Can someone explain what that means?
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2009-06-26-19-24-31
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2009-06-26-19-24-31
"Too dangerous to prosecute"?
- Thread starter jeffg
- Start date
launderess
Well-known member
Exactly What It Says
Persons the government feels are to dangerous to be let out of custody if found innocent at trial.
Under federal and state laws persons at trial have rights to examine all evidence the state has against them in open court. The federal government is obviously loathe to release such information for various reasons, one of which is that it would become public and part of court (public) records, thus the state would have one if not two hands tied behind it's back.
With that sort of odds, the persons would likely be found innocent, and the natural course of law means they must be released.
Under the old regime of European monarchs, a person could be detained at "the king's pleasure" for any reason for any length of time. Indeed a reason often did not have to be given or it could be kept "secret. Nor could one demand access to papers or evidence to prove one's innocence.
The founding fathers of the United States sought to end and break away from this practice, hence the Consitution gives rights to individuals and puts checks and limits on goverment powers. This is what gave the previous administration and the current one so many fits. The United States is supposed to be the one country in the world where one cannot be picked up off the streets, taken to a secret location and kept there with limited or no communication with the outside world, and or no access to legal representation along with a fair and open trial.
Persons the government feels are to dangerous to be let out of custody if found innocent at trial.
Under federal and state laws persons at trial have rights to examine all evidence the state has against them in open court. The federal government is obviously loathe to release such information for various reasons, one of which is that it would become public and part of court (public) records, thus the state would have one if not two hands tied behind it's back.
With that sort of odds, the persons would likely be found innocent, and the natural course of law means they must be released.
Under the old regime of European monarchs, a person could be detained at "the king's pleasure" for any reason for any length of time. Indeed a reason often did not have to be given or it could be kept "secret. Nor could one demand access to papers or evidence to prove one's innocence.
The founding fathers of the United States sought to end and break away from this practice, hence the Consitution gives rights to individuals and puts checks and limits on goverment powers. This is what gave the previous administration and the current one so many fits. The United States is supposed to be the one country in the world where one cannot be picked up off the streets, taken to a secret location and kept there with limited or no communication with the outside world, and or no access to legal representation along with a fair and open trial.
sudsmaster
Well-known member
Maybe I'm a bit naive, but if they are so dangerous, why would they be found innocent?
And if they are prisoners in time of war with Al Quaeda, why not build a secure POW camp for them inside the USA where they will be kept until Al Quaeda surrenders unconditionally? Just like we have done in other wars.
Must be too simple or something.
And if they are prisoners in time of war with Al Quaeda, why not build a secure POW camp for them inside the USA where they will be kept until Al Quaeda surrenders unconditionally? Just like we have done in other wars.
Must be too simple or something.
> Maybe I'm a bit naive, but if they are so dangerous, why would they be found innocent?
We're well into "thought police" territory here.
It might be a matter of who these men are linked to, not specific threats they themselves have made against the U.S.
We're well into "thought police" territory here.
It might be a matter of who these men are linked to, not specific threats they themselves have made against the U.S.
launderess
Well-known member
Well if you snatched me up off my home streets, transported me thousands of miles, held me for years with no contact with the outside world under questionable conditions and perhaps subjected me to torture, you can be I might have a bad name for your country and perhaps harbour some ill will.
IIRC, much of the evidence against many of those being held was either obained under "torture" and or from sources/manner that the government is not keen to expose. Since the courts struck down secret and military courts (which could have been controlled), there aren't much choices left for Obama. Bet the man wishes he never made any promises regarding the situation while running for office, and you can bet his tune will change in 2012.
In hindsight one also guesses many in the federal government and Congress wish the whole Iraq thing would just go away. However rather like Germany and WWII some things are just too large to sweep under the carpet. It also does not help that the United States has made done quite allot of noise about being a better country when it comes to "human rights". Going around the world wagging it's finger at other nations and so forth, pointing out their "abuses".
IIRC, much of the evidence against many of those being held was either obained under "torture" and or from sources/manner that the government is not keen to expose. Since the courts struck down secret and military courts (which could have been controlled), there aren't much choices left for Obama. Bet the man wishes he never made any promises regarding the situation while running for office, and you can bet his tune will change in 2012.
In hindsight one also guesses many in the federal government and Congress wish the whole Iraq thing would just go away. However rather like Germany and WWII some things are just too large to sweep under the carpet. It also does not help that the United States has made done quite allot of noise about being a better country when it comes to "human rights". Going around the world wagging it's finger at other nations and so forth, pointing out their "abuses".
sudsmaster
Well-known member
It's possible that Obama is proceeding slowly on this because he doesn't want to appear to be releasing so much information that will be damaging to the reputation of his predecessor. As in, "I had no choice but to move these cases to an arena where the details would emerge".
It's sort of like the post-Soviet era in Russia, when all sorts of information about Soviet misdeeds emerged from the rubble of the USSR.
It's sort of like the post-Soviet era in Russia, when all sorts of information about Soviet misdeeds emerged from the rubble of the USSR.
Similar threads
