You are a SUSPECT until proven INNOCENT

[Taverner]

Remember that now.

[ixion]

1. I've said it before, and it applies here and now:

The US government sees We, the people as terrorists.

ANY ONE OF US can be declared a terrorist on a whim. That should scare the hell out of anyone who's paying attention.

[Taverner]

2. Yes. You are correct. Dog have mercy on us all.

[madrchsod]

35. you are correct

many examples in last centuries labor movement.

[Harmony Blue]

3. Our government has pretty much accepted

corporate dogma that you are guilty until you prove you are innocent. So sad.

[Taverner]

4. It is... n/t

[uppityperson]

5. Nope. You are proven guilty, not proven innocent.

You are presumed innocent until or unless proven guilty.

remember that now.

[Taverner]

7. Not according to US Courts...

[uppityperson]

10. You are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred by the Latin Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty), is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, recognised in many nations. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the trier of fact, who is restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In case of remaining doubts, the accused is to be acquitted. This presumption is seen to stem from the Latin legal principle that ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies)

(clip)
Although the Constitution of the United States does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffin_v._United_States

But the most interesting aspect is commentary by the Court regarding presumption of innocence:

“ The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law. … Concluding, then, that the presumption of innocence is evidence in favor of the accused, introduced by the law in his behalf, let us consider what is 'reasonable doubt.' It is, of necessity, the condition of mind produced by the proof resulting from the evidence in the cause. It is the result of the proof, not the proof itself, whereas the presumption of innocence is one of the instruments of proof, going to bring about the proof from which reasonable doubt arises; thus one is a cause, the other an effect. To say that the one is the equivalent of the other is therefore to say that legal evidence can be excluded from the jury, and that such exclusion may be cured by instructing them correctly in regard to the method by which they are required to reach their conclusion upon the proof actually before them; in other words, that the exclusion of an important element of proof can be justified by correctly instructing as to the proof admitted. The evolution of the principle of the presumption of innocence, and its resultant, the doctrine of reasonable doubt, make more apparent the correctness of these views, and indicate the necessity of enforcing the one in order that the other may continue to exist.

[Taverner]

11. In theory, not in practice nt

[uppityperson]

12. Too often, unfortunately. nt

[ixion]

13. That was prior to the Bush Doctrine

which suspended all that pesky legalese in the name of "preventative warfare."

Now you, or I, or anyone else could be declared a terrorist and shipped off to GITMO, for nothing other than a presidential whim.

The Magna Carta, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and all those "god damn pieces of paper" are now just so much rubbish.

We elected Obama under the guise that he would restore the rule of law, he hasn't.

[teddy51]

15. Funny enough how he was campaigning on "We are a Nation of Laws" though. n/t

[banned from Kos]

6. Not in Yemen where the US Constitution does not apply

This US citizen sure as hell won't travel to Singapore where I can be caned for a minor infraction.

[AverageJoe90]

26. However, though........

Sabrina 1 DID point out that supposedly, Al-Awlaki was not only being left alone, but he was even having dinner at the Pentagon at one point! And if that is the case(and I strongly believe it may very well have been), why in the hell wasn't he instead arrested and tried for his crimes?
(I do wonder about the possibility of him either being a pawn, or if some of his old associates turned on him.)

[PETRUS]

8. That's kind of a liberating notion

if you choose to think of it that way.

How many people on this board are there now or plan to go? Or are participating in an "occupy together" protest, or are going to DC for October 6?

[seabeyond]

9. unless you are rich then the maid did it.

;)

[HipChick]

14. BS in the US..

especially if you are a minority..

[jberryhill]

16. You are an at-large suspect until you surrender or are apprehended

[Taverner]

17. Are you OK with that?

Before you get back to me, become a suspect for something

[jberryhill]

19. If you would like to discuss the topic, instead of throwing around one liners

...then you might pick up where you left off elsewhere.

However, this is precisely why murder suspects often show up at re station house to turn themselves in. That is because it has long been the case that a suspect of a series of deadly crimes may face deadly force in being apprehended.

It is nothing new. John Dillinger was just going to the movies.

Do you agree or disagree that deadly force was appropriate to use in the apprehension of John Dillinger?

[Taverner]

21. You ARREST, not KILL those folks

I don't care what they did

[jberryhill]

29. If you can, yes

But it has never been the situation that deadly criminals who are at large and represent a risk to the public and to potential apprehension can't be shot.

Objecting to it is a fine moral position, but the drama of acting like it is something new is a tad over the top.

Dangerous criminals are shot to death, under appropriate rules, all of the time.

[Taverner]

32. In the end, however, this IS a straw man argument

How about if Mark Twain could be killed?

Before he wrote all that abolitionist claptrap!

Hopefully you see my point

[jberryhill]

33. No I don't see your point

John Wilkes Booth didn't get a trial either.

[AverageJoe90]

22. IMO............

In Dillinger's case, no. As far as I know, all he was doing was just walking out of that theater; he may have been a gangster, but he wasn't shooting at people or in the process of committing and/or aiding and abetting any action which posed an immediate threat to the public, so it wasn't justified at that moment.

[jberryhill]

34. So if an armed person kills someone every Friday

And you find out where he is on Wednesday, you should assume he is unarmed?

[BeHereNow]

28. Not if Dillinger had information that could save lives.

Then I'm fairly certain he'd be taken into custody.
BHN

[jberryhill]

30. That has risks too

First of all, I'd love to know how you propose to get that information out of a suspect in custody without opening another can of worms.

We've had a bad record of "leave them at large and try to get information by watching them".

[Autumn]

18. Not any more

All good things must come to an end. And it's ended.

[provis99]

20. well, that's nice, but that's not reality, is it?

[yardwork]

23. Is this another one of those racism threads?

[pintobean]

24. Not even close

[Taverner]

25. Fine. Live in that world. Accept your destruction. nt

[jberryhill]

31. Can you handle the fact that someone might see things differently than you?

[Taverner]

27. What I am trying to say - if it's not clear - is that the judicial system views you as a suspect

100% of the time

And that is a problem

That is all

[Mnemosyne]

36. ...