Michael O'Keefe wrote:
Anyone, even you and me, labeled as a "terrorist" can be imprisoned
without due process according to the federal government. So far, the
courts have backed this up.
Except these are people we've captured shooting at our soldiers in
faraway deserts. I'll be worried when US citizens are grabbed up on US
soil, not charged with anything, and not allowed legal representation.
You mean like if they pick up a Timothy McVeigh or Teddy Kaczynski ?
I too wait for the day this happens, and ppl realise that there
shouldn't be a distinction between whether it "Achmed" was overseas
firing at troops, or putting bombs in local cities. Due process is due
process
Exactly. When I took history in high school (in every grade), the question was always
asked "Why do we learn history?" One answer was "History repeats itself. If we learn where
we made mistakes throughout history, we can hopefully avoid making them again."
Well, this country was founded because a free people were slowly suppressed. Rights were
eroded to the point where people were being tossed in prison (or dungeons) and killed for
seemingly nothing. Due process (as it was in the day) became non-existent. No one really
paid any attention because it hadn't happened to them, so "As long as it's only the bad
people, what's the problem?" Suddenly, one day, everyone was a "bad person".
So, who decides who's bad and who's not? When do we again realize that the basic laws we
have were put in place for very good reason? Probably only when everyone is once again a
bad person in the eyes of the government (or in the US as it stands today, in the eyes of
the corporations who run the government).
At which point the second revolution begins.
If someone is found to be a "bad person" according to due process of law, then punish them
under the law. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem when due process is
eliminated and the government does what it wants, when it wants, with no visibility by the
people. BTW, Timothy, under due process, was entitled to a new trial. New evidence was
found, and by due process ALL evidence MUST be presented at trial. If it is not, then a
new trial MUST take place. It matters not whether the evidence would have made a
difference or not (Who says it would have? Those who wanted him dead? They're perfect and
un-biased?), what matters is it set a legal precedent such that at any time an innocent
person could be convicted and sentenced without due process.
PGA
--
Paul G. Allen
Owner, Sr. Engineer, BSIT/SE
Random Logic Consulting Services
www.randomlogic.com
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
