Is the notion "innocent until proved guilty" just a quaint notion of yesteryear?

[Winterblues]

and does it apply to anyone or just Americans. If a foreignor were to be charged with a crime should they also be considered innocent until proved guilty? Has America veared away from that idea? Is that a Legacy of the Republican domination of the last decade? Is that just considered an idea for people actually living within the USA. Gitmo is filled with people that have been presumed guilty before the fact and not granted any right to trial. Padilla was considered guilty before the fact and deprived of his Constitutional rights for over four years and he was arrested on the streets of Chicago. Why is it America is not concerned about this trend? To me this is as bad or worse than the US engaging in torture. Am I just retarded for letting this bother me?

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Personally, I think it is one of the cornerstones of a democracy and the fact that

it's been allowed to slip away (such as in cases at Gitmo) really disturb me too. :hug:

[Kelvin Mace]

2. No, you are not retarded

you have ethics and morality. This is why it bothers you.

The presumption of innocence is one of the cornerstones of the American justice system (along with Habeus Corpus and the 4th and 5th Amendment).

We erode them at our peril.

[sepulveda]

3. the argument goes

, and don't slag me for providing the argument. im not saying i agree with what happened to padilla.


but you AsKED.

that innocent until proven guilty is a precept of criminal courts.

war criminals, in any war have never been subject to that principle. no american president has ever seen fit to give suspected war criminals (see: WWII, WWI, etc. etc.) the benefit of innocent until proven guilty, nor the right to an attorney, etc.

nor have our POW's ever gotten that benefit.

the issue with padilla was that he was a US citizen detained on US soil, and that treating this as a "war thang" and not a "criminal thang" was wrong. iow, that the whole dirty bomb suspicious should have been subject ot the rules of evidence as apply in criminal trials. the buschco gang argued otherwise- that he was an unlawful enemy combatant iirc.

if it's a war thang, then he is not innocent until proven guilty, and the state does not have a burden to charge him with anything, or prove his guilt

but the idea that a US citizen on US soil can be subject to these concepts of military rule of law is the question.

[Winterblues]

5. Does that apply to the "war" on drugs or the "war" on poverty?

What "War"?

[sepulveda]

7. it does not have to be a declared war

according to "the rules".

it applied in "police actions" etc. we haven't had a declared war since WWII iirc.

also note that since al qaeda did already declare war on the US (quite some time ago), that adds to the alleged justification.

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. But, if it is a "war thang"

we MUST abide by the Geneva conventions.

And we're not doing THAT either.

[sepulveda]

8. correct

the argument goes that unlawful enemy combatants are not subject to GC conventions. of course, that's a self serving buscho argument.

not that this would surprise anybody :)

[Solly Mack]

4. I wish it bothered more people

:(

[Sadie4629]

9. I don't know

Why don't we ask the Duke Lacrosse players?

[baldguy]

10. You are innocent until proven guilty.

But you can be shot in the street by the police & left to die for being "suspicious".

[LeftCoast]

11. I am on a jury currently in deliberations.

And no, I don't think it's a quaint notion of yesteryear.

Not at all.