kallend 2,174 #1 September 1, 2004 abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040901_784.html Now how about doing something for the poor bastards being held without trial?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #2 September 1, 2004 This is why there are procedures in place that must be followed when ANYONE is detained on suspicion of ANYTHING. People MUST be charged and the evidence against them MUST be tested. Who knows how many of the people detained without charge at the various detention centres across the world fit into the same bracket as these people… Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #3 September 1, 2004 Well, that's ok. It's not like there's a guy sitting in jail in Philly for over 3 years who hasn't even had a preliminary hearing yet. Only because he was just finally realeased. http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/view.php?id=7900 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,600 #4 September 1, 2004 Makes this poor guy in Houston seem like a lightweight story here. Only 11 months; of course, he's innocent, and now has trouble getting a job because of the arrest. I think the moral is that if you go with your gut instinct and make the facts fit, you're likely to find out that more mistakes are made in the long run. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #5 September 1, 2004 Quote...there are procedures in place that must be followed when ANYONE is detained on suspicion of ANYTHING. People MUST be charged and the evidence against them MUST be tested. You might want to clarify _where_ this applies.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #6 September 1, 2004 I think that's the argument the US govt. uses. I'm not even gonna try and enter into the argument about who's rules to apply when county A arrests someone from country B in country C and holds them in country D... It's the Court's job to decide who's rules apply... I believe they spoke on the issue earlier in the year - hearings for all. Personally I think it should apply EVERYWHERE and to EVERYONE... principals are principals. They're also supposed to be the principals of the country I live in... I don't think certain countries should be looking to loop holes to squrim out of the principals they're suppost to be upholding. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #7 September 1, 2004 Actually I was thinking that sometimes they don't apply when Country A arrests citizens of Country A within the borders of Country A.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #8 September 1, 2004 I don't care what, where, who or why - detention without charge is a really bad idea. It's a pity there's a general trend in some countries at the moment towards the acceptance of it in instances where evidence is lacking. Those, IMO are the very times when we need the protection of the presumption of innocence and our recourse to the courts. Steps in that direction must be taken VERY tentatively, if at all, and with appropriate checks and balances built into the system at ground level. That's not happening, as it's being done in a hurried and half assed manner. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckbrown 0 #9 September 1, 2004 How about this guy? Corrupt prosecutors and law enforcement officials are not a product of the war on terror. They're only getting new victims. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
