Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[t'Sade]

On the way from work yesterday, I heard a segment on the NPR about the 9/11 suspects being brought to New York for trial. It was obviously an emotional topic for so many people, but there was one (probably biased) semi-quote. Don't remember if it was an actual quote, but it was the daughter of one of the pilots that hit the Pentagon saying she didn't want the 9/11 suspects being let go on a technicality. There was something else in the quote, but I don't remember specifics.

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/10/27/torture-makes-you-se.html

It reminded me of when Fluffy's mother was talking about the 9/11 suspects in Gitmo:

[blockquote]They wouldn't be there unless they were guilty.[/blockquote]

She was under the absolute belief that there is no chance of false imprisonment or anything else. The above link talks about torture actually changes perceptions of guilty, much like being in prison makes it harder for people to believe you are not guilty.

Sadly, I don't think there is a chance they'll be found innocent of terrorism. It doesn't really matter if they are or aren't, I just don't think many people can divorce themselves from their emotions to actually give them a fair and honest trial. It will be something like Rodney King, which shows like Current Affairs poisoned public opinion, and it wasn't until the trial itself where the full video is put out. But, at that point, though they did what I felt was the right verdict, it created the LA riots because people's emotions were too tied up in their beliefs.

I could say the same with OJ Simpson. Many, many people believe he is guilty, even now. It could have been a sham, it could have not been. It wasn't important to me. They had a verdict, they fought the results, but it stayed. They then tried him in civil court and won millions for wrongful death (which I have *no* clue how they charged him in two courts for the same crime) but people still won't let it go.

One of the technicalities is our government's behavior. If they incarcerated these suspects for years with torture and suffering on a fragile evidence, then they deserve to be let go. At that point, we've been hunting for any and all shreds of evidence to convict these people. If we haven't found it yet, then they should be let go. I mean, at this point, we should be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt they are guilty if we've been holding on to them for so damn long.

I can only hope that these trials end with a solid belief of their answer. I don't want to see one of them shot during the trial because of someone's strong emotions (i.e. Oswald) and I don't want to see them convicted on a single shred of presumed evidence. If they are found guilty, I want them to be found guilty because of solid evidence.

Yeah, this is being emotional about it.

[necrocorpse]

I agree that there is no chance they will be found "not guilty".  The "justice" system in this country is a sham.  As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure it's a sham in ALL countries.

As for locking people up with practically no evidence, keeping them locked up for years and torturing them, if they weren't terrorists and America-haters before, they probably will be now.

[Ludovico]

Habeas Corpus is one of the most basic and important rights, going back to the Magna Carta. Losing it scares the hell out of me. As a matter of fact, the term not being in spellcheck (got a red underline) worried the hell out of me.

However, when it comes to terrorism and war, I can see the other side. Lincoln and FDR suspended Habeas Corpus, as did Britain during WWII. This is not an issue of ordinary crime - people flying planes into buildings.

If a dirty bomb is set off on Wall Street, or in D.C., and the world economy collapses, what will our rights mean then. This may give "reasonable doubt" a different meaning! It's war, not crime!

 However, if we give them up out of fear - what then? No easy answer.
 

[necrocorpse]

Habeas Corpus is one of the most basic and important rights, going back to the Magna Carta. Losing it scares the hell out of me. As a matter of fact, the term not being in spellcheck (got a red underline) worried the hell out of me.

However, when it comes to terrorism and war, I can see the other side. Lincoln and FDR suspended Habeas Corpus, as did Britain during WWII. This is not an issue of ordinary crime - people flying planes into buildings.

If a dirty bomb is set off on Wall Street, or in D.C., and the world economy collapses, what will our rights mean then. This may give "reasonable doubt" a different meaning! It's war, not crime!

 However, if we give them up out of fear - what then? No easy answer.

Yes, in the minds of many (including the evil Abraham Lincoln), war justifies suspending habeas corpus.  And that leads some of us to ask a question: could this be one reason why politicians love war so much?  After all, it gives them an excuse to seize as much power as they want.  Even if politicians are not directly responsible for "wagging the dog's tail" (as they did for the War between the States, the Spanish American War, WWI and WWII), they still are often negligent (the most commonly accepted theory for 9-11).

[t'Sade]

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/15/same-we-can-believe.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+boingboing%2FiBag+%28Boing+Boing%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

One of the "OMG fire" political statements lately is the recent decision to prevent pictures of prisoner abuse being made public. The ACLU wants them for a lawsuit to sue the government for crimes and the government would rather not let people start beating their chests in anger (here or overseas).

There is an interesting quote on this: "No democracy has ever been made stronger by suppressing information about its own misconduct."

Biases are fun. Yeah, I'd rather have all of our countries misdeeds out in the public, but it could do a lot of damage everywhere because people will read it wrong. Or, will read it right and not be willing to pretend this country has moved on (no forgiveness for crimes, *sigh*).

[KK]

Just a little note (due to lack of time for more):
I think it's the same in the USA and in Germany:
Criminal and civil law are 2 distinct matters.

So, while someone maybe found not guilty in a criminal court, he still may be sued for damages in a civil court. This is does not mean being charged twice, it does not fall under the double jeopardy rule.
The reason is: being sued for (civil law) damages compensation, is NOT something done by the state, but by the relatives. And all they can claim is money, they don't get to bring the defendant into prison.

Of course, it could probably be argued that paying millions in $ is for some people worse than going to prison for a year, but that's a matter of personal opinion.

The point is: The criminal is started/run by the state and may result in punishment, the civil trial is started/run by citizens and involves claims that are either met or not. So legally speaking there may be 2 trials, but only one can deal out a punishment.

[t'Sade]

Sounds right. It just seems like being tried for something twice. I mean, while the criminal case was rather highly publicized, the civil one wasn't. And, he was found guilty of the wrongful death of his ex-wife. Which seemed rather similar to being tried for her murder.

(I'm remember stuff, right now, not looking it up.)

But, through everything, the man had to end up spending millions to defend himself twice. I mean, those lawyers don't work for free and it was a high profile case. As I mentioned before, I don't really care if he was guilty or not, it was the attrition that ruined him. It isn't listed as a "price" of being sued, but it really is. Just like being charged with something. It doesn't matter if you are guilty or not, you'll be paying.