BigOl64 wrote on May 10
th, 2011 at 10:01am:
That is not an absolute right in Australia, in those cases the reverse onius of proof is applied, thankfully not very often.
Which cases are they? Criminal cases? As far as I am aware, the reverse onus of proof is/can only be applied in civil cases.
BigOl64 wrote on May 10
th, 2011 at 10:01am:
Maybe the US executed him under sharia law where no proof is required at all.
Actually, under Shariah law the onus for proof is far stronger then under western laws...but hey, don't let the truth get in the way of your ignorance.
BigOl64 wrote on May 10
th, 2011 at 10:01am:
The world has one less terrorist and a very expensive trial was avoided, a bloody good outcome if you ask me.
Spoken like a true barbarian. Your mother would be proud.
![Cheesy Cheesy](http://www.ozpolitic.com/yabbfiles/Templates/Forum/default/cheesy.gif)
THose 3000 odd western uniformed terrosists killed in Afghanistan and Iraq is a far greater outcome if you ask me. Isn't it great when murderers get a dose of their own medicine???
And when Bush/Blair and those other terrorist leaders are targetted...don't whine like the b(tch you are. The precedent has been set.