unicorn

Were the subjects of all of these films consenting adults?

Yes, he is! Unfortunately, it's likely that instead of a wonderful life as a gorgeous man (his grandmother apparently would have left him a small fortune), he'll probably spend the rest of his life behind bars.

Not recognized by YOU, personally, as politically motivated (supposedly, although I doubt that even that's true). Everybody, including those judges, recognized that the charges were politically motivated, although that was not their task. Their task was to decide whether the trial deviated from fair international standards for legal proceedings, and the document you produced proved just that: "FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT 1. Decides, unanimously, to join the applications; 2. Declares, unanimously, the complaints under Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention admissible and, by a majority, the remainder of the applications inadmissible; 3. Holds, unanimously, that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;" Or, more specifically: "102. The Court observes that the applicants’ complaints about the manner in which evidence was admitted and assessed and the way the witnesses were examined converge on the same underlying allegation that the criminal proceedings against X and the two applicants had been structured in a way which rendered the proceedings as a whole unfair. They effectively alleged that X’s conviction in separate accelerated proceedings had been instrumental in circumventing important guarantees they would have been entitled to if all three co-accused had been tried together. Likewise, the complaint lodged under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention about the formulae used in the judgment against X and the prejudicial impact which that had on the applicants’ sentence, essentially refers to the same underlying issue. It follows that even though each of the complaints under Article 6 §§ 1, 2 and 3(d) of the Convention would in principle be capable of raising a separate issue under the Convention, in the present case it is appropriate to treat the specific allegations as elements of general fairness. 103. In the present case, the criminal charges against the applicants were based on the same facts as those against X, and the three individuals were accused of conspiring to steal the same assets. It is therefore undeniable that any facts established in the proceedings against X and any legal findings made therein would have been directly relevant to the applicants’ case. In such circumstances, it was essential for safeguards to be in place to ensure that the procedural steps and decisions taken in the proceedings against X would not undermine the fairness of the hearing in the subsequent proceedings against the applicants. This was particularly so, given that the applicants were legally precluded from any form of participation in the disjoined proceedings as they had not been granted any status which would have allowed them to challenge the decisions and findings made therein. 104. The Court has previously highlighted the first and most obvious guarantee to be secured when co-accused are tried in separate sets of proceedings, notably the courts’ obligation to refrain from any statements that may have a prejudicial effect on the pending proceedings, even if they are not binding (see Karaman, cited above, §§ 42-43 and 64-56). If the nature of the charges makes it unavoidable for the involvement of third parties to be established in one set of proceedings and those findings would be consequential on the assessment of the legal responsibility of the third parties tried separately, this should be considered as a serious obstacle for disjoining the cases. Any decision to examine cases with such strong factual ties in separate criminal proceedings must be based on a careful assessment of all countervailing interests, and the co-accused must be given an opportunity to object to the cases being separated. 105. The second requirement for the conduct of concurrent proceedings is that the quality of res judicata would not be attached to facts admitted in a case to which the individuals were not party. The state of the evidence admitted in one case must remain purely relative and its effect strictly limited to that particular set of proceedings. In other words, in the present case no finding of fact made in the proceedings against X could have been admitted in the applicants’ case without full and proper examination at the applicants’ trial. Moreover, the procedure followed by the court in X’s case had been accelerated, and the establishment of facts had been a result of plea-bargaining, not the judicial examination of evidence. Consequently, the facts relied on in that case had been legally assumed rather than proven. As such, they could not have been transposed to another set of criminal proceedings without their admissibility and credibility being scrutinised and validated in those other proceedings, in an adversarial manner, like all other evidence. 106. These two basic requirements have not been complied with in the present case...". It seems you guessed incorrectly that no one would actually look at your reference, and you'd get away with another one of your lies. Your lack of shame is simply astounding. You have absolutely NO capacity for shame for your lies.

Yes, probably on the spectrum. We used to call that Asperger's Syndrome. Just ignore him. No point arguing.

Actually, no, I've haven't seen/heard this in any media reports (TV or radio) in the US. None of the pundits feel democracy is even likely, much less guaranteed. Very few are bold enough to make any predictions. My understanding is that the Turks helped the rebels, so I have some hope that the Turks will have more influence with the new regime than the Russians. However, that's just a hope on my part. I'm certainly not willing to stick my neck out to make a prediction.

At this juncture, the future of Syria is much in the air. I doubt that even the best experts in the USA and RF would feel confident in predicting what will happen. Yes, it will probably be pretty bad for the Kurds, although even that isn't certain. For non-Kurdish and non-Shiite Syrians? Things might not be so bad. It's difficult to imagine that things could be worse than under Assad. I suspect that some country will pay big $$$ for the military bases, be it the Russians, Turks, or someone else. If so, if the rebels don't pocket everything in the way Assad did, that could help the local economy. A friendly alliance with Turkey could end up well (except for the Kurds, of course).

Yes, I think that was the problem.

Interesting, but irrelevant to the question as to whether or not the new government might demand the return of Assad as a precondition to letting the Russian Federation keep its bases. You are the Tsar of deflection and throwing out irrelevant information.

I guess lots of newspapers of the day and magazines have poor taste, per your standards. I'd rather taste good! 😄

I certainly agree that our disdain for the victim shouldn't lead to discarding the consequences for murder. That being said, there were quite a few people celebrating the victim's death before the apparent perpetrator was known. As for Romania, Ceaușescu was one of the most brutal, sociopathic dictators of all, with kiloliters of blood on his hands. I suspect most people, especially Romanians, cheered when they shot him. I suppose that in his case it's debatable as to whether he was murdered or whether the "trial" to which he was subjected was legal (in which case it was merely a legal execution). I can guess what Assad's fate will be if the Syrians ever get a hold of him. I will never forget the words of those who shot Ceaușescu: "It's a pity we can kill him only once!". Given Ceaușescu's 60,000 victims, I remember thinking "Truer words have not been spoken." He was caught with $1 billion trying to flee the country he'd impoverished. While a more formal trial would have been more kosher, there were probably at least 1000 people clapping their hands for every person who shed a tear over his death. But the Germans let Honecker get away scot-free, for reasons I don't fully understand (though he wasn't as awful as Ceaușescu).

Syrians might decide it's payback time: https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/11/16/russia-vetoes-u-n-effort-to-finger-those-responsible-for-syrian-chemical-weapons-attacks/ "November 16, 2017, 5:19 PM Russia on Thursday vetoed a U.S.-drafted resolution to extend the mandate of United Nations chemical weapons inspectors in Syria... The Russian “no” essentially shutters a U.N.-mandated chemical weapons inspection unit created two years ago to hold those who used sarin gas and other toxic agents accountable for their crimes. The team previously found the Syrian government and the Islamic State, or ISIS, had unleashed chemical weapons on civilians in Syria...".

First of all, no one wants Snowden that badly, and even if it were the case, there are no Russian military bases in the US with which to bargain. I suspect that whoever comes to power in Syria will really want Assad dead (Assad did, after all, directly order the deaths and torture of tens of thousands--not the case with Snowden), or at least imprisoned. And the new government will be under no obligation to honor Assad's deals with Putin. Quite the contrary. If anything, the new government may resent the previous support Russia provided for Assad's murderous regime.

Stupid response. Stupid. 😉

I'm sure there were people who loved Hitler, too--and countless other sociopaths who've profited from screwing people over. Stupid response, IMO. 😀👍 Because a person is loved by someone else, one needs to mourn their death, regardless of the circumstances?

Syrians are demanding that Assad be returned to face charges. I suppose they could make the continued leasing of the Russian bases in Syria contingent on his return. I wonder how Putin would react if they make that demand.

I have to agree, on a fundamental level. Although I can't say I mourn the victim, one can't condone murder just because the victim's a nasty person. I must confess that I cheered when Jeffrey Dahmer was murdered, but even in his case it was still murder. Even if a small part of me wishes Luigi could get away with it, my sensible self hopes he doesn't.

No, that's the complete opposite of what I said. Asad deserves prosecution for crimes against humanity for gassing his own citizens. So would anyone who gasses its own citizens (or throws them out of windows in tall buildings, etc.). I'm sorry if you and VP don't find it nice, but if your arguments and postings are abjectly and obviously stupid, as they often are, I will feel free to point this out.

Agree that the US uses nerve gas to kill its own citizens? If you have evidence that this happened, please provide it.

Yes, as do you.

Of these, only those brought in under Operation Paperclip portray any culpability on the US's part (though USSR almost certainly had similar). The fact that some slipped through under false identities with false documents not provided by the US government, is certainly not an inculpation of the US. The fact that it often took a long time to find them certainly not implicate the US. There are plenty of former mob bosses who were also able to evade justice for a long time due to false identities. Again, this is one of your stupid, meaningless comparisons.

When was your last trip to Jupiter? 😄

You're the king of asinine comparisons and ridiculous statistics.