presumed innocent and entitled to due process

[movie zombie]

"In our system, each individual is presumed innocent and entitled to due process and a fair trial." Bush quote: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051029/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_cia_leak

unless, of course, you are declared an ''enemy combatent'' by Mr. Bush or in one of our many prison/torture chambers around the world. then you are presumed guilty and not entitled to due process much less a fair trial.

peace, movie zombie

 

[rubydick]

The larger question is one of treason. The outing of a CIA agent working on counter-proliferation issues (WMD's) goes to the heart of "national security."

Patrick Fitzgerald has complained that he was prevented from addressing the larger question because Libby lied and obstructed justice ('threw sand in the umpire's eyes', to use his phrase). Since Bush and Cheney are down with the torture gig, perhaps now is the time for a Scooter softening session. Sleep deprivation, blast the Randi Rhodes show at him at high volume all through the day and night. Get some dogs in on the action, too. Then finish it off with some serious water boarding. Now tell us, Scooter, who's your daddy?

So whattya think?

Perhaps when all is said and done, Libby can be thrown in the same cell as Jose Padilla, where they can compare notes about how, in the US system of justice, one is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

 

[movie zombie]

good to hear from you, Richard!!!! i couldn''t believe those words came out of bush''s mouth about due process and presumed innocence.

and, yes, this is an issue of treason on the part of scooter and perhaps those higher up.

would the introductions go something like ''hi, my name is scooter and i''m an accused traitor but i''m sure my bosses will give me a pardon'' and ''hi, my name is jose and your bosses have labeled me a terrorist.....please explain to me why you get a court date and i don''t''.

peace, movie zombie

 

[MINE!!]

Didn't I read somewhere that there was a difference between the due process for a terrorist or Prisoner of War and the average criminal? I think I also read that there is a difference between the average prisoner of war and the terrorist. I may be wrong.. I will have to look it up...

I like what this guy had to say..

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/08/opinion/main592130.shtml

 

[movie zombie]

Mine, the terrorist is declared an enemy combatent by none other than mr bush....habeous corpus has been abolished. and what scooter did is not merely criminal activity: it is a direct violation of law involving national security and put in place to protect our agents around the world who are tryiing to protect US interests. i really do wish it had merely been a mere act of criminal activity such as breaking into a psychiatrist's office and stealing files....but it is so much more than that.

but the real bottom dollar is that BOTH men deserve the rights of habeous corpus. they deserve to be charged in a court of law, presented with the evidence against them, given the opportunity to refute that evidence and be tried by a jury.

scooter will get his day in court but juan will not. it is indeed a double standard. and what makes me gag the most is that the man that will pardon scooter if he is convicted is the same man that says that jose cannot have his day in court by labeling him an enemy combatent. it is the fact that juan does not get the chance to due process to fight that label that is the most un-american.

ETA: the bush quote is "In our system, each individual is presumed innocent and entitled to due process and a fair trial." this is the way it used to be.....he is fondly remembering a time before he and his crew brought us the patriot act among other lovely unfreedom loving laws. it will be ironic if one of his own crew gets caught in the very laws and language they pushed on us. however, he is not charged with treason: he is charged with obstruction and lying to a federal prosecutor which will get you every time: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/29/AR2005102901223.html?referrer=email&referrer=email

peace, movie zombie

 

[rubydick]

Date: 10/30/2005 4:03:01 PM
Author: MINE!!
Didn''t I read somewhere that there was a difference between the due process for a terrorist or Prisoner of War and the average criminal? I think I also read that there is a difference between the average prisoner of war and the terrorist. I may be wrong.. I will have to look it up...

I like what this guy had to say..

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/08/opinion/main592130.shtml

Love it. Difference between due process for a "terrorist" and the "average criminal." What happened to "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?" Suddenly there is a whole different standard of law (I did read the National Review piece you quoted), one that Scooter thinks does not apply to him. Loved the idea of "civil liberties reform." A sweet thought coming from BushCo.

So just what specifically did you "like" about what he had to say? How do you define "terrorist?" Let me set the stage. Try googling Begin + Stern Gang. Or try this one: Bosch + Terror.

What would those differences be between Jose Padilla, who has never been afforded due process, as opposed to Scooter? For someone presumed innocent until proven guilty?

I''m sorry if the above drips with sarcasm. I apologize. But when one argues that there is a difference between "terrorists" and "ordinary criminals" this begs the question of just how one separates the two.

Civilized societies have decided that such matters should be decided in a way that limits bias. In other words, no single person should assume the role of judge, jury and executioner.

Unfortunately, the Patriot Act, major portions of which were written long before 9/11, give precisely that power to bush and his handlers. He is able to declare someone a terrorist and suspend completely the fundamental idea of "due process," a basic legal concept where anyone accused of a crime is allowed to confront their accusers and demand that they not only show their faces, but produce evidence to back up their accusations.

Certainly you can argue in his favor, you can cite other sources who make the same arguement. But I caution you to think before you do so. You are obviously an extremely intelligent person, someone who pays attention to politics, someone who cares. History is replete with examples of those that argue that human rights are peripheral, that under certain circumstances, they should be kicked to the side.

Indeed, in certain circumstances, I have made those same arguements. Mea culpa. I am guilty. But when a political administration displays in so many ways a disregard for any and all degree of circumspection, when they feel they have the right to extend a large raised middle finger to the entire world, what do you say?

Several weeks ago, I had dinner in Madagascar with a group of politically aware individuals. They were understanding. But their main question was a simple one: "We can understand the first go-round, but how could you possibly give him another term?"

All I was left with was an apology. I''m sorry. I am so sorry. I say this to the entire world, I really feel terrible about what happened and what is happening.

To the world, I extend my deepest apologies. As I do to Mine! Sorry if what I have written differs from your opinion. I do respect your words, and I respectfully disagree.

 

[MINE!!]

Well Richard,

It appears as if you have jumped the gun here.. but then again this not a surprise. What I find interesting is that I posed a question and you are immediately on the defense. Perhaps this rolls over in other political aspects?

Here is my answer to your question:

terrorist


adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity"; "terrorist state" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities

Criminal:
adj.
Of, involving, or having the nature of crime: criminal abuse.

Relating to the administration of penal law.

Guilty of crime.

Characteristic of a criminal.


Shameful; disgraceful: a criminal waste of talent.


n.
One that has committed or been legally convicted of a crime.

Just in case you wanted to know, my source.. it is a dictionary.

Someone from Toronto said the very same thing to me about giving Bush a second chance. They talked about how they would not have voted for him and I pointed out that YES.. that is the point... you have NO say in it... period. Some people did not vote for him..more people did.

 

[movie zombie]

i think the point is that terrorism is criminal and matter how one tosses a dictionary around, at one time in this country not in the too distant past, everyone...and i do mean everyone...had the right to confront his or her accusers in a court of law. this is no matter the case. which brings the bush statement around as totally hypocritical. everyone is supposed to assume scooter is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. and that is point: in a court of law. bush does not get to decide if scooter is innocent or guilty....but he gets that right with jose. jose has no recourse, no rights, nothing and yet he''s an american citizen. if scooter gets his fair day in court, then why not jose?

the outting of valerie plame is a crime under US law. however, scooter isn''t charged with that because he has obstructed justice, misled a prosecutor, and commited perjury to keep from being charged with that crime. if he in fact did out ms plame, he is a traitor....as much or more so than an terrorist...as he is in a position of power and deliberately misued that power.

but that''s all beside the point which to get back to it is: why the double standard?

peace, movie zombie

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 10/31/2005 12:33:21 AM
Author: movie zombie

but that''s all beside the point which to get back to it is: why the double standard?

peace, movie zombie

So, someone who was planning on acquiring a nuclear device, releasing it in a major city killing thousands of people & making said major city UNINHABITABLE for a generation held as the same THREAT as Scooter Libbey?

 

[AGBF]

Date: 10/31/2005 9:10:22 AM
Author: fire&ice
So, someone who was planning on acquiring a nuclear device, releasing it in a major city killing thousands of people & making said major city UNINHABITABLE for a generation held as the same THREAT as Scooter Libbey?

I swore (luckily only to myself) that I was going to pass up participating in this thread.

Here is what I think: anyone appearing to threaten public safety should be arrested on the spot and, therefore, rendered harmless. Then every person should have the right to due process, including the right not to be tortured, the right to an attorney, and the right to an open trial in which he can face his accusers.

The House of Representatives is moving in the wrong direction, trying to exempt more people from the protection that the law previously gave them.

Deborah

 

[AGBF]

Date: 10/31/2005 12:44:14 PM
Author: AGBF
The House of Representatives is moving in the wrong direction, trying to exempt more people from the protection that the law previously gave them.

"In the national anguish after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Congress rushed to enact a formidable antiterrorism law - the Patriot Act - that significantly crimped civil liberties by expanding law enforcement's power to use wiretaps, search warrants and other surveillance techniques, often under the cloak of secrecy. There was virtually no public debate before these major changes to the nation's legal system were put into effect.

Now, with some of the act's most sweeping powers set to expire at the end of the year, the two houses of Congress face crucial negotiations, which will also take place out of public view, on their differences over how to extend and amend the law. That's controversy enough. But the increasingly out-of-control House of Representatives has made the threat to our system of justice even greater by inserting a raft of provisions to enlarge the scope of the federal death penalty.

In a breathtaking afterthought at the close of debate, the House voted to triple the number of terrorism-related crimes carrying the death penalty. The House also voted to allow judges to reduce the size of juries that decide on executions, and even to permit prosecutors to try repeatedly for a death sentence when a hung jury fails to vote for death."

Please read more below!

The Patriot Act and the House

Deborah

 

[movie zombie]

Date: 10/31/2005 12:44:14 PM
Author: AGBF

Date: 10/31/2005 9:10:22 AM
Author: fire&ice
So, someone who was planning on acquiring a nuclear device, releasing it in a major city killing thousands of people & making said major city UNINHABITABLE for a generation held as the same THREAT as Scooter Libbey?

Here is what I think: anyone appearing to threaten public safety should be arrested on the spot and, therefore, rendered harmless. Then every person should have the right to due process, including the right not to be tortured, the right to an attorney, and the right to an open trial in which he can face his accusers.

Deborah

exactly, deb.

f&i, no one is saying that if the evidence was there that jose shouldn''t have been investigated and arrested.

what i am saying is that BOTH jose and scooter deserve the protections our Constitution provide. BOTH jose and scooter should be investigated, tried if the evidence warrants it, not be tortured, have the right to an attorney, and an open trial in which to face their accusers.

again, the quote from mr bush is "In our system, each individual is presumed innocent and entitled to due process and a fair trial." the system he describes is a system i believe in. but i do not believe such a system should only be available to scooter.

peace, movie zombie

 

[fire&ice]

It''s not that I don''t hear what you are saying. It''s not that I don''t agree -TO SOME EXTENT.

At what point do you NOT bypass the Consititution? Padilla is on that list; and, for all practical purposes he is not acting as an individual. The terrorists are planning on commiting acts of war upon our people. It''s not a crime persay that one individual commits.

I have real mixed feelings on the whole thing. I do think our rights are being eroded before our eyes at every turn - including the whole emmient domain thing. At what point do you give up some rights (be it even privacy) for security? I was dead set against cameras in Grand Central. Now, I''m not so sure after how quickly the Brits were able to catch their bombers. How do you keep a people safe within our Judicial system when an entity isn''t identified as one person? How do you keep a people safe when there exists more in the circle to carry out attacks w/o interigation? Say Padilla did do the unthinkable - would you still feel the same way that all AlQ go through our judicial system innocent until proven guilty?

 

[Rank Amateur]

A little "torture" works wonders on the average enemy combatant.

 

[Rank Amateur]

Do non-citizens posess all the rights of citizens?

 

[movie zombie]

Date: 10/31/2005 3:43:35 PM
Author: fire&ice
How do you keep a people safe when there exists more in the circle to carry out attacks w/o interigation? Say Padilla did do the unthinkable - would you still feel the same way that all AlQ go through our judicial system innocent until proven guilty?

yes, i would feel the same way: he would deserve his day in court. even the nazi regime got that. we as a nation are only as good as we act, not as we preach. and it is in the face of adversity that we find out whether we actually walk our talk.

peace, movie zombie

 

[movie zombie]

Date: 10/31/2005 5:00:44 PM
Author: Rank Amateur
A little ''torture'' works wonders on the average enemy combatant.

and the enron executive.......

peace, movie zombie

 

[movie zombie]

our Constitution does not limit rights to US citizens only........however, both jose and scooter are US citizens.

peace, movie zombie

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 10/31/2005 5:10:04 PM
Author: movie zombie

Date: 10/31/2005 3:43:35 PM
Author: fire&ice
How do you keep a people safe when there exists more in the circle to carry out attacks w/o interigation? Say Padilla did do the unthinkable - would you still feel the same way that all AlQ go through our judicial system innocent until proven guilty?

yes, i would feel the same way: he would deserve his day in court. even the nazi regime got that. we as a nation are only as good as we act, not as we preach. and it is in the face of adversity that we find out whether we actually walk our talk.

peace, movie zombie

No, I am saying that - what if he carried out his plans b/c we didn''t have him in custody. A tribunal (nazi''s) quite different than putting someone on trial for crimes through our judicial system. Also, by the time the Nurem. trials got underway, the Nazi''s were neutralized. They couldn''t still operate the death camps. They couldn''t still perform "operations" on twins. These people can still KILL us.

You have to have a victim & an assailant. Here, you have "targets" & "a group". It''s quite different. It is more like a war situation. POW''s don''t get tried through our judicial system.

Again, I''m not so sure I''m willing to let Padilla (use him for sake of argument) walk. There are plenty of people found guilty who are innocent and visa versa. I''m not so sure I''d be willing to risk it - especially if I was in a position of making that decision.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 10/31/2005 5:00:44 PM
Author: Rank Amateur
A little ''torture'' works wonders on the average enemy combatant.

Yes, John McCain saw many of his comrades tortured in North Vietnam. He said the only thing that kept him going in the grim moments was to know that the United States did not do that.

Deborah

 

[rubydick]

Date: 10/31/2005 9:10:22 AM
Author: fire&ice

Date: 10/31/2005 12:33:21 AM

Author: movie zombie

but that''s all beside the point which to get back to it is: why the double standard?

peace, movie zombie

So, someone who was planning on acquiring a nuclear device, releasing it in a major city killing thousands of people & making said major city UNINHABITABLE for a generation held as the same THREAT as Scooter Libbey?

You seem to be acting as judge, jury, executioner. Padilla may be guilty, but we will never know because he has never been given his day in court.

Scooter demands his, and I am all for it. Let a jury decide. But when one man (bush) can declare someone tainted (terrorist) and then disappear that person, what''s to prevent that person from disappearing his political enemies (Fitzgerald?).

Let''s get serious here. The vast majority of those in Gitmo, Bagram and Abu Ghraib will eventually be released with no charges filed. And they will be seriously pissed off at us for suspending their rights and if they were not previously aligned with al Qaeda, probably will now be. bush is big on sending messages. What message this?

As for the comments on people in Toronto or Madagascar not being able to vote, nice thought. But bush seems to think that his power extends beyond national borders and is not shy about wielding it outside America. Which is precisely why the rest of the world is so concerned. If you want the world to stay out of American affairs, then America should do the same. The world pays attention to US politics not because they want to, but because they have to. Which is more than can be said for the vast majority of Americans, whose ignorance of the world is utterly appalling.

 

[movie zombie]

f&i, the man is in jail and thereby neutralized.

if he has committed a crime, then prosecute him for it. if he''s a POW, then he''s got rights under the Geneva Convention that we''re denying him. either way, he is entitled to his day in court. if he''s guilty, let him pay the price.....but prove it first.

just because he''s been declared an enemy combatant doesn''t mean its true. i would like to know! ....but i''m not going to take the word of a group whose ethics leave much to be
desired.

again, bush''s statment if true should apply to all americans....not just to those in his administration. either we walk our talk or we should quit calling ourself a democracy and admit our Bill of Rights no longer exists.

peace, movie zombie

 

[AGBF]

Date: 10/31/2005 8:43:41 PM
Author: Richard Hughes
The world pays attention to US politics not because they want to, but because they have to. Which is more than can be said for the vast majority of Americans, whose ignorance of the world is utterly appalling.

I saw my hairdresser in Connecticut this weekend. She was born and raised in the United States, is a high school graduate, was able to get a license to mix chemicals to use on people's hair, owns a home. I am very fond of her; she is not a stupid woman.

I asked her if she had been following the Valerie Plame/Valerie Wilson affair and if she knew that the Vice President's aide, Libby, had been indicted. I knew she might not know all the details, but she was completely innocent in saying, "No! What's that about?"

How can we expect people to judge how well Bush is conducting himself if they haven't got a clue as to what he is doing?

I am convinced that people are outraged about Clinton and Monica Lewinsky more than about Bush and Wilson because they know what oral sex is, but don't have a clue about who Wilson and Plame are; never heard of the Downing Street memo; know nothing about Niger or yellow cake; and still believe that Bush was just misled into thinking Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

Deb

 

[movie zombie]

deb, you''re more generous than i: she does, however, know about the Constitution and Bill of Rights. but you are right in that the media certainly became fixed on that blue dress and oral sex....

f&i, i want to thank you for participating in this discussion. i can understand this statement: " I''m not so sure I''d be willing to risk it - especially if I was in a position of making that decision." i think we''re all concerned about the safety of America. however, if i was in the position to make the decision and had sworn to uphold the US Constitution, i would make sure the man had his day in court with his attorney. i see no risk in allowing his day in court....but i do see the risk in not allowing it. we need to do it for ourselves most of all but it would also show the world that we do believe the words we claim to believe in: innocent until proven guilty.

peace, movie zombie