Canadian Oil Firm sued for Aiding Sudanese Genocide

[Darth Wong]

Counter example 2: Microsoft. Reciently accepted the surrender of the US government at the conlusion of the anti-trust trial.

If anything, corporate immunity is growing rather than declining.

Not every case is going to be a win. And they didn't exactly appoint their best to the case.

Actually, they DID win, and Microsoft was found in breach of the law. They WERE found to be criminals. Unfortunately, one of Shrubby's first acts as president was to order the prosecutors to back off and accept a slap-on-the-wrist agreement with Microsoft.

Frankly, while I must stress that I do not subscribe to goofball conspiracy theories, 9/11 was the best thing that ever happened to George Bush. Take that away, and his presidency would have been one PR disaster after another, with mounting stories of cronyism and corruption and kowtowing to corporate interests. We would still be talking about Enron and corporate accountability and Shrubby's own checkered corporate past right now.

[Illuminatus Primus]

W is a PR disaster, all on his own.

Those who cannot see that shouldn't be allowed to vote.

[XPViking]

Again, there's no doubt that they're guilty of something. A trial is unnecessary and one hell of a lot more than they gave the people that their plant gassed. There's no need for a fair hearing here so handing them over to a kangaroo court shouldn't be a problem.

Now, that is about the dumbest thing I've heard for quite some time. If someone is guilty of "something", you don't hand them over to a kangaroo court in which the outcome is predetermined (i.e. guilty). What is wrong with you?

XPViking

[Hamel]

Give the poor bastards a fair trial

Hopefully justice will be served

[Enlightenment]

Now, that is about the dumbest thing I've heard for quite some time. If someone is guilty of "something", you don't hand them over to a kangaroo court in which the outcome is predetermined (i.e. guilty). What is wrong with you?

I'm talking about corporate board members who were responsible for the operation of a chemical plant that had an accident and killed/maimed a fair number of people. The facts of the event are not in question: they are ultimately responsible for the deaths caused by their plant. The only question is how long they should spend in prison.

[Sea Skimmer]

Now, that is about the dumbest thing I've heard for quite some time. If someone is guilty of "something", you don't hand them over to a kangaroo court in which the outcome is predetermined (i.e. guilty). What is wrong with you?

I'm talking about corporate board members who were responsible for the operation of a chemical plant that had an accident and killed/maimed a fair number of people. The facts of the event are not in question: they are ultimately responsible for the deaths caused by their plant. The only question is how long they should spend in prison.

Which a trial is still required for. There plant caused an accident. While that may not be in doubt, the actually conduct of members would be. If the accident was caused by them putting off repairs or maintenance for example, its different then if it was a freak flaw in a component bought from another manufacture.

[XPViking]

I'm talking about corporate board members who were responsible for the operation of a chemical plant that had an accident and killed/maimed a fair number of people. The facts of the event are not in question: they are ultimately responsible for the deaths caused by their plant. The only question is how long they should spend in prison.

It doesn't matter if the corporate board members or some janitor accidentally flipped a valve (or whatever the circumstances) that caused the deaths. The point is that a fair trial should be held which involves gathering evidence and reaching an impartial verdict. I am under no illusion there may never be a perfect trial, but I am quite puzzled as to why you want people convicted under a kangaroo court.

XPViking