| 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: "Warren Lebbenen" |
|
| Title: Re: Presumption of innocence? |
17 Jul 2006 05:54:32 PM |
|
|
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?
Most of the so-called combatants at Gitmo are innocent men and
boys kidnapped off the streets of Kabul. Cheney thought everyone
in Afghanistan knew where Bin Laden was and would squeal under torture.
Isn't that assuming they are guilty *before* they are tried, then trying
them under conditions which limit their ability to prove their innocence?
Yep!
How does this differ from lynch law?
It doesn't, but Baghdad ***** likes to "kill 'em all and let gods
sort 'em out."
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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "No 33 Secretary" |
|
| Title: Re: Presumption of innocence? |
17 Jul 2006 06:07:10 PM |
|
|
"Warren Lebbenen" <warleb@tds.com> wrote in
news:IyUug.12865$He6.10096@trndny08:
Most of the so-called combatants at Gitmo are innocent men and
boys kidnapped off the streets of Kabul.
And you have a credible source for that, other than your *****, of course.
It's just too much trouble to cite it.
--
"So there is no third law of Terrydynamics."
-- William Hyde
Terry Austin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Warren Lebbenen" |
|
| Title: Re: Presumption of innocence? |
17 Jul 2006 06:30:40 PM |
|
|
"No 33 Secretary" <terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9803A3F9767D3taustingmail@216.168.3.64...
"Warren Lebbenen" <warleb@tds.com> wrote in
news:IyUug.12865$He6.10096@trndny08:
Most of the so-called combatants at Gitmo are innocent men and
boys kidnapped off the streets of Kabul.
And you have a credible source for that, other than your *****, of course.
It's just too much trouble to cite it.
There's as much evidence of their innocence as their guilt until a
trial is performed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "No 33 Secretary" |
|
| Title: Re: Presumption of innocence? |
18 Jul 2006 10:50:38 AM |
|
|
"Warren Lebbenen" <warleb@tds.com> wrote in
news:A4Vug.25741$hK6.14958@trndny07:
"No 33 Secretary" <terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9803A3F9767D3taustingmail@216.168.3.64...
"Warren Lebbenen" <warleb@tds.com> wrote in
news:IyUug.12865$He6.10096@trndny08:
Most of the so-called combatants at Gitmo are innocent men and
boys kidnapped off the streets of Kabul.
And you have a credible source for that, other than your *****, of course.
It's just too much trouble to cite it.
There's as much evidence of their innocence as their guilt until a
trial is performed.
Since you have evaded the question I asked, I will take that as admission
that you're talking out your *****, as I predicted.
--
"So there is no third law of Terrydynamics."
-- William Hyde
Terry Austin
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Presumption of innocence? |
17 Jul 2006 06:22:10 PM |
|
|
No 33 Secretary <terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns9803A3F9767D3taustingmail@216.168.3.64:
"Warren Lebbenen" <warleb@tds.com> wrote in
news:IyUug.12865$He6.10096@trndny08:
Most of the so-called combatants at Gitmo are innocent men and
boys kidnapped off the streets of Kabul.
And you have a credible source for that, other than your *****, of course.
It's just too much trouble to cite it.
Without fair and open trials, we'll never know, will we? And that is
exactly the point of a fair and open trial.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
If we crave some cosmic purpose, then let us find ourselves a worthy goal.
-- Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
| User: "No 33 Secretary" |
|
| Title: Re: Presumption of innocence? |
18 Jul 2006 10:50:13 AM |
|
|
Enkidu <ox_qljjor@trashmail.net> wrote in
news:Xns9803A689778B7255229@130.133.1.4:
No 33 Secretary <terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns9803A3F9767D3taustingmail@216.168.3.64:
"Warren Lebbenen" <warleb@tds.com> wrote in
news:IyUug.12865$He6.10096@trndny08:
Most of the so-called combatants at Gitmo are innocent men and
boys kidnapped off the streets of Kabul.
And you have a credible source for that, other than your *****, of
course. It's just too much trouble to cite it.
Without fair and open trials, we'll never know, will we? And that is
exactly the point of a fair and open trial.
In other words, you are, in fact, talking out your *****, and admit it.
--
"So there is no third law of Terrydynamics."
-- William Hyde
Terry Austin
.
|
|
|
| User: "bobdobbs" |
|
| Title: Re: Presumption of innocence? |
21 Jul 2006 09:36:15 AM |
|
|
No 33 Secretary wrote:
Enkidu <ox_qljjor@trashmail.net> wrote in
news:Xns9803A689778B7255229@130.133.1.4:
No 33 Secretary <terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns9803A3F9767D3taustingmail@216.168.3.64:
"Warren Lebbenen" <warleb@tds.com> wrote in
news:IyUug.12865$He6.10096@trndny08:
Most of the so-called combatants at Gitmo are innocent men and
boys kidnapped off the streets of Kabul.
And you have a credible source for that, other than your *****, of
course. It's just too much trouble to cite it.
Without fair and open trials, we'll never know, will we? And that is
exactly the point of a fair and open trial.
In other words, you are, in fact, talking out your *****, and admit it.
--
That's kind of ironic coming from a man who didn't realize that
"bobdobbs" was my nickname!
What an ignorant prick1
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: Presumption of innocence? |
24 Jul 2006 08:24:33 PM |
|
|
"bobdobbs" <whovian2222@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1153492575.571824.97280@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
No 33 Secretary wrote:
Enkidu <ox_qljjor@trashmail.net> wrote in
news:Xns9803A689778B7255229@130.133.1.4:
No 33 Secretary <terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns9803A3F9767D3taustingmail@216.168.3.64:
"Warren Lebbenen" <warleb@tds.com> wrote in
news:IyUug.12865$He6.10096@trndny08:
Most of the so-called combatants at Gitmo are innocent men and
boys kidnapped off the streets of Kabul.
And you have a credible source for that, other than your *****, of
course. It's just too much trouble to cite it.
Without fair and open trials, we'll never know, will we? And that is
exactly the point of a fair and open trial.
In other words, you are, in fact, talking out your *****, and admit it.
--
That's kind of ironic coming from a man who didn't realize that
"bobdobbs" was my nickname!
Glad you agree with me.
What an ignorant prick1
I know you are, but what am I?
--
Terry Austin
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Presumption of innocence? |
17 Jul 2006 07:16:34 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 23:07:10 -0000, in alt.atheism , No 33 Secretary
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> in
<Xns9803A3F9767D3taustingmail@216.168.3.64> wrote:
"Warren Lebbenen" <warleb@tds.com> wrote in
news:IyUug.12865$He6.10096@trndny08:
Most of the so-called combatants at Gitmo are innocent men and
boys kidnapped off the streets of Kabul.
And you have a credible source for that, other than your *****, of course.
It's just too much trouble to cite it.
That we released hundreds rather than put them on trial is quite
suggestive, isn't it?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "No 33 Secretary" |
|
| Title: Re: Presumption of innocence? |
18 Jul 2006 10:51:02 AM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:02aob2t7mtdlbg08qjlv19bq49ds5ft2oq@4ax.com:
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 23:07:10 -0000, in alt.atheism , No 33 Secretary
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> in
<Xns9803A3F9767D3taustingmail@216.168.3.64> wrote:
"Warren Lebbenen" <warleb@tds.com> wrote in
news:IyUug.12865$He6.10096@trndny08:
Most of the so-called combatants at Gitmo are innocent men and
boys kidnapped off the streets of Kabul.
And you have a credible source for that, other than your *****, of course.
It's just too much trouble to cite it.
That we released hundreds rather than put them on trial is quite
suggestive, isn't it?
Only if you're retarded.
--
"So there is no third law of Terrydynamics."
-- William Hyde
Terry Austin
.
|
|
|
| User: "bobdobbs" |
|
| Title: Re: Presumption of innocence? |
21 Jul 2006 09:38:56 AM |
|
|
No 33 Secretary wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:02aob2t7mtdlbg08qjlv19bq49ds5ft2oq@4ax.com:
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 23:07:10 -0000, in alt.atheism , No 33 Secretary
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> in
<Xns9803A3F9767D3taustingmail@216.168.3.64> wrote:
"Warren Lebbenen" <warleb@tds.com> wrote in
news:IyUug.12865$He6.10096@trndny08:
Most of the so-called combatants at Gitmo are innocent men and
boys kidnapped off the streets of Kabul.
And you have a credible source for that, other than your *****, of course.
It's just too much trouble to cite it.
That we released hundreds rather than put them on trial is quite
suggestive, isn't it?
Only if you're retarded.
I know what you are, but what am I ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: Presumption of innocence? |
24 Jul 2006 08:24:56 PM |
|
|
"bobdobbs" <whovian2222@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1153492736.890137.110310@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
No 33 Secretary wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in news:02aob2t7mtdlbg08qjlv19bq49ds5ft2oq@4ax.com:
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 23:07:10 -0000, in alt.atheism , No 33
Secretary <terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> in
<Xns9803A3F9767D3taustingmail@216.168.3.64> wrote:
"Warren Lebbenen" <warleb@tds.com> wrote in
news:IyUug.12865$He6.10096@trndny08:
Most of the so-called combatants at Gitmo are innocent men
and
boys kidnapped off the streets of Kabul.
And you have a credible source for that, other than your *****, of
course. It's just too much trouble to cite it.
That we released hundreds rather than put them on trial is quite
suggestive, isn't it?
Only if you're retarded.
I know what you are, but what am I ?
QED. Do you share Pee Wee's other unsavory habits, as well?
--
Terry Austin
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Presumption of innocence? |
18 Jul 2006 03:04:12 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 15:51:02 -0000, in alt.atheism , No 33 Secretary
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> in
<Xns98045A0834C20taustingmail@216.168.3.64> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:02aob2t7mtdlbg08qjlv19bq49ds5ft2oq@4ax.com:
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 23:07:10 -0000, in alt.atheism , No 33 Secretary
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> in
<Xns9803A3F9767D3taustingmail@216.168.3.64> wrote:
"Warren Lebbenen" <warleb@tds.com> wrote in
news:IyUug.12865$He6.10096@trndny08:
Most of the so-called combatants at Gitmo are innocent men and
boys kidnapped off the streets of Kabul.
And you have a credible source for that, other than your *****, of course.
It's just too much trouble to cite it.
That we released hundreds rather than put them on trial is quite
suggestive, isn't it?
Only if you're retarded.
Such logic, such reasoning.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "No 33 Secretary" |
|
| Title: Re: Presumption of innocence? |
18 Jul 2006 06:54:06 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:2lfqb2lprt0dfmsu4q5u8r00169i6opc5n@4ax.com:
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 15:51:02 -0000, in alt.atheism , No 33 Secretary
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> in
<Xns98045A0834C20taustingmail@216.168.3.64> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:02aob2t7mtdlbg08qjlv19bq49ds5ft2oq@4ax.com:
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 23:07:10 -0000, in alt.atheism , No 33 Secretary
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> in
<Xns9803A3F9767D3taustingmail@216.168.3.64> wrote:
"Warren Lebbenen" <warleb@tds.com> wrote in
news:IyUug.12865$He6.10096@trndny08:
Most of the so-called combatants at Gitmo are innocent men and
boys kidnapped off the streets of Kabul.
And you have a credible source for that, other than your *****, of
course. It's just too much trouble to cite it.
That we released hundreds rather than put them on trial is quite
suggestive, isn't it?
Only if you're retarded.
Such logic, such reasoning.
Why bother with either with talking to a 'tard. You obviously can't grasp
either, since you apparently believe that there's only one possible reason
why we'd release prisoners from Gitmo. The proves, beyond any possible
doubt, that you have no fucking clue how the military does such things. And
it's not like it's obscure history, or anything.
'Tard.
--
"So there is no third law of Terrydynamics."
-- William Hyde
Terry Austin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Presumption of innocence? |
18 Jul 2006 07:57:45 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 23:54:06 -0000, in alt.atheism , No 33 Secretary
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> in
<Xns9804ABEEA73E4taustingmail@216.168.3.64> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:2lfqb2lprt0dfmsu4q5u8r00169i6opc5n@4ax.com:
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 15:51:02 -0000, in alt.atheism , No 33 Secretary
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> in
<Xns98045A0834C20taustingmail@216.168.3.64> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:02aob2t7mtdlbg08qjlv19bq49ds5ft2oq@4ax.com:
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 23:07:10 -0000, in alt.atheism , No 33 Secretary
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> in
<Xns9803A3F9767D3taustingmail@216.168.3.64> wrote:
"Warren Lebbenen" <warleb@tds.com> wrote in
news:IyUug.12865$He6.10096@trndny08:
Most of the so-called combatants at Gitmo are innocent men and
boys kidnapped off the streets of Kabul.
And you have a credible source for that, other than your *****, of
course. It's just too much trouble to cite it.
That we released hundreds rather than put them on trial is quite
suggestive, isn't it?
Only if you're retarded.
Such logic, such reasoning.
Why bother with either with talking to a 'tard. You obviously can't grasp
either, since you apparently believe that there's only one possible reason
why we'd release prisoners from Gitmo. The proves, beyond any possible
doubt, that you have no fucking clue how the military does such things. And
it's not like it's obscure history, or anything.
You are right. When I wrote "suggestive" I meant "it is absolutely
conclusive and there is no other possible explanation, not one, not at
all". I am so glad we have you here to read my mind for us.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: Presumption of innocence? |
19 Jul 2006 01:02:40 AM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:eq0rb2lefnp349mk2qerioprce4bi7p6rd@4ax.com:
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 23:54:06 -0000, in alt.atheism , No 33 Secretary
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> in
<Xns9804ABEEA73E4taustingmail@216.168.3.64> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:2lfqb2lprt0dfmsu4q5u8r00169i6opc5n@4ax.com:
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 15:51:02 -0000, in alt.atheism , No 33 Secretary
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> in
<Xns98045A0834C20taustingmail@216.168.3.64> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in news:02aob2t7mtdlbg08qjlv19bq49ds5ft2oq@4ax.com:
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 23:07:10 -0000, in alt.atheism , No 33
Secretary <terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> in
<Xns9803A3F9767D3taustingmail@216.168.3.64> wrote:
"Warren Lebbenen" <warleb@tds.com> wrote in
news:IyUug.12865$He6.10096@trndny08:
Most of the so-called combatants at Gitmo are innocent men
and
boys kidnapped off the streets of Kabul.
And you have a credible source for that, other than your *****, of
course. It's just too much trouble to cite it.
That we released hundreds rather than put them on trial is quite
suggestive, isn't it?
Only if you're retarded.
Such logic, such reasoning.
Why bother with either with talking to a 'tard. You obviously can't
grasp either, since you apparently believe that there's only one
possible reason why we'd release prisoners from Gitmo. The proves,
beyond any possible doubt, that you have no fucking clue how the
military does such things. And it's not like it's obscure history, or
anything.
You are right. When I wrote "suggestive" I meant "it is absolutely
conclusive and there is no other possible explanation, not one, not at
all". I am so glad we have you here to read my mind for us.
Good of you to admit it.
--
Terry Austin
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Presumption of innocence? |
22 Jul 2006 09:01:52 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 00:57:45 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 23:54:06 -0000, in alt.atheism , No 33 Secretary
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> in
<Xns9804ABEEA73E4taustingmail@216.168.3.64> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:2lfqb2lprt0dfmsu4q5u8r00169i6opc5n@4ax.com:
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 15:51:02 -0000, in alt.atheism , No 33 Secretary
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> in
<Xns98045A0834C20taustingmail@216.168.3.64> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:02aob2t7mtdlbg08qjlv19bq49ds5ft2oq@4ax.com:
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 23:07:10 -0000, in alt.atheism , No 33 Secretary
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> in
<Xns9803A3F9767D3taustingmail@216.168.3.64> wrote:
"Warren Lebbenen" <warleb@tds.com> wrote in
news:IyUug.12865$He6.10096@trndny08:
Most of the so-called combatants at Gitmo are innocent men and
boys kidnapped off the streets of Kabul.
And you have a credible source for that, other than your *****, of
course. It's just too much trouble to cite it.
That we released hundreds rather than put them on trial is quite
suggestive, isn't it?
Only if you're retarded.
Such logic, such reasoning.
Why bother with either with talking to a 'tard. You obviously can't grasp
either, since you apparently believe that there's only one possible reason
why we'd release prisoners from Gitmo. The proves, beyond any possible
doubt, that you have no fucking clue how the military does such things. And
it's not like it's obscure history, or anything.
You are right. When I wrote "suggestive" I meant "it is absolutely
conclusive and there is no other possible explanation, not one, not at
all". I am so glad we have you here to read my mind for us.
<snicker>
Cheers, Matt.
--
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: "No 33 Secretary" |
|
| Title: Re: Presumption of innocence? |
17 Jul 2006 06:06:17 PM |
|
|
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.
Isn't that assuming they are guilty *before* they are tried, then
trying them under conditions which limit their ability to prove their
innocence?
To a degree, yes.
How does this differ from lynch law?
Why does it matter?
--
"So there is no third law of Terrydynamics."
-- William Hyde
Terry Austin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Warren Lebbenen" |
|
| Title: Re: Presumption of innocence? |
17 Jul 2006 06:30:49 PM |
|
|
A few questions for your consideration:
Under English Common Law and by extension, U.S. law,
Explicitly by US Constitution.
Where precisely in the US Constitution does it say
that suspects are presumed innocent until proven guilty?
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.
Not if the government was completely secular.
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.
The aim of the US Constitution is protection from the government.
Isn't that assuming they are guilty *before* they are tried, then
trying them under conditions which limit their ability to prove their
innocence?
To a degree, yes.
How does this differ from lynch law?
Why does it matter?
Because most people prefer not to be lynched.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Presumption of innocence? |
17 Jul 2006 06:43:27 PM |
|
|
"Warren Lebbenen" <warleb@tds.com> wrote in
news:J4Vug.4209$D7.3087@trndny03:
A few questions for your consideration:
Under English Common Law and by extension, U.S. law,
Explicitly by US Constitution.
Where precisely in the US Constitution does it say
that suspects are presumed innocent until proven guilty?
Presumption of innocence predates the U.S. Constitution by centuries. As
a bedrock principle of English Common Law, the Founding Fathers didn't
need to explicitly add this to the 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.
Not if the government was completely secular.
Some other unpopular group *would be* persecuted. If you were tried for
a rape which happened twelve years ago, could you prove your innocence?
I bet not.
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.
The aim of the US Constitution is protection from the government.
Indeed. The preamble refers to "all men", not "all American citizens".
Whenever possible, we should rights as an example, and as the practice of
exporting freedon, justice, and the rule of law.
Isn't that assuming they are guilty *before* they are tried, then
trying them under conditions which limit their ability to prove
their innocence?
To a degree, yes.
How does this differ from lynch law?
Why does it matter?
Because most people prefer not to be lynched.
Me too!
--
Enkidu AA#2165
http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Presumption of innocence? |
17 Jul 2006 06:26:21 PM |
|
|
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?
Isn't that assuming they are guilty *before* they are tried, then
trying them under conditions which limit their ability to prove their
innocence?
To a degree, yes.
And this is a good thing?
How does this differ from lynch law?
Why does it matter?
It depends on how much stock you place in absract ideals like freedom and
justice.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
"I give money for church organs in the hope the organ music will
distract the congregation's attention from the rest of the service."
-- Andrew Carnegie (1835-1919)
.
|
|
|
| User: "No 33 Secretary" |
|
| Title: Re: Presumption of innocence? |
18 Jul 2006 10:45:36 AM |
|
|
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.
--
"So there is no third law of Terrydynamics."
-- William Hyde
Terry Austin
.
|
|
|
| User: "William Wingstedt" |
|
| Title: Re: Presumption of innocence? |
21 Jul 2006 05:02:53 PM |
|
|
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...
--
"So there is no third law of Terrydynamics."
-- William Hyde
Terry Austin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: Presumption of innocence? |
24 Jul 2006 08:26:13 PM |
|
|
(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.
Good of you to agree.
--
Terry Austin
.
|
|
|
| User: "William Wingstedt" |
|
| Title: Re: Presumption of innocence? |
24 Jul 2006 09:27:39 PM |
|
|
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. Matters of opinion would
seem to be both irrelevant and not irrelevant in your world.
Good of you to agree.
Thank you. You're easy to agree with when you're on both sides of the
argument.
--
Terry Austin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: Presumption of innocence? |
25 Jul 2006 12:15:53 AM |
|
|
(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.
Good of you to agree.
Thank you. You're easy to agree with when you're on both sides of the
argument.
Especially when you're a fucking moron.
--
Terry Austin
.
|
|
|
| User: "William Wingstedt" |
|
| Title: Re: Presumption of innocence? |
25 Jul 2006 08:56:16 AM |
|
|
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.
Good of you to agree.
Thank you. You're easy to agree with when you're on both sides of the
argument.
Especially when you're a fucking moron.
Nice argument.
--
Terry Austin
.
|
|
|
| User: "No 33 Secretary" |
|
| Title: Re: Presumption of innocence? |
25 Jul 2006 12:08:00 PM |
|
|
(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.
Are you really so fucking stupid that you can't grasp that? Seriously, are
you?
--
"So there is no third law of Terrydynamics."
-- William Hyde
Terry Austin
.
|
|
|
| User: "William Wingstedt" |
|
| Title: Re: Presumption of innocence? |
25 Jul 2006 08:59:21 PM |
|
|
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.
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.
--
"So there is no third law of Terrydynamics."
-- William Hyde
Terry Austin
.
|
|
|
| User: "No 33 Secretary" |
|
| Title: Re: Presumption of innocence? |
26 Jul 2006 10:57:53 AM |
|
|
(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?
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.
--
"So there is no third law of Terrydynamics."
-- William Hyde
Terry Austin
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
