British security.
Finally, before you retort that I’m only favouring the British in this post, I concede that the British security agencies are as equally as devious as the CIA, FSB or any other such agencies. Indeed if you analysed the traits of my previous posts, as my pseudonym implies I’m sceptical about all governments. Notwithstanding governments, the global multi-national mega corporations have enormous influence in the word. Their power can coerce more increasingly global decisions. Indeed, at no time in previous history has the right’s of the humble individual on this globe been so irrelevant. Only a relatively small number of tribal people remaining in jungle, or other remote environments where the impact of a government, or other powerful influences is not interfering with their lives in one way or another.
- DaniYah July 11, 2008, 20:37
- Sevodnya,
Why do you want to play that kind of game, insisting on crying "conspiracy!" every time you are faced with some fact? Why can't you just say something else, like "I find it unacceptable for Neil Bush (GWB's brother) and Berezovsky to business partners; I know that such is an unholy alliance." Hmmm?? Would you be breaking a commitment? Is that why you can't do that? If so, it's not a great tragedy.
- Sam July 11, 2008, 12:16
- Sevodnya you make me smile.
No Court in this world will agree to hear a case before seeing the evidence first:)
Therefore it is produced at the time of application.
This is not the court room drama you see on telly with surprise evidence popping up in mid trial:)
It is in the laws of most countries including ours that evidence most not be concealed from the other side.
- Sevodnya_Net July 11, 2008, 00:10
- Trust Rad to find a Princess Diana connection here! Two of the great conspiracy theory potentials united in unholy matrimony.
Don't tell me you own a souvenir plate of "that" wedding do you Rad? That would shatter all my illusions of you :-)
- fred July 10, 2008, 19:57
- sevodnya :
#The evidence does not have to be produced with an extradition request. The evidence is for a court to hear, not for the arbitrary perusal of anyone else.#
you really have a weird meaning of the word "justice" in your head ...
if what you wrote in the quote would be true , that would mean only ONE court of justice would be needed in the whole world ...
unfortunately , USA refused to sign the treaty of International court ...
I really doubt the UK Gov. would see its justice to be overruled by any entity abroad ...
and if so , WHY should i give more credits to UK ,USA or Russia justice system ...
what you refer to is called "argumentation of case" and is primordial in extradition proceeding ...!
definitely a weird sense of equality of justice ...
- Sevodnya_Net July 10, 2008, 19:21
- "The hearing is for the court to make a decision on that evidence."
Precisely: which is why the evidence comes at the time of the extradition hearing and/or trial, not with a request for extradition, for the reasons I stated, or at least I'm assuming those are the reasons: it would make sense.
- DaniYah July 9, 2008, 21:28
- Skeptic:
Your talk says "the UK" and "Russia" are the only possible (leaderships, government systems) that could directly benefit from Litvinenko's liquidation.
I see that you don't even want to talk about benefits to NATO/USA (and their world FP system)! Thanks for the clue!
- David July 9, 2008, 09:06
- Democracy Sceptic :
How do they say - 'too shay' however it is spelt but the pronounciation is there.
You have drawn your conclusion in favour of the English. Now then, where is your evidence to support your finger pointing? All this is based on 'fairy tales' given by those who are 'fear for their lives'.
Coming back to it, if the English are so squeaky clean and 'forever' keeping the agreements, then let's have the trial in Moscow as per agreement between the two countries - or is this too hard to ask?
Before this is answered, consider the trail of the Pan Am bomber over England although in International airspace. Where was he tried and why?
|
