It does. There is inherent racism in the system.

First of all, this is not just based on one person’s word. According to the story, Amnesty International says claims like this woman’s are “not uncommon” and “In many cases, death sentences have been issued following proceedings which failed to meet international fair trial standards.” Sounds like a “documented pattern of abuse” to me.

Second, and more importantly: Is a “poorly working” justice system worth $500 billion and 3,300 lives?

You’re the one who needs to get some perspective.

Lets keep it straight. First of all there must be perspective. They have a justice system – even if -if- its working poorly. The woman and her story are in the public arena. Does that not suggest something to you. And whats being said is here is based on one person’s, the person convicted, word. Just one. So she, the convicted, is alleging an unfair trial. Thats a little different than a documented pattern of abuse. And, again, none of it approaches Saddam’s evil. Perspective. Remember OW is drawing major, sweeping conclusions from this: “kangaroo courts” and by inference, the entire war in Iraq. As I say, argue against the war if you wish, but keep it coherent.

No, as a matter of fact I would not want to shack up with 10 prisoners picked at random who say they are innocent. Would you be willing to randomly pick 10 people convicted of murder and personally stick the lethal injection needle in their arm? If you say “yes” you’re either full of s**t or clinically insane. Of course, anyone who argues that someone who speaks out against unfairness in the justice system must be willing to turn their home into an adoption service for prisoners is definitely leaning more toward the latter.

And again this is Iraq which gave us Saddam and all sorts of forms of mass murder and torture and we are here arguing NOW about whether a woman, who, strangely enough, has been able to go public, got a fair trial. Wonder what kind of trial, say, the 100,000 slaughtered Anfal Kurds got.

Made to confess under torture (duress, whatever). Let’s not forget that.

Think a moment (the pain doesn’t last long). OW is making some claim about the overall status of the Iraqi justice system on the basis of one person’s claim of innocence. My point is that almost all felons claim innocence and that a very imperfect system of justice with imperfect courts and imperfect procedures is light years away superior to the mass murdering SOB Saddam and his ‘system of justice.’

Its fine to oppose the war, but at least have a coherent reason for doing so.

What it comes down to is it’s inconvenient for you to have to consider the implications of this case, so you go off on some nonsensical tangent about how “all prisoners say they’re innocent, so why believe this one?”

I’m so sorry that dealing with possible perversion of justice is such hard work for you.

Tell you what. Lets go the nearest prison. We pick 10 cons at random and ask them if they are innocent. Let all the ones who claim they are innocent live with you and your family for a year. You wouldn’t be posting this time next year, amigo.

Here’s another ‘innocent’ one for you. http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,1101920518,00.html?promoid=rss_tc

As opposed to the court system they have now, where suspects are tortured, given a trial, and THEN they are summarily executed. A much better system.

And Dugger, some of those people claiming they are innocent might, you know, really be innocent.

If you oppose the war, try to stick to real issues – not crap that doesn’t pass the BS test.