![]() |
|
= = = m II wrote in message
= = = news:VNxKc.45988$iw3.36886@clgrps13... RHF wrote: Actually the 'logic' goes just the opposite. Instead of getting all the Bad News out "Now" and putting it in the past. The Liberal Media Elite are slowly letting it out a few photos at a time up to the day of the election; in order to try and influence the outcome of the election day-by-day; week-by-week; month-by-month {against President George "W" Bush} for John 'ff' Kerry and the Democrats. How is it possible that news/information can be manipulated this way by EITHER side? If it's there, it should be out in it's entirety. Why doesn't the Bush side release everything in one go then, to stop the slow 'leaks' by the opposing camp? News is meant to be heard, not played with for political gain. That may well be why a lot of folks started listening to shortwave to begin with. Even as a kid I thought the truth lay somewhere between what Washington and the Kremlin said...mind you, sometimes they BOTH stretched things beyond belief. mike MII, The original reason for withholding the information (pictures and images) was to allow the US Military to conduct an full investigation and charge and judge under the UCMJ. These few specific individual members of the military who committed these crimes do have the 'right' to due process . . . BEFORE - They were Tried in the Court of Public Opinion. MII - You do believe in Due Process ? US Constitution Amendments 5 & 14 http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentv http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...ndmentxiv.html International Due Process and more... http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionar...ess%20of%20Law ~ RHF .. |
"RHF" wrote in message om... = = = m II wrote in message = = = news:VNxKc.45988$iw3.36886@clgrps13... RHF wrote: Actually the 'logic' goes just the opposite. Instead of getting all the Bad News out "Now" and putting it in the past. The Liberal Media Elite are slowly letting it out a few photos at a time up to the day of the election; in order to try and influence the outcome of the election day-by-day; week-by-week; month-by-month {against President George "W" Bush} for John 'ff' Kerry and the Democrats. How is it possible that news/information can be manipulated this way by EITHER side? If it's there, it should be out in it's entirety. Why doesn't the Bush side release everything in one go then, to stop the slow 'leaks' by the opposing camp? News is meant to be heard, not played with for political gain. That may well be why a lot of folks started listening to shortwave to begin with. Even as a kid I thought the truth lay somewhere between what Washington and the Kremlin said...mind you, sometimes they BOTH stretched things beyond belief. mike MII, The original reason for withholding the information (pictures and images) was to allow the US Military to conduct an full investigation and charge and judge under the UCMJ. These few specific individual members of the military who committed these crimes do have the 'right' to due process . . . BEFORE - They were Tried in the Court of Public Opinion. The release of pictures and due process don't necessarily either go together nor are they necessarily mutually exclusive. Pictures of crime scenes are often shown in the press. Popular opinion rarely enters into jury deliberations to any significant degree. I will, however, agree with you on one point... if a person is supposedly innocent until proven guilty, as one is supposed to be in our judicial system, then their name should not be released to the press unless and until they are found guilty in a court of law. Many innocent people's reputations have been ruined because of a high profile criminal case (at least in their local area). Also, there is a section in the Constitution prohibiting excessive bail... but excessive bail seems more the rule than the exception anymore. I have read cases where a burglar has to post $20,000 bail.. if they had that kind of money in their wallet (or even their bank account) they most likely wouldn't be burglars... |
= = = "Brenda Ann Dyer" wrote in message
= = = ... "RHF" wrote in message om... = = = m II wrote in message = = = news:VNxKc.45988$iw3.36886@clgrps13... RHF wrote: Actually the 'logic' goes just the opposite. Instead of getting all the Bad News out "Now" and putting it in the past. The Liberal Media Elite are slowly letting it out a few photos at a time up to the day of the election; in order to try and influence the outcome of the election day-by-day; week-by-week; month-by-month {against President George "W" Bush} for John 'ff' Kerry and the Democrats. How is it possible that news/information can be manipulated this way by EITHER side? If it's there, it should be out in it's entirety. Why doesn't the Bush side release everything in one go then, to stop the slow 'leaks' by the opposing camp? News is meant to be heard, not played with for political gain. That may well be why a lot of folks started listening to shortwave to begin with. Even as a kid I thought the truth lay somewhere between what Washington and the Kremlin said...mind you, sometimes they BOTH stretched things beyond belief. mike MII, The original reason for withholding the information (pictures and images) was to allow the US Military to conduct an full investigation and charge and judge under the UCMJ. These few specific individual members of the military who committed these crimes do have the 'right' to due process . . . BEFORE - They were Tried in the Court of Public Opinion. The release of pictures and due process don't necessarily either go together nor are they necessarily mutually exclusive. Pictures of crime scenes are often shown in the press. Popular opinion rarely enters into jury deliberations to any significant degree. I will, however, agree with you on one point... if a person is supposedly innocent until proven guilty, as one is supposed to be in our judicial system, then their name should not be released to the press unless and until they are found guilty in a court of law. Many innocent people's reputations have been ruined because of a high profile criminal case (at least in their local area). Also, there is a section in the Constitution prohibiting excessive bail... but excessive bail seems more the rule than the exception anymore. I have read cases where a burglar has to post $20,000 bail.. if they had that kind of money in their wallet (or even their bank account) they most likely wouldn't be burglars... BAD, Oh Contraire... They Are Clearly Very Successful Burglars :o) jftfoi ~ RHF .. |
20000 bail is 2000 cash out of pocket. 10% is typical for a bail bond.
That's why they set it so high. I agree with you about publicizing ones name before they are proven guilty. In any case, "innocent until proven guilty" is just a saying, it has no basis in fact. If it were true, why is it that, if a jury can't decide if you are guilty or not (hung jury), they can try you again? If "innocent until proven guilty", their inability to prove your guilt should default to a not guilty verdict, not the legal equivalent of a "do over". "Brenda Ann Dyer" wrote in message ... The release of pictures and due process don't necessarily either go together nor are they necessarily mutually exclusive. Pictures of crime scenes are often shown in the press. Popular opinion rarely enters into jury deliberations to any significant degree. I will, however, agree with you on one point... if a person is supposedly innocent until proven guilty, as one is supposed to be in our judicial system, then their name should not be released to the press unless and until they are found guilty in a court of law. Many innocent people's reputations have been ruined because of a high profile criminal case (at least in their local area). Also, there is a section in the Constitution prohibiting excessive bail... but excessive bail seems more the rule than the exception anymore. I have read cases where a burglar has to post $20,000 bail.. if they had that kind of money in their wallet (or even their bank account) they most likely wouldn't be burglars... |
CW wrote:
20000 bail is 2000 cash out of pocket. 10% is typical for a bail bond. That's why they set it so high. I agree with you about publicizing ones name before they are proven guilty. In any case, "innocent until proven guilty" is just a saying, it has no basis in fact. (snipped) I believe the French and Mexicans among others, use a version of Napoleanic Law, where it's assumed the cops had a good reason to arrest you and therefore it's up to you to prove your innocence. Same as Guantanamo, except not quite as impossible. **COURTS** are available under Napoleanic law. I note with interest that some puppet of the US had set up a PRIVATE jail/torture centre in Afghanistan. He claims to have been in communication with Rumsfeld on a daily basis. May God save us from this version of 'Democracy'. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...2/ixworld.html For the 'bent' URL crowd: http://tinyurl.com/4zphx mike |
Idiot.
"m II" wrote in message news:x%ELc.46612$2i3.38839@clgrps12... (snipped) I believe the French and Mexicans among others, use a version of Napoleanic Law, where it's assumed the cops had a good reason to arrest you and therefore it's up to you to prove your innocence. Same as Guantanamo, except not quite as impossible. **COURTS** are available under Napoleanic law. I note with interest that some puppet of the US had set up a PRIVATE jail/torture centre in Afghanistan. He claims to have been in communication with Rumsfeld on a daily basis. May God save us from this version of 'Democracy'. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...2/ixworld.html For the 'bent' URL crowd: http://tinyurl.com/4zphx mike |
"CW" no adddress@spam free.com wrote in message ... Idiot. Which one you refering to? |
M II.
"Brenda Ann Dyer" wrote in message ... "CW" no adddress@spam free.com wrote in message ... Idiot. Which one you refering to? |
"Brenda Ann Dyer" wrote in message ... The release of pictures and due process don't necessarily either go together nor are they necessarily mutually exclusive. Pictures of crime scenes are often shown in the press. Popular opinion rarely enters into jury deliberations to any significant degree. Jurors come from the public and they come to court with their own opinions. It's hoped that they will be able to take in the evidence and the opinions of each other. The system works about as well as can be expected. However, there might be some justice in banning known Usenet Loons from juries. I will, however, agree with you on one point... if a person is supposedly innocent until proven guilty, as one is supposed to be in our judicial system, then their name should not be released to the press unless and until they are found guilty in a court of law. That wasn't considered a problem when the Federal and State Constitutions were written. Communities were smaller and more tight knit back then. I'm sure everyone had a pretty good idea who had been arrested, and for what. And the juries came out of these local communities. Many innocent people's reputations have been ruined because of a high profile criminal case (at least in their local area). Also, there is a section in the Constitution prohibiting excessive bail... but excessive bail seems more the rule than the exception anymore. I have read cases where a burglar has to post $20,000 bail.. if they had that kind of money in their wallet (or even their bank account) they most likely wouldn't be burglars... Maybe he wasn't a burgler.. he hadn't been convicted of anything at the time. Bail should be set in proportion to the chance of flight risk. If the accused burgler couldn't put up the entire 20,000, he almost certainly had the option of getting the money from a bail bondsman at 10%. Frank Dresser |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:46 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com