05 Oct 07
Originally posted by ZadadkaHis full name hasn't even been established, for christ sakes.
That hasn't been established....as SMS says, more info is needed to determine whether we feel this person is guilty.
And anyway, were it to be so, then why hasn't there been a trial to "convict and punish" him?
The questions still remain, what possible threat to "National Security" do these individuals represent now, what gives Bush's Administration th ...[text shortened]... ithout justification further than some finger-pointing is near lynch-mob mentality.
How fair would the trials of his victims have been ?
How fair was Ken Bigley's trial ?
If i could've turned the clock back, and put those who drove a 4x4 into Glasgow airport, into Guantanamo . . . I would.
05 Oct 07
Originally posted by Zadadkawe don't have anymore information. like barts said, he could be osama's cousin or his village baker. but we don't know for sure either way.
That hasn't been established....as SMS says, more info is needed to determine whether we feel this person is guilty.
And anyway, were it to be so, then why hasn't there been a trial to "convict and punish" him?
The questions still remain, what possible threat to "National Security" do these individuals represent now, what gives Bush's Administration th ...[text shortened]... ithout justification further than some finger-pointing is near lynch-mob mentality.
nobody concerns themselves about the people in jail because they assume they got there for a reason. people always take it for granted that if you are in jail, odds are you are guilty. however most of the ordinary inmates get through a trial which is not the case here.
05 Oct 07
Originally posted by ZahlanziI thought i'd go out for an ice cream cone. One of those swirlly soft ice cream cones with chocolate on one side and vanilla on the other side. How the hell do they do that? What's that guys name in prison somewhere. I'll need a nap after the ice cream.
Man do you represent all that people hate about americans. idiocy, smugness, ignorance, and some.
you just fail to see that basic human rights are not american rights which means it is not only the americans who are entitled to them but all humans. of course if you want to debate that americans are the only ones deserving of the title of human being, the ...[text shortened]... l just as much as he should. Did i explained it clear enough for you, you stupid redneck jerk?
Granny.
06 Oct 07
Originally posted by smw6869your argument is flawed because small blue smurfs cannot hope to play the harmonica while eating pink gummybears.
I thought i'd go out for an ice cream cone. One of those swirlly soft ice cream cones with chocolate on one side and vanilla on the other side. How the hell do they do that? What's that guys name in prison somewhere. I'll need a nap after the ice cream.
Granny.
Stop spamming
06 Oct 07
Originally posted by ZahlanziMy question is: why does Castro have all these prisoners down there in getgo, gitgo.....whatever, without giving them a fair trial? Is that what you're talking about.
your argument is flawed because small blue smurfs cannot hope to play the harmonica while eating pink gummybears.
Stop spamming
06 Oct 07
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundWrong again, we don't know if this person was planning to make any victims. That's why we need a fair trial, to find that out.
His full name hasn't even been established, for christ sakes.
How fair would the trials of his victims have been ?
How fair was Ken Bigley's trial ?
If i could've turned the clock back, and put those who drove a 4x4 into Glasgow airport, into Guantanamo . . . I would.
I don't know who Ken Bigly was, but I have a shrewd idea that it he was murdered by Islamic fundamentalists. However, I don't think any (or only a couple and then still not in a court) of the Guantanamo inmates have been proven to have had a hand in this barbaric crime.
Most of the time, we don't have any way of knowing who will commit a crime. If we do know however, we can once again go to a court and have them convicted there.
I'll now make a habit of putting the big bold letters from last time in every one of my posts in this thread.
THE BASIS OF WESTERN JUDICAL SYSTEMS IS : "INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY IN A COURTROOM".
Now is there anyone who wants to challenge this last line, or is there anyone who thinks SUSPECTED terrorists should be the exception to this rule ? Because that, ladies and gentlemen is what this whole thread is all about. Do we want to give up one of the most important pilars of our society in our fight against terrorism ?
06 Oct 07
Originally posted by BartsI believe the correct phrase is: PRESUMED Innocent until found guilty.
Wrong again, we don't know if this person was planning to make any victims. That's why we need a fair trial, to find that out.
I don't know who Ken Bigly was, but I have a shrewd idea that it he was murdered by Islamic fundamentalists. However, I don't think any (or only a couple and then still not in a court) of the Guantanamo inmates have been proven to ...[text shortened]... give up one of the most important pilars of our society in our fight against terrorism ?
Which really means, You're guilty until you prove you are not guilty. Guess you've never been to court.
G.
07 Oct 07
Originally posted by smw6869You're both wrong...
Put you money where your mouth is. It's PRESUMED not ASSUMED! Buck up Dude.
Granny.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_innocence
The principle is called the presumption of innocence, which is the principle of assuming innocence "until finally convicted by a court". If it was merely that they presume that they were innocent, that presumption can change during the trial, before the final conviction. That's why the pre is there. Using the term assuming suggests that it will not change until proven beyond reasonable doubt. IMO
Anyway, stop arguing over bloody semantics, you're all perfectly aware of what is meant.
Children....
07 Oct 07
Originally posted by agrysonThat's exactly what i meant, and you know it. So, i presume the prisoner will rot in jail while i'm eating ice cream? Yawn!
You're both wrong...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_innocence
The principle is called the presumption of innocence, which is the principle of assuming innocence "until finally convicted by a court". If it was merely that they presume that they were innocent, that presumption can change during the trial, before the final conviction. That's why t ...[text shortened]... arguing over bloody semantics, you're all perfectly aware of what is meant.
Children....
G.