Re: Physical and property searches without warrants next?
Debra_Law wrote:Ticomaya wrote:Debra_Law wrote:The guilty bastards, the president, the vice-president, the attorney general, and their cohorts are criminals and belong in prison. We don't want criminals sitting in the White House.
In our country people are presumed innocent of a crime until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law, Debra. See
Coffin v. U.S., 156 U.S. 432, 15 S. Ct. 394 (1895).
Pretty much everyone who has ever watched a cop show on TV knows that. I would have thought you did too.
Tico:
The "presumption of innocence" is a rebuttable presumption. In evidentiary terms, it serves as evidence in favor of the accused that may be rebutted by contrary proof. It is a basic evidentiary component of a fair trial. A jury instruction on the presumption is one way of impressing upon
the jury the importance of an accused's right to have his guilt or innocence determined solely on the basis of evidence introduced at trial.
The evidence with respect to Bush's and his cohorts' unlawful conduct is more than sufficient to rebut the presumption of innocence and to prove to a jury that the bastards are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. A special prosecutor ought to be appointed to prosecute their asses.
If they are prosecuted, your evidentiary concerns will be addressed as I am certain that defense counsel would request a jury instruction on the presumption we all hold near and dear to our hearts. Inasmuch as I have already expressed an opinion on their guilt, I doubt that I will be found qualified to sit as a juror. So, Tico, there is no need for you to worry about the possible fairness or unfairness of a prosecution against these CRIMINALS.
Far more relevant to our discussion than your citation to
Coffin v. U.S, is Justice Brandeis's dissenting opinion in
Olmstead v. United States:
"
Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means-to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal-would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this court should resolutely set its face."
Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485 (1928) (dissenting opinion).
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/277/438.html
Justice Brandeis' words are especially relevant because he dissented from a majority opinion that held government wiretapping of telephone lines did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Years later, the majority opinion in
Olmstead was overruled and Justice Brandeis' position prevailed in KATZ v. UNITED STATES, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (The Government's activities in electronically listening to and recording the petitioner's words violated the privacy upon which he justifiably relied while using the telephone booth and thus constituted a "search and seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.)
Our lawbreaking government officials must be held accountable for their evil conduct that violates the civil liberties of the American people. Even if our government fails to prosecute these hoodlums in a court of law, nothing, not even your plea to an evidentiary presumption, can stop the court of public opinion from scrutinizing the unlawful conduct of the bushco administration, passing judgment, and penalizing the guilty ones and their pernicious political party in the voting booths.
Ticomaya wrote:Yeah, it's rebuttable at trial, through the presentation of evidence, and a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Of course prosecutors have evidence against a defendant, or they won't bring charges against them, but that doesn't mean the presumption is rebutted prior to trial, regardless of the sufficiency of the evidence of guilt in a given matter. You, apparently, feel this presumption need not be afforded to those you don't like, and proclaim them guilty without a trial.
Nice double standard you've got going.
I don't "like" Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, et al., because they are LAWBREAKERS. They are criminals who violate the rule of law (national and international) while they snuff out the civil liberties and human rights of not only United States persons, but also of other persons in our world community. Their criminal conduct has made this country LESS safe rather than MORE safe. They belong in prison rather than in the White House.
You didn't respond to Justice Brandeis's condemnation of government lawbreakers:
"
Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means-to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal-would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this court should resolutely set its face."
Do you agree with Justice Brandeis or not?
At the same time you run to Bushco's defense and shelter the evil government lawbreakers in your willfully ignorant arms and accuse others of denying poor Bushco of the "presumption of innocence," you have already declared Iran guilty of plans to acquire nuclear weapons in violation of the NPT (without any evidence) for evil terroristic purposes and you advocate bombing the crap out of the Iranian people. You advocate the capturing, torturing, and detaining of perceived enemies without providing them any fair process for securing their freedom.
It is clear to most of us that you're the one drowning in double standards.
You think you ought to be able to advocate whatever position you want without criticism. When it's pointed out that your advocacy to threaten and bomb makes you no better than an terrorist, you whine that your right of free speech is being chilled. Boo hoo.
I can no more deprive Bushco of the "presumption of innocence" than I can deprive you of your freedom of speech. Again, since it escaped you attention the first time I said it, if the criminals are prosecuted for their crimes, I'm sure defense counsel will request a proper jury instruction on the presumption. Since I am not a government actor acting under the color of law, it is NOT within my power to deprive the guilty bastards of any of THEIR civil rights. Bush and his cohorts, however, ARE government actors acting under the color of law, and they must be held accountable for their lawbreaking conduct.
While you shed your crocodile tears and whine about your allegedly "chilled speech" or Bush's "presumption of innocence," most of us have you pegged for the two-faced manipulator that you are. Like it or not, the American people have the right to scrutinize the unlawful conduct of our government actors, condemn them in the court of public opinion, and call for their removal.
Most Americans are committed to "
to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964).
Based on all the facts and circumstances that prove that Bush and his cohorts are lawbreakers, I say that Bush and his cohorts are criminals and belong in prison. You don't like my unpleasantly sharp attack upon your government idols? So what? You don't have standing to sue me. You have no power to silence my voice. All you can do is invent straw man arguments about someone eles's alleged double standards while you avoid looking at yourself in the mirror.
