Ignited Mind
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2010
- Messages
- 1,772
- Reaction score
- 0
It is not I who says there is no evidence, it is the Indian media reporting the trial itself. See below.
Speculative.
It might be better if you simply admit you have no rebuttal, rather than going off-topic. It amounts to the same thing.
I understand the judicial system well enough to know that you can't convict people without evidence. The following is from your own media (highlight mine):
In case you don't understand it, let me give you an analogy: This would be if I was caught with drugs and claimed that you had sold me the drugs, and the court convicted you solely on my statement without any corroborating evidence.
To call this Indian trial a kangaroo court would be an insult to kangaroos.
My man, you know the law enough, or so you claim, but you don't know that there's a difference between regular trials such as in cases of drug smuggling and cases pertaining to acts of terrorism, how come?
As of today, in most countries of the world, the testimony of an accused in terrorism is enough to land you in jail, my man.