[flagged]
The video in question is troubling and should be investigated, but it does not clearly show rape, so I think that for someone to say "this shows rape" and "no matter what evidence comes out in trial I can dismiss that because it's a trial in Israel" is medieval peasant thinking.
That the video doesn't show rape and/or was doctored are also contested allegations, so your pearl clutching about double standards rings extremely hollow.
>There's been no trial and the footage, which was doctored, does not clearly show this (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45806468)
>I also pointed out that the video doesn't clearly support the allegation, and the video has been doctored. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45806559)
There is no assertion in these sentences that treats the video being doctored and not showing a rape as contested allegations that need to be established as fact over the course of a trial. Maybe you've changed your mind in the past couple of hours, though.
"Right, because over the course of the past 400 years, those institutions have always worked everywhere and no one's ever been at the margins of the justice system, been arrested arbitrarily or ignored by the police, had to languish in jail without a charge, been denied access to competent attorneys, a fair and speedy trial, or been subject to institutional biases and unwarranted imprisonment. Certainly that would never happens in a territory where it has happened routinely for 70+ years."
To me that sounds like you're saying that the standards of jurisprudence developed since the enlightenment are unnecessary because they sometimes fail, and that therefore a trial would be superfluous; it's fine to prejudge rape in this instance. This is at least my reading of your comment; I admit your comment is dripping with sarcasm so it's hard to tell what you actually meant.
I've also been consistent that the accused should be presumed innocent and has a right to due process. If you disavow your prior comment and agree with these common law principles then congratulations you've found a point of agreement with a zionist, and you disagree with the others in the thread who argue that a rape definitely occurred and the accused can be presumed guilty.
Correct, you made a straw man: literally no one is saying there shouldn't be a trial in this thread. You know who isn't? The Israeli government, the military whose members are accused of a crime, and a large and vocal segment of the Israeli population. The same cohort _do_ want a criminal case levelled against a whistleblower who was being intimidated for trying to do her job. The fact that this case is being pursued with significantly more vigour makes most reasonable observers question the level of commitment Israeli society has to the values you're evangelizing. But I mean, how sincere your commitment is is still up in the air, because again, you've never walked back your unsupported claim that the video is doctored.
Of course I didn't walk back my claim that the video is doctored, and of course it's not unsupported. Here is one of many articles alleging the video is doctored and pointing to the specific person (Guy Peleg) who doctored it by splicing together different clips from different days: https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/sde-teiman-the-leak-that-sho...
This is just reporting, and it will need to be tested in court. But my claim is not unsupported.
It's not actually required for someone involved in a discussion to waste their time responding to straw men.
>This is just reporting, and it will need to be tested in court.
Ah, so we've moved on from strawmanning to moving the goalposts.
By the way, there is no serious debate about whether the video was altered. Any casual watcher an see it's spliced clips. The question is only whether it was altered maliciously, to paint a specific picture. That is what needs to be tested in court.
No, of course not, the fact that you keep trying to derail the argument by mischaracterizing what the people you disagree with are saying makes it a straw man. No one here has rejected the common law convention or said there shouldn't be a trial. A sizable contingent of your ideological brethren have. You refuse to confront this, and that's your own cross to bear.
>By the way, there is no serious debate about whether the video was altered. Any casual watcher an see it's spliced clips. The question is only whether it was altered maliciously, to paint a specific picture. That is what needs to be tested in court.
Not especially, the material question is whether it depicts the assailants performing the acts that resulted in the prisoner's injuries. Notably, you've stopped even trying to argue that point.