| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Enkidu" |
| Date: |
17 Jul 2006 05:12:46 PM |
| Object: |
Presumption of innocence? |
A few questions for your consideration:
Under English Common Law and by extension, U.S. law, is a suspect
presumed innocent until proven guilty?
If so, is this a good thing?
If we decide that a man is not a criminal until after a fair trial, how
can we justify limiting the rights of "terrorists" and "enemy
combatants" to confront their accusers and the evidence against them?
Isn't that assuming they are guilty *before* they are tried, then trying
them under conditions which limit their ability to prove their innocence?
How does this differ from lynch law?
-----
As for me, I don't fear a fair and open trial of any man. If we haven't
the evidence to openly convict, then it is quite possible that the man is
not guilty.
-----
British Police Charged in Death of Man Mistaken for Bomber
By SARAH LYALL
LONDON, July 17 — A year after the police shot and killed a Brazilian
electrician in the subway after mistaking him for a suicide bomber,
prosecutors said today that they would not charge any individual officers
in connection with his death.
[more: http://tinyurl.com/f6ysj ]
--
Enkidu AA#2165
http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
Perhaps christians are enslaved by sin, but the rest of us tend to get
enslaved by christians.
.
|
|
| User: "William Wingstedt" |
|
| Title: Re: Presumption of innocence? |
26 Jul 2006 09:41:26 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 15:57:53 -0000, No 33 Secretary
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote:
William_Wingstedt@comcast.net (William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:44c6c714.926814118@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 17:08:00 -0000, No 33 Secretary
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote:
William_Wingstedt@comcast.net (William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:44c620f0.884281249@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 05:15:53 -0000, Terry Austin
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote:
William_Wingstedt@comcast.net (William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:44c57a01.841546730@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 01:26:13 -0000, Terry Austin
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote:
William_Wingstedt@comcast.net (William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:44c14efa.568387998@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 15:45:36 -0000, No 33 Secretary
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote:
Enkidu <ox_qljjor@trashmail.net> wrote in
news:Xns9803A73F64C86255229@130.133.1.4:
No 33 Secretary <terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns9803A3D399403taustingmail@216.168.3.64:
Enkidu <ox_qljjor@trashmail.net> wrote in
news:Xns98039AC54BF1C255229@130.133.1.4:
A few questions for your consideration:
Under English Common Law and by extension, U.S. law,
Explicitly by US Constitution.
is a suspect
presumed innocent until proven guilty?
If so, is this a good thing?
Yes. Because the moment it's not true, then anybody with a
politically unpopular opinion - like atheism - would be
guilty of something.
If we decide that a man is not a criminal until after a fair
trial, how can we justify limiting the rights of
"terrorists" and "enemy combatants" to confront their
accusers and the evidence against them?
Because the US Constitution does not protect non-US citizens
outside the US, and under certain conditions, does not apply
to anyone during war.
But morally, it does.
Morality is a matter of opinion. Irrelevant in a court of law.
Law is a matter of opinion...
But not irrelevant in a court of law.
You blow hot and cold with the same breath.
You are an idiot.
Matters of opinion would
seem to be both irrelevant and not irrelevant in your world.
What is relevant is what is relevant in a court of law.
Law is codified morality, a matter of opinion. You say morality is
irrelevant in a court of law, presumably because it is a matter of
opinion.
There are many different moral codes. There is only one legal code.
So what? It's still an arbitrary matter of opinion.
It is the arbitrary matter of opinion that matters.
What part of that don't you understand, you fucking retard?
The part about morality not being relevant in a court of law, you
shallow fool.
Are you really so fucking stupid that you can't grasp that? Seriously,
are you?
No, you're so fucking stupid that your position is unable to be
grasped. Seriously, you are. Poor thing.
Retard.
Presumptous cretin.
--
"So there is no third law of Terrydynamics."
-- William Hyde
Terry Austin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: Presumption of innocence? |
27 Jul 2006 12:17:55 AM |
|
|
(William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:44c826f4.1016893445@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 15:57:53 -0000, No 33 Secretary
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote:
(William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:44c6c714.926814118@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 17:08:00 -0000, No 33 Secretary
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote:
(William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:44c620f0.884281249@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 05:15:53 -0000, Terry Austin
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote:
(William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:44c57a01.841546730@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 01:26:13 -0000, Terry Austin
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote:
(William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:44c14efa.568387998@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 15:45:36 -0000, No 33 Secretary
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote:
Enkidu <ox_qljjor@trashmail.net> wrote in
news:Xns9803A73F64C86255229@130.133.1.4:
No 33 Secretary <terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns9803A3D399403taustingmail@216.168.3.64:
Enkidu <ox_qljjor@trashmail.net> wrote in
news:Xns98039AC54BF1C255229@130.133.1.4:
A few questions for your consideration:
Under English Common Law and by extension, U.S. law,
Explicitly by US Constitution.
is a suspect
presumed innocent until proven guilty?
If so, is this a good thing?
Yes. Because the moment it's not true, then anybody with a
politically unpopular opinion - like atheism - would be
guilty of something.
If we decide that a man is not a criminal until after a fair
trial, how can we justify limiting the rights of
"terrorists" and "enemy combatants" to confront their
accusers and the evidence against them?
Because the US Constitution does not protect non-US citizens
outside the US, and under certain conditions, does not apply
to anyone during war.
But morally, it does.
Morality is a matter of opinion. Irrelevant in a court of law.
Law is a matter of opinion...
But not irrelevant in a court of law.
You blow hot and cold with the same breath.
You are an idiot.
Matters of opinion would
seem to be both irrelevant and not irrelevant in your world.
What is relevant is what is relevant in a court of law.
Law is codified morality, a matter of opinion. You say morality is
irrelevant in a court of law, presumably because it is a matter of
opinion.
There are many different moral codes. There is only one legal code.
So what? It's still an arbitrary matter of opinion.
It is the arbitrary matter of opinion that matters.
What part of that don't you understand, you fucking retard?
The part about morality not being relevant in a court of law, you
shallow fool.
Then have an adult explain it to you, you fucking retard.
Are you really so fucking stupid that you can't grasp that? Seriously,
are you?
No, you're so fucking stupid that your position is unable to be
grasped. Seriously, you are. Poor thing.
Retard.
Presumptous cretin.
Then I win. You're still a retard.
--
Terry Austin
.
|
|
|
| User: "William Wingstedt" |
|
| Title: Re: Presumption of innocence? |
27 Jul 2006 07:39:28 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 05:17:55 -0000, Terry Austin
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote:
William_Wingstedt@comcast.net (William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:44c826f4.1016893445@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 15:57:53 -0000, No 33 Secretary
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote:
William_Wingstedt@comcast.net (William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:44c6c714.926814118@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 17:08:00 -0000, No 33 Secretary
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote:
William_Wingstedt@comcast.net (William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:44c620f0.884281249@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 05:15:53 -0000, Terry Austin
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote:
William_Wingstedt@comcast.net (William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:44c57a01.841546730@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 01:26:13 -0000, Terry Austin
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote:
William_Wingstedt@comcast.net (William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:44c14efa.568387998@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 15:45:36 -0000, No 33 Secretary
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote:
Enkidu <ox_qljjor@trashmail.net> wrote in
news:Xns9803A73F64C86255229@130.133.1.4:
No 33 Secretary <terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns9803A3D399403taustingmail@216.168.3.64:
Enkidu <ox_qljjor@trashmail.net> wrote in
news:Xns98039AC54BF1C255229@130.133.1.4:
A few questions for your consideration:
Under English Common Law and by extension, U.S. law,
Explicitly by US Constitution.
is a suspect
presumed innocent until proven guilty?
If so, is this a good thing?
Yes. Because the moment it's not true, then anybody with a
politically unpopular opinion - like atheism - would be
guilty of something.
If we decide that a man is not a criminal until after a fair
trial, how can we justify limiting the rights of
"terrorists" and "enemy combatants" to confront their
accusers and the evidence against them?
Because the US Constitution does not protect non-US citizens
outside the US, and under certain conditions, does not apply
to anyone during war.
But morally, it does.
Morality is a matter of opinion. Irrelevant in a court of law.
Law is a matter of opinion...
But not irrelevant in a court of law.
You blow hot and cold with the same breath.
You are an idiot.
Matters of opinion would
seem to be both irrelevant and not irrelevant in your world.
What is relevant is what is relevant in a court of law.
Law is codified morality, a matter of opinion. You say morality is
irrelevant in a court of law, presumably because it is a matter of
opinion.
There are many different moral codes. There is only one legal code.
So what? It's still an arbitrary matter of opinion.
It is the arbitrary matter of opinion that matters.
What part of that don't you understand, you fucking retard?
The part about morality not being relevant in a court of law, you
shallow fool.
Then have an adult explain it to you, you fucking retard.
Are you really so fucking stupid that you can't grasp that? Seriously,
are you?
No, you're so fucking stupid that your position is unable to be
grasped. Seriously, you are. Poor thing.
Retard.
Presumptous cretin.
Then I win. You're still a retard.
Whatever...O.K. Corky, you win. Print this out, have it framed and put
it next to your "Grocery Bagger of the Month" award.
--
Terry Austin
.
|
|
|
| User: "No 33 Secretary" |
|
| Title: Re: Presumption of innocence? |
27 Jul 2006 10:39:13 AM |
|
|
(William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:44c8b3a1.1052906299@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 05:17:55 -0000, Terry Austin
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote:
(William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:44c826f4.1016893445@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 15:57:53 -0000, No 33 Secretary
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote:
(William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:44c6c714.926814118@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 17:08:00 -0000, No 33 Secretary
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote:
(William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:44c620f0.884281249@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 05:15:53 -0000, Terry Austin
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote:
(William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:44c57a01.841546730@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 01:26:13 -0000, Terry Austin
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote:
(William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:44c14efa.568387998@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 15:45:36 -0000, No 33 Secretary
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote:
Enkidu <ox_qljjor@trashmail.net> wrote in
news:Xns9803A73F64C86255229@130.133.1.4:
No 33 Secretary <terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns9803A3D399403taustingmail@216.168.3.64:
Enkidu <ox_qljjor@trashmail.net> wrote in
news:Xns98039AC54BF1C255229@130.133.1.4:
A few questions for your consideration:
Under English Common Law and by extension, U.S. law,
Explicitly by US Constitution.
is a suspect
presumed innocent until proven guilty?
If so, is this a good thing?
Yes. Because the moment it's not true, then anybody with
a politically unpopular opinion - like atheism - would be
guilty of something.
If we decide that a man is not a criminal until after a
fair trial, how can we justify limiting the rights of
"terrorists" and "enemy combatants" to confront their
accusers and the evidence against them?
Because the US Constitution does not protect non-US
citizens outside the US, and under certain conditions,
does not apply to anyone during war.
But morally, it does.
Morality is a matter of opinion. Irrelevant in a court of
law.
Law is a matter of opinion...
But not irrelevant in a court of law.
You blow hot and cold with the same breath.
You are an idiot.
Matters of opinion would
seem to be both irrelevant and not irrelevant in your world.
What is relevant is what is relevant in a court of law.
Law is codified morality, a matter of opinion. You say morality
is irrelevant in a court of law, presumably because it is a
matter of opinion.
There are many different moral codes. There is only one legal
code.
So what? It's still an arbitrary matter of opinion.
It is the arbitrary matter of opinion that matters.
What part of that don't you understand, you fucking retard?
The part about morality not being relevant in a court of law, you
shallow fool.
Then have an adult explain it to you, you fucking retard.
Are you really so fucking stupid that you can't grasp that?
Seriously, are you?
No, you're so fucking stupid that your position is unable to be
grasped. Seriously, you are. Poor thing.
Retard.
Presumptous cretin.
Then I win. You're still a retard.
Whatever...O.K. Corky, you win. Print this out, have it framed and put
it next to your "Grocery Bagger of the Month" award.
Good of you to admit it, 'tard-boy.
--
"So there is no third law of Terrydynamics."
-- William Hyde
Terry Austin
.
|
|
|
| User: "William Wingstedt" |
|
| Title: Re: Presumption of innocence? |
27 Jul 2006 11:35:41 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 15:39:13 -0000, No 33 Secretary
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote:
William_Wingstedt@comcast.net (William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:44c8b3a1.1052906299@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 05:17:55 -0000, Terry Austin
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote:
William_Wingstedt@comcast.net (William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:44c826f4.1016893445@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 15:57:53 -0000, No 33 Secretary
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote:
William_Wingstedt@comcast.net (William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:44c6c714.926814118@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 17:08:00 -0000, No 33 Secretary
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote:
William_Wingstedt@comcast.net (William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:44c620f0.884281249@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 05:15:53 -0000, Terry Austin
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote:
William_Wingstedt@comcast.net (William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:44c57a01.841546730@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 01:26:13 -0000, Terry Austin
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote:
William_Wingstedt@comcast.net (William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:44c14efa.568387998@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 15:45:36 -0000, No 33 Secretary
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote:
Enkidu <ox_qljjor@trashmail.net> wrote in
news:Xns9803A73F64C86255229@130.133.1.4:
No 33 Secretary <terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns9803A3D399403taustingmail@216.168.3.64:
Enkidu <ox_qljjor@trashmail.net> wrote in
news:Xns98039AC54BF1C255229@130.133.1.4:
A few questions for your consideration:
Under English Common Law and by extension, U.S. law,
Explicitly by US Constitution.
is a suspect
presumed innocent until proven guilty?
If so, is this a good thing?
Yes. Because the moment it's not true, then anybody with
a politically unpopular opinion - like atheism - would be
guilty of something.
If we decide that a man is not a criminal until after a
fair trial, how can we justify limiting the rights of
"terrorists" and "enemy combatants" to confront their
accusers and the evidence against them?
Because the US Constitution does not protect non-US
citizens outside the US, and under certain conditions,
does not apply to anyone during war.
But morally, it does.
Morality is a matter of opinion. Irrelevant in a court of
law.
Law is a matter of opinion...
But not irrelevant in a court of law.
You blow hot and cold with the same breath.
You are an idiot.
Matters of opinion would
seem to be both irrelevant and not irrelevant in your world.
What is relevant is what is relevant in a court of law.
Law is codified morality, a matter of opinion. You say morality
is irrelevant in a court of law, presumably because it is a
matter of opinion.
There are many different moral codes. There is only one legal
code.
So what? It's still an arbitrary matter of opinion.
It is the arbitrary matter of opinion that matters.
What part of that don't you understand, you fucking retard?
The part about morality not being relevant in a court of law, you
shallow fool.
Then have an adult explain it to you, you fucking retard.
Are you really so fucking stupid that you can't grasp that?
Seriously, are you?
No, you're so fucking stupid that your position is unable to be
grasped. Seriously, you are. Poor thing.
Retard.
Presumptous cretin.
Then I win. You're still a retard.
Whatever...O.K. Corky, you win. Print this out, have it framed and put
it next to your "Grocery Bagger of the Month" award.
Good of you to admit it, 'tard-boy.
I figured I'd rather let Corky think he won than have a grocery bagger
stalking me...I didn't think it wise to risk suffering you packing my
milk on top of my bread, or even worse, your multiple vain attempts to
suffocate me with paper instead of plastic.
--
"So there is no third law of Terrydynamics."
-- William Hyde
Terry Austin
.
|
|
|
| User: "No 33 Secretary" |
|
| Title: Re: Presumption of innocence? |
27 Jul 2006 11:41:37 AM |
|
|
(William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:44c8e766.1066159816@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 15:39:13 -0000, No 33 Secretary
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote:
(William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:44c8b3a1.1052906299@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 05:17:55 -0000, Terry Austin
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote:
(William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:44c826f4.1016893445@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 15:57:53 -0000, No 33 Secretary
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote:
(William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:44c6c714.926814118@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 17:08:00 -0000, No 33 Secretary
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote:
(William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:44c620f0.884281249@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 05:15:53 -0000, Terry Austin
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote:
(William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:44c57a01.841546730@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 01:26:13 -0000, Terry Austin
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote:
(William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:44c14efa.568387998@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 15:45:36 -0000, No 33 Secretary
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote:
Enkidu <ox_qljjor@trashmail.net> wrote in
news:Xns9803A73F64C86255229@130.133.1.4:
No 33 Secretary <terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns9803A3D399403taustingmail@216.168.3.64:
Enkidu <ox_qljjor@trashmail.net> wrote in
news:Xns98039AC54BF1C255229@130.133.1.4:
A few questions for your consideration:
Under English Common Law and by extension, U.S. law,
Explicitly by US Constitution.
is a suspect
presumed innocent until proven guilty?
If so, is this a good thing?
Yes. Because the moment it's not true, then anybody with
a politically unpopular opinion - like atheism - would be
guilty of something.
If we decide that a man is not a criminal until after a
fair trial, how can we justify limiting the rights of
"terrorists" and "enemy combatants" to confront their
accusers and the evidence against them?
Because the US Constitution does not protect non-US
citizens outside the US, and under certain conditions,
does not apply to anyone during war.
But morally, it does.
Morality is a matter of opinion. Irrelevant in a court of
law.
Law is a matter of opinion...
But not irrelevant in a court of law.
You blow hot and cold with the same breath.
You are an idiot.
Matters of opinion would
seem to be both irrelevant and not irrelevant in your world.
What is relevant is what is relevant in a court of law.
Law is codified morality, a matter of opinion. You say morality
is irrelevant in a court of law, presumably because it is a
matter of opinion.
There are many different moral codes. There is only one legal
code.
So what? It's still an arbitrary matter of opinion.
It is the arbitrary matter of opinion that matters.
What part of that don't you understand, you fucking retard?
The part about morality not being relevant in a court of law, you
shallow fool.
Then have an adult explain it to you, you fucking retard.
Are you really so fucking stupid that you can't grasp that?
Seriously, are you?
No, you're so fucking stupid that your position is unable to be
grasped. Seriously, you are. Poor thing.
Retard.
Presumptous cretin.
Then I win. You're still a retard.
Whatever...O.K. Corky, you win. Print this out, have it framed and put
it next to your "Grocery Bagger of the Month" award.
Good of you to admit it, 'tard-boy.
I figured I'd rather let Corky think he won than have a grocery bagger
stalking me...I didn't think it wise to risk suffering you packing my
milk on top of my bread, or even worse, your multiple vain attempts to
suffocate me with paper instead of plastic.
The bottom line, 'tard-boy, is that I was right, and you can't stop
responding.
You will now reply.
--
"So there is no third law of Terrydynamics."
-- William Hyde
Terry Austin
.
|
|
|
| User: "William Wingstedt" |
|
| Title: Re: Presumption of innocence? |
27 Jul 2006 09:18:13 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 16:41:37 -0000, No 33 Secretary
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote:
William_Wingstedt@comcast.net (William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:44c8e766.1066159816@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 15:39:13 -0000, No 33 Secretary
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote:
William_Wingstedt@comcast.net (William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:44c8b3a1.1052906299@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 05:17:55 -0000, Terry Austin
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote:
William_Wingstedt@comcast.net (William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:44c826f4.1016893445@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 15:57:53 -0000, No 33 Secretary
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote:
William_Wingstedt@comcast.net (William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:44c6c714.926814118@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 17:08:00 -0000, No 33 Secretary
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote:
William_Wingstedt@comcast.net (William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:44c620f0.884281249@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 05:15:53 -0000, Terry Austin
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote:
William_Wingstedt@comcast.net (William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:44c57a01.841546730@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 01:26:13 -0000, Terry Austin
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote:
William_Wingstedt@comcast.net (William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:44c14efa.568387998@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 15:45:36 -0000, No 33 Secretary
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote:
Enkidu <ox_qljjor@trashmail.net> wrote in
news:Xns9803A73F64C86255229@130.133.1.4:
No 33 Secretary <terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns9803A3D399403taustingmail@216.168.3.64:
Enkidu <ox_qljjor@trashmail.net> wrote in
news:Xns98039AC54BF1C255229@130.133.1.4:
A few questions for your consideration:
Under English Common Law and by extension, U.S. law,
Explicitly by US Constitution.
is a suspect
presumed innocent until proven guilty?
If so, is this a good thing?
Yes. Because the moment it's not true, then anybody with
a politically unpopular opinion - like atheism - would be
guilty of something.
If we decide that a man is not a criminal until after a
fair trial, how can we justify limiting the rights of
"terrorists" and "enemy combatants" to confront their
accusers and the evidence against them?
Because the US Constitution does not protect non-US
citizens outside the US, and under certain conditions,
does not apply to anyone during war.
But morally, it does.
Morality is a matter of opinion. Irrelevant in a court of
law.
Law is a matter of opinion...
But not irrelevant in a court of law.
You blow hot and cold with the same breath.
You are an idiot.
Matters of opinion would
seem to be both irrelevant and not irrelevant in your world.
What is relevant is what is relevant in a court of law.
Law is codified morality, a matter of opinion. You say morality
is irrelevant in a court of law, presumably because it is a
matter of opinion.
There are many different moral codes. There is only one legal
code.
So what? It's still an arbitrary matter of opinion.
It is the arbitrary matter of opinion that matters.
What part of that don't you understand, you fucking retard?
The part about morality not being relevant in a court of law, you
shallow fool.
Then have an adult explain it to you, you fucking retard.
Are you really so fucking stupid that you can't grasp that?
Seriously, are you?
No, you're so fucking stupid that your position is unable to be
grasped. Seriously, you are. Poor thing.
Retard.
Presumptous cretin.
Then I win. You're still a retard.
Whatever...O.K. Corky, you win. Print this out, have it framed and put
it next to your "Grocery Bagger of the Month" award.
Good of you to admit it, 'tard-boy.
I figured I'd rather let Corky think he won than have a grocery bagger
stalking me...I didn't think it wise to risk suffering you packing my
milk on top of my bread, or even worse, your multiple vain attempts to
suffocate me with paper instead of plastic.
The bottom line, 'tard-boy, is that I was right, and you can't stop
responding.
You will now reply.
You finally got something right, Champ.
--
"So there is no third law of Terrydynamics."
-- William Hyde
Terry Austin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: Presumption of innocence? |
30 Jul 2006 04:00:21 PM |
|
|
(William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:44cab763.1184959121@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 16:32:46 -0000, No 33 Secretary
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote:
(William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:44c97223.1101676797@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 16:41:37 -0000, No 33 Secretary
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote:
(William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:44c8e766.1066159816@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 15:39:13 -0000, No 33 Secretary
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote:
(William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:44c8b3a1.1052906299@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 05:17:55 -0000, Terry Austin
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote:
(William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:44c826f4.1016893445@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 15:57:53 -0000, No 33 Secretary
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote:
(William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:44c6c714.926814118@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 17:08:00 -0000, No 33 Secretary
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote:
(William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:44c620f0.884281249@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 05:15:53 -0000, Terry Austin
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote:
(William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:44c57a01.841546730@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 01:26:13 -0000, Terry Austin
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote:
(William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:44c14efa.568387998@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 15:45:36 -0000, No 33 Secretary
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote:
Enkidu <ox_qljjor@trashmail.net> wrote in
news:Xns9803A73F64C86255229@130.133.1.4:
No 33 Secretary <terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote
in news:Xns9803A3D399403taustingmail@216.168.3.64:
Enkidu <ox_qljjor@trashmail.net> wrote in
news:Xns98039AC54BF1C255229@130.133.1.4:
A few questions for your consideration:
Under English Common Law and by extension, U.S. law,
Explicitly by US Constitution.
is a suspect
presumed innocent until proven guilty?
If so, is this a good thing?
Yes. Because the moment it's not true, then anybody
with a politically unpopular opinion - like atheism -
would be guilty of something.
If we decide that a man is not a criminal until
after a fair trial, how can we justify limiting the
rights of "terrorists" and "enemy combatants" to
confront their accusers and the evidence against
them?
Because the US Constitution does not protect non-US
citizens outside the US, and under certain
conditions, does not apply to anyone during war.
But morally, it does.
Morality is a matter of opinion. Irrelevant in a court
of law.
Law is a matter of opinion...
But not irrelevant in a court of law.
You blow hot and cold with the same breath.
You are an idiot.
Matters of opinion would
seem to be both irrelevant and not irrelevant in your
world.
What is relevant is what is relevant in a court of law.
Law is codified morality, a matter of opinion. You say
morality is irrelevant in a court of law, presumably because
it is a matter of opinion.
There are many different moral codes. There is only one legal
code.
So what? It's still an arbitrary matter of opinion.
It is the arbitrary matter of opinion that matters.
What part of that don't you understand, you fucking retard?
The part about morality not being relevant in a court of law,
you shallow fool.
Then have an adult explain it to you, you fucking retard.
Are you really so fucking stupid that you can't grasp that?
Seriously, are you?
No, you're so fucking stupid that your position is unable to
be grasped. Seriously, you are. Poor thing.
Retard.
Presumptous cretin.
Then I win. You're still a retard.
Whatever...O.K. Corky, you win. Print this out, have it framed and
put it next to your "Grocery Bagger of the Month" award.
Good of you to admit it, 'tard-boy.
I figured I'd rather let Corky think he won than have a grocery
bagger stalking me...I didn't think it wise to risk suffering you
packing my milk on top of my bread, or even worse, your multiple
vain attempts to suffocate me with paper instead of plastic.
The bottom line, 'tard-boy, is that I was right, and you can't stop
responding.
You will now reply.
You finally got something right, Champ.
And now you will reply again. Because you can't stop yourself.
..my...my hands...it's....as...if they have.....a mind of their own!
It certainly does seem so, doesn't it?
Now you will reply again, despite the fact that I haven't said anything to
reply go.
--
Terry Austin
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Presumption of innocence? |
18 Jul 2006 01:35:56 AM |
|
|
Enkidu wrote:
If we claim to be exporting freedom and democracy,
how can we treat our *suspected* enemies in ways
that would be gross violations of the rights of muggers
and purse snatchers to a fair and open trial?
You've got it wrong.
It's IF WE ARE SERIOUS about exporting freedom and
democracy.... which we are not.
Logically, a con man can have no intentions of fulfilling
his claims, else he isn't really a con man.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Presumption of innocence? |
19 Jul 2006 06:06:38 AM |
|
|
Enkidu wrote:
No 33 Secretary <terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns9803A3D399403taustingmail@216.168.3.64:
Enkidu <ox_qljjor@trashmail.net> wrote in
news:Xns98039AC54BF1C255229@130.133.1.4:
A few questions for your consideration:
Under English Common Law and by extension, U.S. law,
Explicitly by US Constitution.
is a suspect
presumed innocent until proven guilty?
If so, is this a good thing?
Yes. Because the moment it's not true, then anybody with a politically
unpopular opinion - like atheism - would be guilty of something.
If we decide that a man is not a criminal until after a fair trial,
how can we justify limiting the rights of "terrorists" and "enemy
combatants" to confront their accusers and the evidence against them?
Because the US Constitution does not protect non-US citizens outside
the US, and under certain conditions, does not apply to anyone during
war.
But morally, it does. If we claim to be exporting freedom and democracy,
how can we treat our *suspected* enemies in ways that would be gross
violations of the rights of muggers and purse snatchers to a fair and
open trial?
Terrorists, since they do not wear insignia, fall in to the same
category as spies and saboteurs. They have no rights when captured and
the US is under no obligation, morally or otherwise. They may legally
be imprisoned indefinitely, coercively interrogated or summarily executed.
--
<^}})<
/\/\
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: Presumption of innocence? |
24 Jul 2006 08:18:57 PM |
|
|
Fester <not@home.com> wrote in
news:2novg.11057$4c7.2433@tornado.southeast.rr.com:
Enkidu wrote:
No 33 Secretary <terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns9803A3D399403taustingmail@216.168.3.64:
Enkidu <ox_qljjor@trashmail.net> wrote in
news:Xns98039AC54BF1C255229@130.133.1.4:
A few questions for your consideration:
Under English Common Law and by extension, U.S. law,
Explicitly by US Constitution.
is a suspect
presumed innocent until proven guilty?
If so, is this a good thing?
Yes. Because the moment it's not true, then anybody with a
politically unpopular opinion - like atheism - would be guilty of
something.
If we decide that a man is not a criminal until after a fair trial,
how can we justify limiting the rights of "terrorists" and "enemy
combatants" to confront their accusers and the evidence against
them?
Because the US Constitution does not protect non-US citizens outside
the US, and under certain conditions, does not apply to anyone during
war.
But morally, it does. If we claim to be exporting freedom and
democracy, how can we treat our *suspected* enemies in ways that
would be gross violations of the rights of muggers and purse
snatchers to a fair and open trial?
Terrorists, since they do not wear insignia, fall in to the same
category as spies and saboteurs. They have no rights when captured
and the US is under no obligation, morally or otherwise. They may
legally be imprisoned indefinitely, coercively interrogated or
summarily executed.
The argument is, if you do not give them a fair trial, you cannot possibly
know they _are_ terrorists. And at that point, anyone who is politically
inconvenient will be accused of being a terrorists, and summarilhy
executed.
The issue is where and to whom the Constitution applies.
--
Terry Austin
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "bobdobbs" |
|
| Title: Re: Presumption of innocence? |
21 Jul 2006 09:41:53 AM |
|
|
Fester wrote:
Enkidu wrote:
No 33 Secretary <terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns9803A3D399403taustingmail@216.168.3.64:
Enkidu <ox_qljjor@trashmail.net> wrote in
news:Xns98039AC54BF1C255229@130.133.1.4:
A few questions for your consideration:
Under English Common Law and by extension, U.S. law,
Explicitly by US Constitution.
is a suspect
presumed innocent until proven guilty?
If so, is this a good thing?
Yes. Because the moment it's not true, then anybody with a politically
unpopular opinion - like atheism - would be guilty of something.
If we decide that a man is not a criminal until after a fair trial,
how can we justify limiting the rights of "terrorists" and "enemy
combatants" to confront their accusers and the evidence against them?
Because the US Constitution does not protect non-US citizens outside
the US, and under certain conditions, does not apply to anyone during
war.
But morally, it does. If we claim to be exporting freedom and democracy,
how can we treat our *suspected* enemies in ways that would be gross
violations of the rights of muggers and purse snatchers to a fair and
open trial?
Terrorists, since they do not wear insignia, fall in to the same
category as spies and saboteurs. They have no rights when captured and
the US is under no obligation, morally or otherwise. They may legally
be imprisoned indefinitely, coercively interrogated or summarily executed.
Sure thing! Why are we releasing hundreds of gitmo prisoners then?
Shouldn't they be killed whether there guilty of anything or not!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: Presumption of innocence? |
24 Jul 2006 08:22:17 PM |
|
|
"bobdobbs" <whovian2222@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1153492913.122802.22670@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Fester wrote:
Enkidu wrote:
No 33 Secretary <terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns9803A3D399403taustingmail@216.168.3.64:
Enkidu <ox_qljjor@trashmail.net> wrote in
news:Xns98039AC54BF1C255229@130.133.1.4:
A few questions for your consideration:
Under English Common Law and by extension, U.S. law,
Explicitly by US Constitution.
is a suspect
presumed innocent until proven guilty?
If so, is this a good thing?
Yes. Because the moment it's not true, then anybody with a
politically unpopular opinion - like atheism - would be guilty of
something.
If we decide that a man is not a criminal until after a fair
trial, how can we justify limiting the rights of "terrorists" and
"enemy combatants" to confront their accusers and the evidence
against them?
Because the US Constitution does not protect non-US citizens
outside the US, and under certain conditions, does not apply to
anyone during war.
But morally, it does. If we claim to be exporting freedom and
democracy, how can we treat our *suspected* enemies in ways that
would be gross violations of the rights of muggers and purse
snatchers to a fair and open trial?
Terrorists, since they do not wear insignia, fall in to the same
category as spies and saboteurs. They have no rights when captured
and the US is under no obligation, morally or otherwise. They may
legally be imprisoned indefinitely, coercively interrogated or
summarily executed.
Sure thing! Why are we releasing hundreds of gitmo prisoners then?
Shouldn't they be killed whether there guilty of anything or not!
Are you really so fucking stupid that you can't understand the difference
between "may" and "must"?
Yes, apparently, you are.
--
Terry Austin
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "bobdobbs" |
|
| Title: Re: Presumption of innocence? |
21 Jul 2006 09:42:08 AM |
|
|
Fester wrote:
Enkidu wrote:
No 33 Secretary <terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns9803A3D399403taustingmail@216.168.3.64:
Enkidu <ox_qljjor@trashmail.net> wrote in
news:Xns98039AC54BF1C255229@130.133.1.4:
A few questions for your consideration:
Under English Common Law and by extension, U.S. law,
Explicitly by US Constitution.
is a suspect
presumed innocent until proven guilty?
If so, is this a good thing?
Yes. Because the moment it's not true, then anybody with a politically
unpopular opinion - like atheism - would be guilty of something.
If we decide that a man is not a criminal until after a fair trial,
how can we justify limiting the rights of "terrorists" and "enemy
combatants" to confront their accusers and the evidence against them?
Because the US Constitution does not protect non-US citizens outside
the US, and under certain conditions, does not apply to anyone during
war.
But morally, it does. If we claim to be exporting freedom and democracy,
how can we treat our *suspected* enemies in ways that would be gross
violations of the rights of muggers and purse snatchers to a fair and
open trial?
Terrorists, since they do not wear insignia, fall in to the same
category as spies and saboteurs. They have no rights when captured and
the US is under no obligation, morally or otherwise. They may legally
be imprisoned indefinitely, coercively interrogated or summarily executed.
Sure thing! Why are we releasing hundreds of gitmo prisoners then?
Shouldn't they be killed whether they're guilty of anything or not!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: Presumption of innocence? |
24 Jul 2006 08:22:34 PM |
|
|
"bobdobbs" <whovian2222@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1153492928.647470.184760@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Fester wrote:
Enkidu wrote:
No 33 Secretary <terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns9803A3D399403taustingmail@216.168.3.64:
Enkidu <ox_qljjor@trashmail.net> wrote in
news:Xns98039AC54BF1C255229@130.133.1.4:
A few questions for your consideration:
Under English Common Law and by extension, U.S. law,
Explicitly by US Constitution.
is a suspect
presumed innocent until proven guilty?
If so, is this a good thing?
Yes. Because the moment it's not true, then anybody with a
politically unpopular opinion - like atheism - would be guilty of
something.
If we decide that a man is not a criminal until after a fair
trial, how can we justify limiting the rights of "terrorists" and
"enemy combatants" to confront their accusers and the evidence
against them?
Because the US Constitution does not protect non-US citizens
outside the US, and under certain conditions, does not apply to
anyone during war.
But morally, it does. If we claim to be exporting freedom and
democracy, how can we treat our *suspected* enemies in ways that
would be gross violations of the rights of muggers and purse
snatchers to a fair and open trial?
Terrorists, since they do not wear insignia, fall in to the same
category as spies and saboteurs. They have no rights when captured
and the US is under no obligation, morally or otherwise. They may
legally be imprisoned indefinitely, coercively interrogated or
summarily executed.
Sure thing! Why are we releasing hundreds of gitmo prisoners then?
Shouldn't they be killed whether they're guilty of anything or not!
And you're so fucking stupid you can't help but double post.
--
Terry Austin
.
|
|
|
| User: "bobdobbs" |
|
| Title: Re: Presumption of innocence? |
07 Aug 2006 01:50:18 PM |
|
|
Terry Austin wrote:
"bobdobbs" <whovian2222@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1153492928.647470.184760@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Fester wrote:
Enkidu wrote:
No 33 Secretary <terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns9803A3D399403taustingmail@216.168.3.64:
Enkidu <ox_qljjor@trashmail.net> wrote in
news:Xns98039AC54BF1C255229@130.133.1.4:
A few questions for your consideration:
Under English Common Law and by extension, U.S. law,
Explicitly by US Constitution.
is a suspect
presumed innocent until proven guilty?
If so, is this a good thing?
Yes. Because the moment it's not true, then anybody with a
politically unpopular opinion - like atheism - would be guilty of
something.
If we decide that a man is not a criminal until after a fair
trial, how can we justify limiting the rights of "terrorists" and
"enemy combatants" to confront their accusers and the evidence
against them?
Because the US Constitution does not protect non-US citizens
outside the US, and under certain conditions, does not apply to
anyone during war.
But morally, it does. If we claim to be exporting freedom and
democracy, how can we treat our *suspected* enemies in ways that
would be gross violations of the rights of muggers and purse
snatchers to a fair and open trial?
Terrorists, since they do not wear insignia, fall in to the same
category as spies and saboteurs. They have no rights when captured
and the US is under no obligation, morally or otherwise. They may
legally be imprisoned indefinitely, coercively interrogated or
summarily executed.
Sure thing! Why are we releasing hundreds of gitmo prisoners then?
Shouldn't they be killed whether they're guilty of anything or not!
And you're so fucking stupid you can't help but double post.
--
Terry Austin
Can I suck your *****? It would be the first time anybody but you
touched your naughty bits!
.
|
|
|
| User: "No 33 Secretary" |
|
| Title: Re: Presumption of innocence? |
07 Aug 2006 01:55:24 PM |
|
|
"bobdobbs" <whovian2222@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1154976618.194776.302770@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
"bobdobbs" <whovian2222@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1153492928.647470.184760@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Fester wrote:
Enkidu wrote:
No 33 Secretary <terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns9803A3D399403taustingmail@216.168.3.64:
Enkidu <ox_qljjor@trashmail.net> wrote in
news:Xns98039AC54BF1C255229@130.133.1.4:
A few questions for your consideration:
Under English Common Law and by extension, U.S. law,
Explicitly by US Constitution.
is a suspect
presumed innocent until proven guilty?
If so, is this a good thing?
Yes. Because the moment it's not true, then anybody with a
politically unpopular opinion - like atheism - would be guilty of
something.
If we decide that a man is not a criminal until after a fair
trial, how can we justify limiting the rights of "terrorists" and
"enemy combatants" to confront their accusers and the evidence
against them?
Because the US Constitution does not protect non-US citizens
outside the US, and under certain conditions, does not apply to
anyone during war.
But morally, it does. If we claim to be exporting freedom and
democracy, how can we treat our *suspected* enemies in ways that
would be gross violations of the rights of muggers and purse
snatchers to a fair and open trial?
Terrorists, since they do not wear insignia, fall in to the same
category as spies and saboteurs. They have no rights when captured
and the US is under no obligation, morally or otherwise. They may
legally be imprisoned indefinitely, coercively interrogated or
summarily executed.
Sure thing! Why are we releasing hundreds of gitmo prisoners then?
Shouldn't they be killed whether they're guilty of anything or not!
And you're so fucking stupid you can't help but double post.
--
Terry Austin
Can I suck your *****? It would be the first time anybody but you
touched your naughty bits!
I know you are, but what am I?
--
"So there is no third law of Terrydynamics."
-- William Hyde
Terry Austin
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Presumption of innocence? |
22 Jul 2006 10:24:43 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:06:38 GMT, Fester <not@home.com> wrote in
alt.atheism
Enkidu wrote:
No 33 Secretary <terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns9803A3D399403taustingmail@216.168.3.64:
Enkidu <ox_qljjor@trashmail.net> wrote in
news:Xns98039AC54BF1C255229@130.133.1.4:
A few questions for your consideration:
Under English Common Law and by extension, U.S. law,
Explicitly by US Constitution.
is a suspect
presumed innocent until proven guilty?
If so, is this a good thing?
Yes. Because the moment it's not true, then anybody with a politically
unpopular opinion - like atheism - would be guilty of something.
If we decide that a man is not a criminal until after a fair trial,
how can we justify limiting the rights of "terrorists" and "enemy
combatants" to confront their accusers and the evidence against them?
Because the US Constitution does not protect non-US citizens outside
the US, and under certain conditions, does not apply to anyone during
war.
But morally, it does. If we claim to be exporting freedom and democracy,
how can we treat our *suspected* enemies in ways that would be gross
violations of the rights of muggers and purse snatchers to a fair and
open trial?
Terrorists, since they do not wear insignia, fall in to the same
category as spies and saboteurs. They have no rights when captured and
the US is under no obligation, morally or otherwise. They may legally
be imprisoned indefinitely, coercively interrogated or summarily executed.
Cool. So that means, Shrub, Chainey, Rice Powell, Rumsfeld, you, Fred,
and the vast majority of Congress, Asscrack, Gonzolez, and myraid others
may legally be imprisoned indefinitely, coercively interrogated or
summarily executed!
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: Presumption of innocence? |
24 Jul 2006 08:24:03 PM |
|
|
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in
news:4sq5c216u37cd276uogm40chrrjk9697pq@4ax.com:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:06:38 GMT, Fester <not@home.com> wrote in
alt.atheism
Enkidu wrote:
No 33 Secretary <terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns9803A3D399403taustingmail@216.168.3.64:
Enkidu <ox_qljjor@trashmail.net> wrote in
news:Xns98039AC54BF1C255229@130.133.1.4:
A few questions for your consideration:
Under English Common Law and by extension, U.S. law,
Explicitly by US Constitution.
is a suspect
presumed innocent until proven guilty?
If so, is this a good thing?
Yes. Because the moment it's not true, then anybody with a
politically unpopular opinion - like atheism - would be guilty of
something.
If we decide that a man is not a criminal until after a fair trial,
how can we justify limiting the rights of "terrorists" and "enemy
combatants" to confront their accusers and the evidence against
them?
Because the US Constitution does not protect non-US citizens outside
the US, and under certain conditions, does not apply to anyone
during war.
But morally, it does. If we claim to be exporting freedom and
democracy, how can we treat our *suspected* enemies in ways that
would be gross violations of the rights of muggers and purse
snatchers to a fair and open trial?
Terrorists, since they do not wear insignia, fall in to the same
category as spies and saboteurs. They have no rights when captured
and the US is under no obligation, morally or otherwise. They may
legally be imprisoned indefinitely, coercively interrogated or
summarily executed.
Cool. So that means, Shrub, Chainey, Rice Powell, Rumsfeld, you,
Fred, and the vast majority of Congress, Asscrack, Gonzolez, and
myraid others may legally be imprisoned indefinitely, coercively
interrogated or summarily executed!
I call dibbs on the cattle prod.
--
Terry Austin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: Presumption of innocence? |
30 Jul 2006 04:00:40 PM |
|
|
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in
news:80flc29qfl3lefbt44m1qtjfrutvfadp9q@4ax.com:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 01:24:03 -0000, Terry Austin
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in
news:4sq5c216u37cd276uogm40chrrjk9697pq@4ax.com:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:06:38 GMT, Fester <not@home.com> wrote in
alt.atheism
Enkidu wrote:
No 33 Secretary <terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns9803A3D399403taustingmail@216.168.3.64:
Enkidu <ox_qljjor@trashmail.net> wrote in
news:Xns98039AC54BF1C255229@130.133.1.4:
A few questions for your consideration:
Under English Common Law and by extension, U.S. law,
Explicitly by US Constitution.
is a suspect
presumed innocent until proven guilty?
If so, is this a good thing?
Yes. Because the moment it's not true, then anybody with a
politically unpopular opinion - like atheism - would be guilty of
something.
If we decide that a man is not a criminal until after a fair trial,
how can we justify limiting the rights of "terrorists" and "enemy
combatants" to confront their accusers and the evidence against
them?
Because the US Constitution does not protect non-US citizens outside
the US, and under certain conditions, does not apply to anyone
during war.
But morally, it does. If we claim to be exporting freedom and
democracy, how can we treat our *suspected* enemies in ways that
would be gross violations of the rights of muggers and purse
snatchers to a fair and open trial?
Terrorists, since they do not wear insignia, fall in to the same
category as spies and saboteurs. They have no rights when captured
and the US is under no obligation, morally or otherwise. They may
legally be imprisoned indefinitely, coercively interrogated or
summarily executed.
Cool. So that means, Shrub, Chainey, Rice Powell, Rumsfeld, you,
Fred, and the vast majority of Congress, Asscrack, Gonzolez, and
myraid others may legally be imprisoned indefinitely, coercively
interrogated or summarily executed!
I call dibbs on the cattle prod.
You got it! I'll boost the voltage a bit.
Now bend over, and spread 'em.
--
Terry Austin
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Presumption of innocence? |
02 Aug 2006 09:16:31 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 21:00:40 -0000, Terry Austin
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in
news:80flc29qfl3lefbt44m1qtjfrutvfadp9q@4ax.com:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 01:24:03 -0000, Terry Austin
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in
news:4sq5c216u37cd276uogm40chrrjk9697pq@4ax.com:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:06:38 GMT, Fester <not@home.com> wrote in
alt.atheism
Enkidu wrote:
No 33 Secretary <terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns9803A3D399403taustingmail@216.168.3.64:
Enkidu <ox_qljjor@trashmail.net> wrote in
news:Xns98039AC54BF1C255229@130.133.1.4:
A few questions for your consideration:
Under English Common Law and by extension, U.S. law,
Explicitly by US Constitution.
is a suspect
presumed innocent until proven guilty?
If so, is this a good thing?
Yes. Because the moment it's not true, then anybody with a
politically unpopular opinion - like atheism - would be guilty of
something.
If we decide that a man is not a criminal until after a fair trial,
how can we justify limiting the rights of "terrorists" and "enemy
combatants" to confront their accusers and the evidence against
them?
Because the US Constitution does not protect non-US citizens outside
the US, and under certain conditions, does not apply to anyone
during war.
But morally, it does. If we claim to be exporting freedom and
democracy, how can we treat our *suspected* enemies in ways that
would be gross violations of the rights of muggers and purse
snatchers to a fair and open trial?
Terrorists, since they do not wear insignia, fall in to the same
category as spies and saboteurs. They have no rights when captured
and the US is under no obligation, morally or otherwise. They may
legally be imprisoned indefinitely, coercively interrogated or
summarily executed.
Cool. So that means, Shrub, Chainey, Rice Powell, Rumsfeld, you,
Fred, and the vast majority of Congress, Asscrack, Gonzolez, and
myraid others may legally be imprisoned indefinitely, coercively
interrogated or summarily executed!
I call dibbs on the cattle prod.
You got it! I'll boost the voltage a bit.
Now bend over, and spread 'em.
Nah. Sit on it an rotate. That's a good chap.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "William Wingstedt" |
|
| Title: Re: Presumption of innocence? |
21 Jul 2006 05:04:29 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:06:38 GMT, Fester <not@home.com> wrote:
Enkidu wrote:
No 33 Secretary <terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns9803A3D399403taustingmail@216.168.3.64:
Enkidu <ox_qljjor@trashmail.net> wrote in
news:Xns98039AC54BF1C255229@130.133.1.4:
A few questions for your consideration:
Under English Common Law and by extension, U.S. law,
Explicitly by US Constitution.
is a suspect
presumed innocent until proven guilty?
If so, is this a good thing?
Yes. Because the moment it's not true, then anybody with a politically
unpopular opinion - like atheism - would be guilty of something.
If we decide that a man is not a criminal until after a fair trial,
how can we justify limiting the rights of "terrorists" and "enemy
combatants" to confront their accusers and the evidence against them?
Because the US Constitution does not protect non-US citizens outside
the US, and under certain conditions, does not apply to anyone during
war.
But morally, it does. If we claim to be exporting freedom and democracy,
how can we treat our *suspected* enemies in ways that would be gross
violations of the rights of muggers and purse snatchers to a fair and
open trial?
Terrorists, since they do not wear insignia, fall in to the same
category as spies and saboteurs. They have no rights when captured and
the US is under no obligation, morally or otherwise. They may legally
be imprisoned indefinitely, coercively interrogated or summarily executed.
How is the determination made as to who is a terrorist?
--
<^}})<
/\/\
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Presumption of innocence? |
21 Jul 2006 05:14:54 PM |
|
|
(William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:44c14f31.568442567@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:06:38 GMT, Fester <not@home.com> wrote:
Enkidu wrote:
No 33 Secretary <terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns9803A3D399403taustingmail@216.168.3.64:
Enkidu <ox_qljjor@trashmail.net> wrote in
news:Xns98039AC54BF1C255229@130.133.1.4:
A few questions for your consideration:
Under English Common Law and by extension, U.S. law,
Explicitly by US Constitution.
is a suspect
presumed innocent until proven guilty?
If so, is this a good thing?
Yes. Because the moment it's not true, then anybody with a
politically unpopular opinion - like atheism - would be guilty of
something.
If we decide that a man is not a criminal until after a fair trial,
how can we justify limiting the rights of "terrorists" and "enemy
combatants" to confront their accusers and the evidence against
them?
Because the US Constitution does not protect non-US citizens outside
the US, and under certain conditions, does not apply to anyone
during war.
But morally, it does. If we claim to be exporting freedom and
democracy, how can we treat our *suspected* enemies in ways that
would be gross violations of the rights of muggers and purse
snatchers to a fair and open trial?
Terrorists, since they do not wear insignia, fall in to the same
category as spies and saboteurs. They have no rights when captured
and the US is under no obligation, morally or otherwise. They may
legally be imprisoned indefinitely, coercively interrogated or
summarily executed.
How is the determination made as to who is a terrorist?
Exactly. The administration makes such a determination, then, based on
their determination, the accused cannot protest his innocence. The rules
are rigged so that the accusation is as good as a conviction.
I have no problem dealing harshly with criminals, but they aren't
criminals until after a trial including a proper defense and due process
finds that they are indeed criminals.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
"There is joy in rationality, happiness in clarity of mind. Free thought
is thrilling and fulfilling--absolutely essential to mental health and
happiness."
-Dan Barker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: Presumption of innocence? |
24 Jul 2006 08:23:30 PM |
|
|
Enkidu <ox_qljjor@trashmail.net> wrote in
news:Xns98079B22AA1FF255229@130.133.1.4:
William_Wingstedt@comcast.net (William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:44c14f31.568442567@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:06:38 GMT, Fester <not@home.com> wrote:
Enkidu wrote:
No 33 Secretary <terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns9803A3D399403taustingmail@216.168.3.64:
Enkidu <ox_qljjor@trashmail.net> wrote in
news:Xns98039AC54BF1C255229@130.133.1.4:
A few questions for your consideration:
Under English Common Law and by extension, U.S. law,
Explicitly by US Constitution.
is a suspect
presumed innocent until proven guilty?
If so, is this a good thing?
Yes. Because the moment it's not true, then anybody with a
politically unpopular opinion - like atheism - would be guilty of
something.
If we decide that a man is not a criminal until after a fair
trial, how can we justify limiting the rights of "terrorists" and
"enemy combatants" to confront their accusers and the evidence
against them?
Because the US Constitution does not protect non-US citizens
outside the US, and under certain conditions, does not apply to
anyone during war.
But morally, it does. If we claim to be exporting freedom and
democracy, how can we treat our *suspected* enemies in ways that
would be gross violations of the rights of muggers and purse
snatchers to a fair and open trial?
Terrorists, since they do not wear insignia, fall in to the same
category as spies and saboteurs. They have no rights when captured
and the US is under no obligation, morally or otherwise. They may
legally be imprisoned indefinitely, coercively interrogated or
summarily executed.
How is the determination made as to who is a terrorist?
Exactly. The administration makes such a determination, then, based
on their determination, the accused cannot protest his innocence. The
rules are rigged so that the accusation is as good as a conviction.
I have no problem dealing harshly with criminals, but they aren't
criminals until after a trial including a proper defense and due
process finds that they are indeed criminals.
Terrorists and enemy combatants aren't criminals, and should not be handled
by the criminal system.
--
Terry Austin
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Presumption of innocence? |
24 Jul 2006 09:57:27 PM |
|
|
Enkidu wrote:
William_Wingstedt@comcast.net (William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:44c14f31.568442567@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:06:38 GMT, Fester <not@home.com> wrote:
Enkidu wrote:
No 33 Secretary <terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns9803A3D399403taustingmail@216.168.3.64:
Enkidu <ox_qljjor@trashmail.net> wrote in
news:Xns98039AC54BF1C255229@130.133.1.4:
A few questions for your consideration:
Under English Common Law and by extension, U.S. law,
Explicitly by US Constitution.
is a suspect
presumed innocent until proven guilty?
If so, is this a good thing?
Yes. Because the moment it's not true, then anybody with a
politically unpopular opinion - like atheism - would be guilty of
something.
If we decide that a man is not a criminal until after a fair trial,
how can we justify limiting the rights of "terrorists" and "enemy
combatants" to confront their accusers and the evidence against
them?
Because the US Constitution does not protect non-US citizens outside
the US, and under certain conditions, does not apply to anyone
during war.
But morally, it does. If we claim to be exporting freedom and
democracy, how can we treat our *suspected* enemies in ways that
would be gross violations of the rights of muggers and purse
snatchers to a fair and open trial?
Terrorists, since they do not wear insignia, fall in to the same
category as spies and saboteurs. They have no rights when captured
and the US is under no obligation, morally or otherwise. They may
legally be imprisoned indefinitely, coercively interrogated or
summarily executed.
How is the determination made as to who is a terrorist?
Exactly. The administration makes such a determination, then, based on
their determination, the accused cannot protest his innocence. The rules
are rigged so that the accusation is as good as a conviction.
That is the nature of war. The safe guards that are in place in our
criminal justice system are not and in fact cannot be in force.
I have no problem dealing harshly with criminals, but they aren't
criminals until after a trial including a proper defense and due process
finds that they are indeed criminals.
It is a determination made by the military, with oversight by our
elected civil leadership.
--
<^}})<
/\/\
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Presumption of innocence? |
| | | |
