Innocent until proven Guilty?

[dkstories]

I was watching a CNN interview with a Government Official on the Jose Padilla case. For those that don't remember, Jose Padilla is an American citizen arrested two years ago, in the United States, and declared an 'enemy combatant'. He was denied seeing a lawyer for over a year and has been held in violation of his rights as a US citizen (in other words he hasn't been tried for a crime).

 

The government today released reems of documents relating to his case. Likely, this is an effort to sway the upcoming supreme court case on whether it is possible to strip a citizen of their rights by declaring them an 'enemy combatant.' Several administration officials have been hitting the airwaves to support this case and something that was said in one interview made me shudder completely.

 

The CNN reporter asked a gov't. official: "Is it the administration's position that in some cases the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' may not apply to all US citizens?

 

The government official answered (paraphrased here): "the American people should not be concerned about minor things like that. They should rest assured that their government will leave no rock unturned in our hunt for terrorists and that we are working to keep Americans safe."

 

The concept that any citizen of the United States, no matter what they have done, might be stripped of their rights without being tried in a court of law scares me. It scared the founders of this country who cited such behavior by the Crown as a reason to rebel (It's in the Declaration of Independence). In all likelihood Padilla was working with al-Quaeda, was planning a terrorist attack of some kind, and should be punished in accordance with the laws of this nation, not at the whims of the Executive branch.

 

You know what's really scary? I wrote an interview scene for a future chapter of Dawn of Tears that was VERY much like that interview I saw today, and the bad guys were using the same reasoning that the government official in the REAL interview used. It's really tough to write fiction that finds so many...correllaries in real life.

[wep363]

When ever our country considers itself in a "State of War" the 'bill of rights' get tossed in the trash can. Our worse example of this was american citizens put in inturnment camps during WW2. The second worse was during the civil war. Personally i think that NO ONE should be held in cuba!!! Any US citizen that end up working with terriost should be handled like tim McVay. Other's should be handled with a military court such as at the End of WW2. Either hang 'em, let them go, or find suitable punishment.

[Myr]

Well... personally... I don't consider someone an American citizen unless they grew up here... I'm a bit iffy on anyone that doesn't speak English.

 

that said... I'm weary about any government grabbing anyone in a totally blind away. he should have been sent to a military tribunal... or that secret court thing the government has.

 

Also, given that this is a very bad guy, whom is friends with even worse guys... I live in the state of NY. 9/11 is a bit closer to me than it is to you folks in the heartland and left coast.

[Guest trilogy]

The government likes twisting the laws for the own advantage. The fonders tried to make it hard for them to do so but over the years some laws have changed to amke it much easier for them to.

[Gentim]

The government likes twisting the laws for the own advantage.  The fonders tried to make it hard for them to do so but over the years some laws have changed to amke it much easier for them to.

The founders themselves were not above ignoring people's rights in situations where they felt that what they had established was threatened. Washington was known to be quite ruthless when crossed. Hamilton and Jefferson were no saints either. Under John Adams, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798, which undercut the Bill of Rights at a time when this country was involved in an undeclared war with France. Fortunately, it was overturned by the Supreme Court in 1800. Already mentioned have been the suspension of habeas corpus by Lincoln during the Civil War and the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. This country has a long history of what, under normal circumstances, would be considered unconstitutional action against a perceived enemy; whether enemy combatant or not.

[Angela Mynah]

Sometimes it is necessary to take actions that leave a very nasty taste in the mouth.

 

Both the American constitution and British law are based on the concept of a person being innocent till proven guilty. However, whilst the concept remains good, there is one terrible flaw in its execution.

 

Over the decades there have been so many modifications to the law (all aimed at protecting the innocent) that the guilty can often go free.

 

Before you condem the powers that be for riding rough shod over the constitution, please consider the following possibility. Suppose that the authorities know, and can prove a mans guilt, but also know that the proof was obtained in such a way that it would be inadmissable in a court of law.

 

If you knew that a mass murderer would walk from court, a free man, just on a technicality, maybe you then would be inclined to 'break the rules'.

 

How would your concience feel if that person then proved to be a key player in another attrocity, one that you knew about but could not stop because the lack of 'The burdon of Proof'

 

We may not like our politicians, but we put them there and we need them to make these nasty decisions, WHAT EVER PARTY THEY ARE IN.

[Taryn Winterblade]

Having recently served on a jury for a criminal case, I'll add an opinion here...

 

There wasn't a single person on the jury who doubted the defendant's guilt...

 

However, after hearing all of the evidence against the defendant, we all knew that the prosecution had not PROVED his guilt.

 

The judge cited George Washington, if I remember correctly, as saying "It is better to let 99 guilty men go free, than to imprison one innocent man."

 

Yes, I, and most of the jury, did not walk away from this trial without feeling some doubt as to our verdict. I know I walked away with a migraine. However, I still feel that we have to uphold the right of a defendent to be 'innocent until proven guilty', regardless of the situation.

[miguelsanchez55]

If the US government was so sure if it's case, then they sould try the man for treason then shoot him. Stripping smeone for being suspected of something son't work. Get the evidence, put him on trial then punish him.

 

Mike :sword:

[dkstories]

Angela, will you then put yourself in jail for having violated the law? Do the ends justify the means?

 

Ah, got to love such philosophical questions....

[Bill W]

I think the most frightening part of this is, even when good people get scared, they are willing to suspend or do away with things they hold most dear.

 

First of all, isn't that what Senator Joseph Mc Carthy tried to do during his communist witchhunt of the 1950's. In his mind, a person was guilty until proven innocent and he felt guilt by association was enough proof to convict people. When we start letting others hack away at our freedoms, whether it be because we suspect them of being terrorists or political subversives, then what group might be next. Might it be the gay/lesbian community for degrading the morals of society and sending the country into a tailspin of moral decadence and decay? If such things had been used during the 60's, when people spoke out against the war in Viet Nam and other issues, where might this country be now? No matter how bad things are, we still need to meet the 'burden of proof.'

 

By the way, it was Sir William Blackstone (1723 - 1780), in his Commentaries of the Laws of England, who said, "It's better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer."

 

Yes, sometimes the guilty go free, but no system is perfect, especially the one being touted now in its use against terrorists, and I do agree that possibly sometimes evidence is discarded that shouldn't be, but if that's the case, then we should work to change that part of the law to make it work better. As the old saying goes, 'don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.' The system has flaws, but let's fix those flaws, not throw the entire system out for something else, just because we are currently running scared.