"Saddam Hussein" "Trial" reduces "defense" "witness" role to minimum

M

MattMarr

Banned
Banned
End Times Reductionism - Terror - "New World Order" "trials" - "trial" of "Saddam Hussein" - role of "defense" "witnesses" reduced to minimum

The "defense" lawyers role was explained before (1). But let's not forget the ultimate reduction of the role of the "defense" "witnesses", just achieved with the "trial" of "Saddam Hussein" - June 5, 2006:

The chief judge in Saddam Hussein's trial said Monday four defense witnesses have been jailed on suspicion of perjury, drawing accusations from defense lawyers that the court was trying to intimidate witnesses.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/05/AR2006060500216.html?sub=AR
The sheep's reaction: " Some judges are disinclined by nature to credit the testimony of a defense witness, but this is beyond belief."

Notes:
(1) New World Order" "trials" and CIA agents playing the defense lawyers - Ramsey Clark
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=53360
 
Proof that Ramsey Clark is a CIA agent? and quoting ones self as proof is the ultimate in low class mental dishonesty, and how about the responses:
Light
Registered User (2,264 posts) 03-19-06, 05:11 AM
report | reply
Mostly just more garbage - direct from a garbage source. Yuck!

Communist Hamster
(5%)Cricetulus griseus leninus (2,150 posts) 03-19-06, 06:05 AM
report | reply
Yes, MattMarr has lost his touch. this just isn't mad enough, not like "Hospitals kill old people" and "the Asian Tsunami saved us from nukular war"
Click to expand...
 
Yay, I was "quoted" as "evidence" against "the" propaganda "of" MattMarr

You used too many quote marks Matt, but from what we can read of you, that's the least of your worries
 
Mattmarr,
I'm tempted to complete my Triad with this here thread.
(as Mentioned in http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=55438)

However I'm going to leave this open, afterall admittedly the forums is a place for discussion, no matter how inane the thread starters content might be. The main reason I closed the other threads down was you opened too many all at once, you can't write a thread with the intension of discussion if you bombard the forums with multiple threads that all contain Semantics with "Statements" not "Discussions".

For instance I could state "The UK Government is Rubbish", however it would be slanderous to state that without applying proof. Currently the only proof to this viscious self circulated rumour is the "third-party" tabloids which do what all good publicists do, and thats sell stories to people that want to read them. Admittedly the one problem with such scheme is that if you throw mud at a wall, some is bound to stick or in other words if enough people start circulating the rumour, people tend to start imagining there must have been proof in the first place.

anyhow, see how this thread progresses before adding more threads for "discussion" (well thats what they are suppose to be for)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top