Famous islamic preacher maulana Delwar Hossain Saydee is died.

[The Ronin]

You clearly have a comprehension problem. At no point I defended Saidee in my post, because I don't know if he has committed the crimes for which he was being accused or even those he may have not been accused of.

I can say the same about you. You can also re-read my previous post cause you're repeating same thing again. You've clearly ignored lots of part and stuck to your own opinion and tell me I am in denial? I told you to mark the part of BAL's position but you didn't.

I gave you appellate division's copy but you kept crying about judge's position. That's your only point and it's not exactly a strong defense against all other factors. If this is not defending then I don't know what else is, Quit advising me about word play trickery when you're doing the exact thing.

You are accusing me for being fixated on my opinion that trial was not fair. Yet you have not produced a single shred of evidence to prove the judicial system was unbiased and independent. Instead you are trying to sell me on Saidee's crime by referring to the crimes he was proven guilty of. I ask you a simple question - if your judicial system is considered biased and politically motivated, if due process has not been followed - where is the credibility of the judgements coming out of such institutions?

Ok, let's say that trial was not fair. Who would hold a fair trial? Certainly not BNP since people were attacked when they protested and demanded justice against Jamat. Unfortunately, ICJ wouldn't hold a fair trial either as it issued political statement in support of Jamat and telling us not to pursue vengeance when they are not even involved in this case?! Also, US wants Jamaat to survive. So expecting a fair trial from them is a foolish thought or cunning attempt to save these scums head.

And screw HRW!! They will issue statement any person, minority that's in opposition, even if it's Hasina against govt. And the defense lawyers were given more time than prosecution and there was not limit in witness. You really expect me to accept HRW's statement seriously when you refuse Nijhum's argument? I can get you any foreign statement with enough money and lobbying.

Were we talking about "BAL was really against Jamat and the true flag bearer of liberation"? BAL-Jamat alliance was only against Ershad that even confirmed by Saidee himself so why are you crying about it? Speaking of persecuting political opponents, what BNP did to BAL during their last rule?

https://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/politics/79437/jamaat-lobbying-against-war-crimes-trials-again

$25m helped, not that much

Seven months after the international crimes tribunal was set up for trying war criminals, Jamaat-e-Islami leader Mir Quasem Ali schemed to foil the trial by playing his trump card: Money.

www.thedailystar.net

Jamaat 'lobbies' at Oxford University

In its campaign against the war crimes trial, Jamaat-e-Islami organised a seminar yesterday at Oxford University, UK under the banner of Bangladesh Crisis Group. John Cammegh, one of the defence lawyers for Jamaat, was the key speaker at the seminar titled "The Bangladesh War Crimes Tribunal and...

www.thedailystar.net

It was you who got triggered and assumed I am defending the cases against him and started with your accusations.

Again you're the one responded to me, I joked about him and was minding my own business. The way you confronted me makes it quite obvious that you're the one who got triggered. I was only sarcastic through my whole response to you. I know what I called you, don't twist my word.

If I wanted to call you razakar I could've simple done that from the start but I was trying to be nice by putting you in the grey line, doesn't matter what everyone knows. Did anyone ask you to waste your time? You can drop the neutral act given how desperate you're to prove that the trial was biased and defending all including Saidee. You can check your own post if you disagree.

 

[leonblack08]

I can say the same about you. You can also re-read my previous post cause you're repeating same thing again. You've clearly ignored lots of part and stuck to your own opinion and tell me I am in denial? I told you to mark the part of BAL's position but you didn't.

I gave you appellate division's copy but you kept crying about judge's position. That's your only point and it's not exactly a strong defense against all other factors. If this is not defending then I don't know what else is, Quit advising me about word play trickery when you're doing the exact thing.



Ok, let's say that trial was not fair. Who would hold a fair trial? Certainly not BNP since people were attacked when they protested and demanded justice against Jamat. Unfortunately, ICJ wouldn't hold a fair trial either as it issued political statement in support of Jamat and telling us not to pursue vengeance when they are not even involved in this case?! Also, US wants Jamaat to survive. So expecting a fair trial from them is a foolish thought or cunning attempt to save these scums head.

And screw HRW!! They will issue statement any person, minority that's in opposition, even if it's Hasina against govt. And the defense lawyers were given more time than prosecution and there was not limit in witness. You really expect me to accept HRW's statement seriously when you refuse Nijhum's argument? I can get you any foreign statement with enough money and lobbying.

Were we talking about "BAL was really against Jamat and the true flag bearer of liberation"? BAL-Jamat alliance was only against Ershad that even confirmed by Saidee himself so why are you crying about it? Speaking of persecuting political opponents, what BNP did to BAL during their last rule?

https://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/politics/79437/jamaat-lobbying-against-war-crimes-trials-again

$25m helped, not that much

Seven months after the international crimes tribunal was set up for trying war criminals, Jamaat-e-Islami leader Mir Quasem Ali schemed to foil the trial by playing his trump card: Money.

www.thedailystar.net

Jamaat 'lobbies' at Oxford University

In its campaign against the war crimes trial, Jamaat-e-Islami organised a seminar yesterday at Oxford University, UK under the banner of Bangladesh Crisis Group. John Cammegh, one of the defence lawyers for Jamaat, was the key speaker at the seminar titled "The Bangladesh War Crimes Tribunal and...

www.thedailystar.net

Again you're the one responded to me, I joked about him and was minding my own business. The way you confronted me makes it quite obvious that you're the one who got triggered. I was only sarcastic through my whole response to you. I know what I called you, don't twist my word.

If I wanted to call you razakar I could've simple done that from the start but I was trying to be nice by putting you in the grey line, doesn't matter what everyone knows. Did anyone ask you to waste your time? You can drop the neutral act given how desperate you're to prove that the trial was biased and defending all including Saidee. You can check your own post if you disagree.

Yes, disregard HRW and any independent foreign source, but we must consider the words of a Hindutva agent and a known Islamophobe Nijhoom Mazumdar as Gospel. That right there ends the discussion.

The discussion had always been on the fairness of the trial in ICT and you have provided absolutely no independent and unbiased proof to support your position that the trial was fair and it followed the due process.

I am not arguing on the fairness of BNPs trials, so cut back on your what aboutism. I am not interested.

You have pieced together and threw out some links from the daily star (one of the article on Oxford is just a opinion piece without any investigation fyi). Daily Star's credibility is frequently questioned for being a mouth piece for India in Bangladesh. Let's disregard the allegations, and opinions and consider the news they reported is true. All it shows is they hired lobbyists to obtain support from the Western governments. If this practice is illegal, it should be tried on a separate trial. It has no bearing on this trial regarding war crimes.

The articles you shared still does not address the grave concerns observed during the course of the trial clearly indicating bias, as due process was not followed. When you don't have due process in place, when a trial is unfair, it puts a question on every single aspect of the trial. Regardless of how compelling the evidence is.

The premise of the existence of a fair trial must be established first. The argument on evidence comes later. And that simple thing is hard for people like you to understand.

These are facts from the trial process. No inference and no one's opinion. Pure facts. That only indicates one thing - these trials were not fair.

"....As in other cases before the ICT, the defense was arbitrarily limited in its ability to submit evidence, including witnesses and documents. Defense lawyers were allowed to produce only three witnesses to counter 14 separate charges. Lawyers were threatened orally with a 50 lakh taka (approximately US$64,000) fine when they asked the judges to review their order limiting witnesses. The court denied the defense the opportunity to challenge the credibility of prosecution witnesses by rejecting witnesses’ earlier statements that were inconsistent with their trial testimony. The refusal to allow the accused to challenge the credibility of prosecution witnesses has been a hallmark of trials before the ICT."

Bangladesh: War Crimes Verdict Based on Flawed Trial

(New York) – Bangladeshi authorities should immediately set aside the death penalty against Mir Qasem Ali, a senior member of the executive committee of opposition party Jamaat-e-Islaami, and order a new trial that meets international fair trial standards, Human Rights Watch said today.

www.hrw.org

As for calling me Razakar - You have been insinuating it from the very beginning. You got triggered and started mocking me right from very first reply. No one's twisting your words, you can re-read your own post.

 

[Bilal9]

Yes, disregard HRW and any independent foreign source, but we must consider the words of a Hindutva agent and a known Islamophobe Nijhoom Mazumdar as Gospel. That right there ends the discussion.

The discussion had always been on the fairness of the trial in ICT and you have provided absolutely no independent and unbiased proof to support your position that the trial was fair and it followed the due process.

I am not arguing on the fairness of BNPs trials, so cut back on your what aboutism. I am not interested.

You have pieced together and threw out some links from the daily star (one of the article on Oxford is just a opinion piece without any investigation fyi). Daily Star's credibility is frequently questioned for being a mouth piece for India in Bangladesh. Let's disregard the allegations, and opinions and consider the news they reported is true. All it shows is they hired lobbyists to obtain support from the Western governments. If this practice is illegal, it should be tried on a separate trial. It has no bearing on this trial regarding war crimes.

The articles you shared still does not address the grave concerns observed during the course of the trial clearly indicating bias, as due process was not followed. When you don't have due process in place, when a trial is unfair, it puts a question on every single aspect of the trial. Regardless of how compelling the evidence is.

The premise of the existence of a fair trial must be established first. The argument on evidence comes later. And that simple thing is hard for people like you to understand.

These are facts from the trial process. No inference and no one's opinion. Pure facts. That only indicates one thing - these trials were not fair.

"....As in other cases before the ICT, the defense was arbitrarily limited in its ability to submit evidence, including witnesses and documents. Defense lawyers were allowed to produce only three witnesses to counter 14 separate charges. Lawyers were threatened orally with a 50 lakh taka (approximately US$64,000) fine when they asked the judges to review their order limiting witnesses. The court denied the defense the opportunity to challenge the credibility of prosecution witnesses by rejecting witnesses’ earlier statements that were inconsistent with their trial testimony. The refusal to allow the accused to challenge the credibility of prosecution witnesses has been a hallmark of trials before the ICT."

Bangladesh: War Crimes Verdict Based on Flawed Trial

(New York) – Bangladeshi authorities should immediately set aside the death penalty against Mir Qasem Ali, a senior member of the executive committee of opposition party Jamaat-e-Islaami, and order a new trial that meets international fair trial standards, Human Rights Watch said today.

www.hrw.org

As for calling me Razakar - You have been insinuating it from the very beginning. You got triggered and started mocking me right from very first reply. No one's twisting your words, you can re-read your own post.

Thanks for your studied response.

I don't waste time responding to these people with detailed responses anymore (which I am capable of) - I doubt he has the brain cells needed to digest your very informed and erudite post.

He has called me Razakar too - just for the record.

These Hindutva-shill bandors have a one-track mind.

Any one who is not a blinded shameless Hindutva-proponent "Akhand bharat supporter" like them is a "Razakar" i.e. "Tui Razakar".

I don't worry about these idiots - their days are numbered in Bangladesh in any case.

 

[The Ronin]

Yes, disregard HRW and any independent foreign source, but we must consider the words of a Hindutva agent and a known Islamophobe Nijhoom Mazumdar as Gospel. That right there ends the discussion.

The discussion had always been on the fairness of the trial in ICT and you have provided absolutely no independent and unbiased proof to support your position that the trial was fair and it followed the due process.

Let's disregard the allegations, and opinions and consider the news they reported is true. All it shows is they hired lobbyists to obtain support from the Western governments. If this practice is illegal, it should be tried on a separate trial. It has no bearing on this trial regarding war crimes.

Did your brain fail to process that HRW and your "independent foreign" source can be bought with lobbying, which they DID when they were not even involved in any case? Yes, ignore all the documents, points and arguments but consider HRW's report or "independent foreign" source as Gospel.

Daily Star's credibility is frequently questioned for being a mouth piece for India in Bangladesh.

WOOOOW!! Daily Star is now a mouth piece for India?! I thought it's a mouth piece for US/West. Since you're don't have any complaint about Dhaka Tribune's report here's some parts from it. Remind you before that it's not only about obtaining support from the Western governments.

"In March and April this year, two pro-Jamaat organisations based in the USA hired two lobbyist firms to work for engaging the US Congress in condemning the actions of the war crimes tribunal and raise public awareness among the US public."

"The document reads that Cassidy will “engage members of the US Congress to support a congressional resolution condemning the actions of the ICT [International Crimes Tribunal] and to use best efforts to include anti-ICT legislative language”

"Documents show that Grieboski is tasked with reaching and influencing the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, the department of state and the US Congress against the war crimes trials."

"An extension of the contract paper reads that Cassidy’s initiatives “are intended to cooperate with international partners to pressure the government of Bangladesh to suspend ICT proceedings.”

আহারে HRW!! আহারে "independent foreign" source!!

As for calling me Razakar - You have been insinuating it from the very beginning.

পাগলের সুখ মনে মনে। "I can rush to confront if someone trolls a war criminal, I desperately keep trying to prove the all war criminals trial biased but if someone slightly involve me with rajakars I get offended and that person is the one who got triggered."

 

[leonblack08]

Did your brain fail to process that HRW and your "independent foreign" source can be bought with lobbying, which they DID when they were not even involved in any case? Yes, ignore all the documents, points and arguments but consider HRW's report or "independent foreign" source as Gospel.



WOOOOW!! Daily Star is now a mouth piece for India?! I thought it's a mouth piece for US/West. Since you're don't have any complaint about Dhaka Tribune's report here's some parts from it. Remind you before that it's not only about obtaining support from the Western governments.

"In March and April this year, two pro-Jamaat organisations based in the USA hired two lobbyist firms to work for engaging the US Congress in condemning the actions of the war crimes tribunal and raise public awareness among the US public."

"The document reads that Cassidy will “engage members of the US Congress to support a congressional resolution condemning the actions of the ICT [International Crimes Tribunal] and to use best efforts to include anti-ICT legislative language”

"Documents show that Grieboski is tasked with reaching and influencing the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, the department of state and the US Congress against the war crimes trials."

"An extension of the contract paper reads that Cassidy’s initiatives “are intended to cooperate with international partners to pressure the government of Bangladesh to suspend ICT proceedings.”

আহারে HRW!! আহারে "independent foreign" source!!



পাগলের সুখ মনে মনে। "I can rush to confront if someone trolls a war criminal, I desperately keep trying to prove the all war criminals trial biased but if someone slightly involve me with rajakars I get offended and that person is the one who got triggered."

So now you are agreeing you called me Razakar? Why did you so vehemently deny it earlier when I called you out? Don't bother answering. It's typical of Hindutva Shahbaghis to flip flop. I get it.

Still waiting for a proof to show HRW was bought by Jamaat, all I have is theories. Opinions can be bought, but facts cannot. I presented you facts of the unfair handicap placed on defence counsel. Not HRWs opinion. Try getting that through your brain first.

Not surprised with your response though. Didn't have much expectations any way. After all, you consider Hindutva agent Nijhoom Mazumdar to be a credible neutral source.

 

[The Ronin]

"I can rush to confront if someone trolls a war criminal, I desperately keep trying to prove the all war criminals trial biased but if someone slightly involve me with rajakars I get offended and that person is the one who got triggered."

So now you are agreeing you called me Razakar? Why did you so vehemently deny it earlier when I called you out? Don't bother answering. It's typical of Hindutva Shahbaghis to flip flop. I get it.

Work on your own comprehension skill first before talking about others. Like I said পাগলের সুখ মনে মনে।

Still waiting for a proof to show HRW was bought by Jamaat, all I have is theories. Opinions can be bought, but facts cannot. I presented you facts of the unfair handicap placed on defence counsel. Not HRWs opinion. Try getting that through your brain first.

Your HOLY Amnesty and HRW's report is about Mir Qasem Ali. Did your brain miss that part?

After all, you consider Hindutva agent Nijhoom Mazumdar to be a credible neutral source.

When? I said ok when you when you said he is BAL supporter. You keep calling me and others Hindutva, Shahbaghis, Leaguer etc but you keep whining about calling you rajakar sympathizer? Yet you claim it doesn't matter what people think of you? What a fucking hypocrite and crybaby.

 

[leonblack08]

Work on your own comprehension skill first before talking about others. Like I said পাগলের সুখ মনে মনে।



Your HOLY Amnesty and HRW's report is about Mir Qasem Ali. Did your brain miss that part?



When? I said ok when you when you said he is BAL supporter. You keep calling me and others Hindutva, Shahbaghis, Leaguer etc but you keep whining about calling you rajakar sympathizer? Yet you claim it doesn't matter what people think of you? What a fucking hypocrite and crybaby.

Read, understand the difference between opinion and fact, and then cry more from shame.

"....As in other cases before the ICT, the defense was arbitrarily limited in its ability to submit evidence, including witnesses and documents. Defense lawyers were allowed to produce only three witnesses to counter 14 separate charges. Lawyers were threatened orally with a 50 lakh taka (approximately US$64,000) fine when they asked the judges to review their order limiting witnesses. The court denied the defense the opportunity to challenge the credibility of prosecution witnesses by rejecting witnesses’ earlier statements that were inconsistent with their trial testimony. The refusal to allow the accused to challenge the credibility of prosecution witnesses has been a hallmark of trials before the ICT."

Bangladesh: War Crimes Verdict Based on Flawed Trial

(New York) – Bangladeshi authorities should immediately set aside the death penalty against Mir Qasem Ali, a senior member of the executive committee of opposition party Jamaat-e-Islaami, and order a new trial that meets international fair trial standards, Human Rights Watch said today.

www.hrw.org

Bangladeshi education system must have really gone down the gutter if someone can't comprehend the simple difference between opinion and fact.

 

[The Ronin]

Yeah, keep ignoring, dodging, diverting and crying to live in your bubble. You first provided tribunal's copy and said judges taken BAL's position. I provided appellate division's copy and asked you several times to show me judges bias but you ignored. Nijhum's argument is not ok but HRW is ok. Against my other documents and argument your only defenses are judges bias and HRW's report.

Since you diverted from Saidee's case to Qasem Ali's in attempt to prove all criminals trials was biased and suddenly started loving and crying about fact, here are some facts for you.

I will focus on the 11th charge where Qasem Ali got death sentence, which was the only case he asked to review in SC.

First, I find no other credible sources which also reported about court threatening to fine, refusing more witnesses or challenging prosecution witnesses. HRW's report doesn't say anything about the 11th charge as it says "As in other cases". Since you have no problem with HRW's report on SC, I hope you don't cry again.

Defense lawyers brought three witnesses. Note that, there was no argument about including more witnesses or evidences.

Number 2 and 3 witnesses don't even know about existence of Shanti Bahini, Golam Azam, Nizami, Muslim League, Jamat's involvement in 71, Islami Chatra Sangha etc during cross examination. 3rd witness knew him since 1983 but he came to testify cause Qasem Ali's son requested him. Number 1, his sister who was alibi defence, didn't even know where his brother was before November. All were proven partisan and biased witnesses.

Defence didn't challenge/dispute prosecution witnesses for their testimonies or facts. They didn't even put counter submission anywhere. Most of them were direct witnesses/victims. Defence also didn't dispute Shafiul Alam's book and accepted as correct and credible document. Defence only tried to prove that he was not connected to them or tortured them.

Now, why and how he got the death sentence. Appellate division:-

"The accused appellant’s act attracts sub-section (2) of section 4 of Act, 1973. So far as it relates to ‘Any commander.......participates in the commission of any of the crimes specified in section 3.....’ Section 4(2) of the Act, 1973 reads thus: “Any commander or superior officer who orders, permits, acquiesces or participates in the commission of any of the crimes specified in section 3 or is connected with any plans and activities involving the commission of such crimes or who fails or omits to discharge his duty to maintain discipline, or to control or supervise the actions of the persons under his command or his subordinates, whereby such persons or subordinates or any of them commit any such crimes, or who fails to take necessary measures to prevent the commission of such crimes, is guilty of such crimes.”

Review:-

"This court noticed the uncontroverted statements of P.Ws.2, 3, 16, 17 and 20 regarding the role of the petitioner during the relevant time and held that these uncontroverted evidence sufficiently proved beyond doubt that the accused raised Al-Badar force in Chittagong; that the Dalim Hotel was taken control by the Al-Badar force and used as torture center of Al-Badar force; that the accused played the role of commander of the force; that all decisions, planning, strategy, raid, arrest, mode of torture and concealment of dead bodies after the killing were taken at Dalim Hotel by the accused alone........"

"Learned counsel has not made any submission regarding the findings arrived at on the question of uncontroverted evidence of the above witnesses. In the absence of denial of positive statements made on oath by the witnesses, the court was left with no option but to accept them as admitted facts by the defence............"

"The Court is required to see whether there was any failure of justice. We were satisfied on sifting the evidence particularly the cross-examination of the witnesses and the statements of the defence witnesses that there had occasioned no failure of justice in finding the petitioner guilty as the principal offender." (What was that in HRW? )

He could've gotten death sentence in 12th charge but the judge gave him the benefit of doubt and discharged it. But hey, you can only cry about judges bias and HRW's report.

https://supremecourt.gov.bd/translation/process.php?file=824674_Crl_A_No_144_2014_final.pdf

http://www.supremecourt.gov.bd/resources/documents/983762_Criminal_Review_Petition_58_2016.pdf

I am not arguing on the fairness of BNPs trials, so cut back on your what aboutism. I am not interested.

What aboutism? Since you've problem with BAL's trial tell us who would hold fair trial when no one did in 42 years.

 

[leonblack08]

Yeah, keep ignoring, dodging, diverting and crying to live in your bubble. You first provided tribunal's copy and said judges taken BAL's position. I provided appellate division's copy and asked you several times to show me judges bias but you ignored. Nijhum's argument is not ok but HRW is ok. Against my other documents and argument your only defenses are judges bias and HRW's report.

Since you diverted from Saidee's case to Qasem Ali's in attempt to prove all criminals trials was biased and suddenly started loving and crying about fact, here are some facts for you.

I will focus on the 11th charge where Qasem Ali got death sentence, which was the only case he asked to review in SC.

First, I find no other credible sources which also reported about court threatening to fine, refusing more witnesses or challenging prosecution witnesses. HRW's report doesn't say anything about the 11th charge as it says "As in other cases". Since you have no problem with HRW's report on SC, I hope you don't cry again.

Defense lawyers brought three witnesses. Note that, there was no argument about including more witnesses or evidences.

Number 2 and 3 witnesses don't even know about existence of Shanti Bahini, Golam Azam, Nizami, Muslim League, Jamat's involvement in 71, Islami Chatra Sangha etc during cross examination. 3rd witness knew him since 1983 but he came to testify cause Qasem Ali's son requested him. Number 1, his sister who was alibi defence, didn't even know where his brother was before November. All were proven partisan and biased witnesses.

Defence didn't challenge/dispute prosecution witnesses for their testimonies or facts. They didn't even put counter submission anywhere. Most of them were direct witnesses/victims. Defence also didn't dispute Shafiul Alam's book and accepted as correct and credible document. Defence only tried to prove that he was not connected to them or tortured them.

Now, why and how he got the death sentence. Appellate division:-

"The accused appellant’s act attracts sub-section (2) of section 4 of Act, 1973. So far as it relates to ‘Any commander.......participates in the commission of any of the crimes specified in section 3.....’ Section 4(2) of the Act, 1973 reads thus: “Any commander or superior officer who orders, permits, acquiesces or participates in the commission of any of the crimes specified in section 3 or is connected with any plans and activities involving the commission of such crimes or who fails or omits to discharge his duty to maintain discipline, or to control or supervise the actions of the persons under his command or his subordinates, whereby such persons or subordinates or any of them commit any such crimes, or who fails to take necessary measures to prevent the commission of such crimes, is guilty of such crimes.”

Review:-

"This court noticed the uncontroverted statements of P.Ws.2, 3, 16, 17 and 20 regarding the role of the petitioner during the relevant time and held that these uncontroverted evidence sufficiently proved beyond doubt that the accused raised Al-Badar force in Chittagong; that the Dalim Hotel was taken control by the Al-Badar force and used as torture center of Al-Badar force; that the accused played the role of commander of the force; that all decisions, planning, strategy, raid, arrest, mode of torture and concealment of dead bodies after the killing were taken at Dalim Hotel by the accused alone........"

"Learned counsel has not made any submission regarding the findings arrived at on the question of uncontroverted evidence of the above witnesses. In the absence of denial of positive statements made on oath by the witnesses, the court was left with no option but to accept them as admitted facts by the defence............"

"The Court is required to see whether there was any failure of justice. We were satisfied on sifting the evidence particularly the cross-examination of the witnesses and the statements of the defence witnesses that there had occasioned no failure of justice in finding the petitioner guilty as the principal offender." (What was that in HRW? )

He could've gotten death sentence in 12th charge but the judge gave him the benefit of doubt and discharged it. But hey, you can only cry about judges bias and HRW's report.

https://supremecourt.gov.bd/translation/process.php?file=824674_Crl_A_No_144_2014_final.pdf

http://www.supremecourt.gov.bd/resources/documents/983762_Criminal_Review_Petition_58_2016.pdf

What aboutism? Since you've problem with BAL's trial tell us who would hold fair trial when no one did in 42 years.

This is getting beyond hilarious now . You even started making things up now. When did I divert from Saidee's case to Qasim's case? That's a news to me! Show me exactly where I argued Qasim's innocence?

I used that extract from HRW article from Qasim trial to present general facts about the trial process and pose a very simple question for you. Why did the ICT courts have double standards in place for defence counsels in these ICT trials? Instead of answering my question, you shifted the goal post and went into a different tangent.

"As in other cases before the ICT, the defense was arbitrarily limited in its ability to submit evidence, including witnesses and documents. Defense lawyers were allowed to produce only three witnesses to counter 14 separate charges. Lawyers were threatened orally with a 50 lakh taka (approximately US$64,000) fine when they asked the judges to review their order limiting witnesses. The court denied the defense the opportunity to challenge the credibility of prosecution witnesses by rejecting witnesses’ earlier statements that were inconsistent with their trial testimony. The refusal to allow the accused to challenge the credibility of prosecution witnesses has been a hallmark of trials before the ICT."

Bangladesh: War Crimes Verdict Based on Flawed Trial

(New York) – Bangladeshi authorities should immediately set aside the death penalty against Mir Qasem Ali, a senior member of the executive committee of opposition party Jamaat-e-Islaami, and order a new trial that meets international fair trial standards, Human Rights Watch said today.

www.hrw.org

And you accuse me of dodging and diverting

I have stated this many times already, but I will do it one more time and break it down for you as simply as possible.

When your trial process is not following the due process and it gives unfair advantage to the prosecutors, it does not matter how strong the evidence there is against the accused. The lack of due process casts light on any evidence brought forth under that unfair justice system. The existence of bias in the justice system casts light on the quality of the evidence itself. I don't even need to argue with you to disprove the credibility of witnesses presented in such a biased trial.

But since you presented eye witness accounts multiple times, let's put some light on it too. In Saidee's case, one of the witness (Sukhranjan Bali) retracted their statement and in fact wanted testify in favour of Sayeedi attesting Sayeedi was not involved in killing his brother in 1971. This poor guy was later hounded by intelligence agencies and he had to flee to India. He was later found in India and put in Indian jail for 5 years.

To conclude - Were there individuals who were genuinely guilty of the war crimes and was rightly convicted through this process? Absolutely possible that some or even all of the accused were guilty and were rightfully charged.

But when you have a trial that does not follow the due process, it puts a question mark on the credibility of every single convictions under that justice system.

When you have a case of witness intimidation as with the case of Sukhranjan Bali coming out in the open, it puts a question mark on the credibility of all the other evidences irrespective of how strong or true they were. Given the track record of Bangladeshi security apparatus, it is not inconceivable that more witness tampering did not happen.

I have broken it down for you to the simplest terms. If you still don't understand this simple argument, then you are intentionally choosing not to because of your political loyalty.

 

[The Ronin]

"Convictions can only be upheld when there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, yet in this case there are grave doubts about the evidence after the court so strongly criticized the prosecution,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “In death penalty cases the authorities must adhere to the highest standards.”

When did I divert from Saidee's case to Qasim's case?

Show me exactly where I argued Qasim's innocence?

Why did the ICT courts have double standards in place for defence counsels in these ICT trials?

Yes, it's certainly getting beyond hilarious. Looks like you forgot that you quoted HRW's report/remark on Qasim's penalty and complaints. You keep showing me this one single report to prove that all trials including Saidee's case was biased using only two points from Qasim's case which is certainly not enough to do so. Where else did you see double standards?

Furthermore, the report doesn't elaborate which charges the defence wasn't allowed to present more evidence and witnesses and challenge prosecution witnesses. This is also odd that there was this type of complain only about this case when no one else made such complaint and allowed to present their evidence and witnesses.

The report is also missing more details about the 50 lakh fine. It doesn't explain for which case the defence wasn't allowed to challenge the credibility of prosecution witnesses. Cause there were 10 proven charges. To find more details I tried to search more but as I already mentioned before in previous post, I found no other credible sources which also reported about court threatening to fine, refusing more witnesses or challenging prosecution witnesses.

Nothing even in appeal or review. This is why question arise about HRW's report's credibility. Then there is also report about Qasim's lobbying, You can show me if you find anything but you already kept quiet when I mentioned this and you still fail to mark/show me judges parroting official BAL position which you mentioned in start. Still saying you're not dodging and diverting?

This poor guy was later hounded by intelligence agencies and he had to flee to India. He was later found in India and put in Indian jail for 5 years.

Ah!! Jamat's favorite boy Sukhranjan Bali. Jamat did lots of drama about him. Why don't you share the real and whole story? When he disappeared, Jamat's lawyer claimed that govt abducted but his FIR doesn't say he was abducted or forced to flee.

He didn't mentioned it anywhere and he confessed to his guilt for entering the country illegally on his own. Bali tried to flee when BSF tried to apprehend him and he told them he came to India to meet his brother Poritosh Bali.

And he was jailed for 105 days not 5 years and he already served his time when the case was running. Then after few months he suddenly appeared in court out of nowhere with Jamat lawyers on the day for argument when testimony is already over and defence didn't even list him on witness list. So where's the evidence behind abduction or intelligence agencies hounding him? Nice try but this guy lost all credibility and became controversial thanks to Jamat.

Since you brought Sukhranjan's case and kept talking about the trial's credibility, did you know Saidee's son offered another prosecution witness Gouranga Saha a bag of cash and asked him to go to India? Prosecution's 8th witness against Saidee was hacked to death in his house. So how are we sure Sukhranjan wasn't intimidated by Jamat?

From the start, Jamat did lots of propaganda, lobbying, bribing, attacking prosecution's witnesses, online activities against this trial to make it controversial. They even stole verdict's draft. So it's not surprising that there are some people still talk against this trial. They made a lot of complaints/drama but all arguments, evidences go against them so far.

সাক্ষীদের দুঃসহ 'বন্দিজীবন' _ প্রথম আলো.html

'নিà¦à§à¦¾à¦à¦' সাà¦à§à¦·à§ সà§à¦à¦°à¦à§à¦à¦¨ বালির নথিপতà§à¦°à§ à¦à¦ªà¦¹à¦°à¦£à§à¦° à¦à¦¥à¦¾ নà§à¦ - BBC Bangla - à¦à¦¬à¦°

বাà¦à¦²à¦¾à¦¦à§à¦¶à§ যà§à¦¦à§à¦§à¦¾à¦ªà¦°à¦¾à¦§à§à¦° দাà§à§ ফাà¦à¦¸à¦¿à¦° দনà§à¦¡ পà§à¦°à¦¾à¦ªà§à¦¤ à¦à¦¾à¦®à¦¾à§à¦¾à¦¤ নà§à¦¤à¦¾ দà§à¦²à¦¾à¦à§à¦¾à¦° হà§à¦¾à¦¸à§à¦¨ সাà¦à¦¦à§à¦° মামলার à¦à¦¨à§à¦¯à¦¤à¦® সাà¦à§à¦·à§ সà§à¦à¦°à¦à§à¦à¦¨ বালির...

www.bbc.com

সà§à¦à¦°à¦à§à¦à¦¨ বালির ফিরতৠনা à¦à¦¾à¦à¦¯à¦¼à¦¾à¦° à¦à¦¬à§à¦¦à¦¨ à¦à¦¾à¦°à¦¿à¦ - BBC News বাà¦à¦²à¦¾

বাà¦à¦²à¦¾à¦¦à§à¦¶à§à¦° মানবতাবিরà§à¦§à§ à¦à¦ªà¦°à¦¾à¦§ মামলায় দনà§à¦¡à¦ªà§à¦°à¦¾à¦ªà§à¦¤ দà§à¦²à¦¾à¦à¦¯à¦¼à¦¾à¦° হà§à¦¸à¦¾à¦à¦¨ সাà¦à¦¦à§à¦° মামলার à¦à§à¦°à§à¦¤à§à¦¬à¦ªà§à¦°à§à¦£ সাà¦à§à¦·à§ সà§à¦à¦°à¦à§à¦à¦¨ বালিà¦à§...

www.bbc.com

Bali was not forced to flee

Sukhranjan Indian documents do not support the reported personal statement of Shukharanjan Bali from Kolkata jail that he was pushed into Indian territory by Bangladeshi security agencies, reports BBC Bangla Service. Examining documents of Indian court verdict and records of India's Border...

www.thedailystar.net

 

[The Ronin]

Can post long reply and our reaction scores aren't back yet.

View attachment 944203

Yes, it's certainly getting beyond hilarious. Looks like you forgot that you quoted HRW's report/remark on Qasim's penalty and complaints. You keep showing me this one single report to prove that all trials including Saidee's case was biased using only two points from Qasim's case which is certainly not enough to do so. Where else did you see double standards?

Furthermore, the report doesn't elaborate which charges the defence wasn't allowed to present more evidence and witnesses and challenge prosecution witnesses. This is also odd that there was this type of complain only about this case when no one else made such complaint and allowed to present their evidence and witnesses.

The report is also missing more details about the 50 lakh fine. It doesn't explain for which case the defence wasn't allowed to challenge the credibility of prosecution witnesses. Cause there were 10 proven charges. To find more details I tried to search more but as I already mentioned before in previous post, I found no other credible sources which also reported about court threatening to fine, refusing more witnesses or challenging prosecution witnesses.

Nothing even in appeal or review. This is why question arise about HRW's report's credibility. Then there is also report about Qasim's lobbying, You can show me if you find anything but you already kept quiet when I mentioned this and you still fail to mark/show me judges parroting official BAL position which you mentioned in start. Still saying you're not dodging and diverting?



Ah!! Jamat's favorite boy Sukhranjan Bali. Jamat did lots of drama about him. Why don't you share the real and whole story? When he disappeared, Jamat's lawyer claimed that govt abducted but his FIR doesn't say he was abducted or forced to flee.

He didn't mentioned it anywhere and he confessed to his guilt for entering the country illegally on his own. Bali tried to flee when BSF tried to apprehend him and he told them he came to India to meet his brother Poritosh Bali.

And he was jailed for 105 days not 5 years and he already served his time when the case was running. Then after few months he suddenly appeared in court out of nowhere with Jamat lawyers on the day for argument when testimony is already over and defence didn't even list him on witness list. So where's trust behind abduction or intelligence agencies hounding him? Nice try but this guy lost all credibility and became controversial thanks to Jamat.

Since you brought Sukhranjan's case and keep talking about the trial's credibility, did you know Saidee's son offered another prosecution witness Gouranga Saha a bag of cash and asked him to go to India? Prosecution's 8th witness against Saidee was hacked to death in his house. So how are we sure Sukhranjan wasn't intimidated by Jamat?

From the start, Jamat did lots of propaganda, lobbying, bribing, attacking prosecution's witnesses, online activities against this trial to make it controversial. They even stole verdict's draft. So it's not surprising that there are some people still talk against this trial. They made a lot of complaints/drama but all arguments, evidences go against them so far.

'নিà¦à§à¦¾à¦à¦' সাà¦à§à¦·à§ সà§à¦à¦°à¦à§à¦à¦¨ বালির নথিপতà§à¦°à§ à¦à¦ªà¦¹à¦°à¦£à§à¦° à¦à¦¥à¦¾ নà§à¦ - BBC Bangla - à¦à¦¬à¦°

বাà¦à¦²à¦¾à¦¦à§à¦¶à§ যà§à¦¦à§à¦§à¦¾à¦ªà¦°à¦¾à¦§à§à¦° দাà§à§ ফাà¦à¦¸à¦¿à¦° দনà§à¦¡ পà§à¦°à¦¾à¦ªà§à¦¤ à¦à¦¾à¦®à¦¾à§à¦¾à¦¤ নà§à¦¤à¦¾ দà§à¦²à¦¾à¦à§à¦¾à¦° হà§à¦¾à¦¸à§à¦¨ সাà¦à¦¦à§à¦° মামলার à¦à¦¨à§à¦¯à¦¤à¦® সাà¦à§à¦·à§ সà§à¦à¦°à¦à§à¦à¦¨ বালির...

www.bbc.com

সà§à¦à¦°à¦à§à¦à¦¨ বালির ফিরতৠনা à¦à¦¾à¦à¦¯à¦¼à¦¾à¦° à¦à¦¬à§à¦¦à¦¨ à¦à¦¾à¦°à¦¿à¦ - BBC News বাà¦à¦²à¦¾

বাà¦à¦²à¦¾à¦¦à§à¦¶à§à¦° মানবতাবিরà§à¦§à§ à¦à¦ªà¦°à¦¾à¦§ মামলায় দনà§à¦¡à¦ªà§à¦°à¦¾à¦ªà§à¦¤ দà§à¦²à¦¾à¦à¦¯à¦¼à¦¾à¦° হà§à¦¸à¦¾à¦à¦¨ সাà¦à¦¦à§à¦° মামলার à¦à§à¦°à§à¦¤à§à¦¬à¦ªà§à¦°à§à¦£ সাà¦à§à¦·à§ সà§à¦à¦°à¦à§à¦à¦¨ বালিà¦à§...

www.bbc.com

Bali was not forced to flee

Sukhranjan Indian documents do not support the reported personal statement of Shukharanjan Bali from Kolkata jail that he was pushed into Indian territory by Bangladeshi security agencies, reports BBC Bangla Service. Examining documents of Indian court verdict and records of India's Border...

www.thedailystar.net

@rdn this is the third thread where this error happened. Couldn't post this whole reply but then I had to post it separately and found that the error doesn't happen if I remove one news link. It also doesn't work if I try to post the reply in other thread like Chill Bangladesh. Is there a limit for characters and link?

 

[Al-zakir]

إِنَّا ِلِلَّٰهِ وَإِنَّا إِلَيْهِ رَاجِعُونَ

May Allah accept him among the beheshti.