| Guilty untill proven innocent on 21:47 - Aug 25 with 1008 views | Davillin |
| Guilty untill proven innocent on 15:56 - Aug 25 by controversial_jack |
I agree with you, however doesn't your own country contradict these principles at a certain naval base in Cuba?
This alleged war with isis has come as a distraction to the genocide in Gaza |
in answer to your question, I wrote above, ". . . for me, especially the U.S. federal government, are truly insane treating this as a matter for criminal procedure." |  |
|  |
| Guilty untill proven innocent on 21:48 - Aug 25 with 1007 views | Pacemaker |
| Guilty untill proven innocent on 21:37 - Aug 25 by DwightYorkeSuperstar |
I though this happened anyway.
Being detained without bail is being held on the presumption of being guilty is it not?
An extreme case would be Guantanamo but even non terror related crimes can result in you being detained for months, sometimes years before your trial. |
The reason the Americans used Guantanamo was because it was not possible under US law to hold suspects without charge.
In this country you have to be charged with an offence (only on CPS advice) and then you have to fail several tests under the bail act to be remanded in custody. Even then there are custody time limits so you will be released if you don't get your case heard in time. |  |
| Life is an adventure or nothing at all. |
| |
| Guilty untill proven innocent on 21:50 - Aug 25 with 1003 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Guilty untill proven innocent on 21:47 - Aug 25 by DwightYorkeSuperstar |
What about in American prisons where if you cannot afford your bail, often in the hundreds of thousands of dollars even for non violent and less extreme crimes, you are stuck in prison, quite often for a number of years before your trial?
It's detaining people without knowing they're guilty, only being released if proven innocent in their trial. Sounds like what Boris wants if you ask me.
I disagree with it too by the way. It's as silly as his floating airport legacy idea. |
No again. Boris wants a change in the law to presume people are guilty of a crime. It's not the same as "detaining people without knowing they're guilty".
I don't know enough about the US legal system to comment on your first paragraph. |  |
| |
| Guilty untill proven innocent on 22:02 - Aug 25 with 981 views | Davillin |
| Guilty untill proven innocent on 21:48 - Aug 25 by Pacemaker |
The reason the Americans used Guantanamo was because it was not possible under US law to hold suspects without charge.
In this country you have to be charged with an offence (only on CPS advice) and then you have to fail several tests under the bail act to be remanded in custody. Even then there are custody time limits so you will be released if you don't get your case heard in time. |
I don't know what Dwight posted, but I can reply to your response. It is legal under U.S. law to hold someone without charge -- if he's a prisoner of war.
Just as your country did during WW2, the U.S. held prisoners of war on U.S. soil. One of my uncles spent some time as a guard at one in Texas before he went to Europe. Then, there was no question about the Germans' and Italians' status.
At the time Guantanamo was first used, however, there was something of a legal question of whether the inmates were prisoners of war or civilian prisoners.
The Obama Administration in the past six years have shifted the answer all the way to "civilian prisoners." Hence all of the problems. If they are prisoners of war, there's nothing wrong with Guantanamo.
In the eyes of many, regardless of what this Administration says, we are at war and they are prisoners of war. Oh, well, that's democracy for you. | |
| |
| Guilty untill proven innocent on 22:13 - Aug 25 with 967 views | controversial_jack |
| Guilty untill proven innocent on 22:02 - Aug 25 by Davillin |
I don't know what Dwight posted, but I can reply to your response. It is legal under U.S. law to hold someone without charge -- if he's a prisoner of war.
Just as your country did during WW2, the U.S. held prisoners of war on U.S. soil. One of my uncles spent some time as a guard at one in Texas before he went to Europe. Then, there was no question about the Germans' and Italians' status.
At the time Guantanamo was first used, however, there was something of a legal question of whether the inmates were prisoners of war or civilian prisoners.
The Obama Administration in the past six years have shifted the answer all the way to "civilian prisoners." Hence all of the problems. If they are prisoners of war, there's nothing wrong with Guantanamo.
In the eyes of many, regardless of what this Administration says, we are at war and they are prisoners of war. Oh, well, that's democracy for you. |
I don't' think kidnapping people from their homes and various countries not related to the battlefield qualifies as being prisoners of war. It's not even close |  | | |
| Guilty untill proven innocent on 22:14 - Aug 25 with 967 views | Pacemaker |
| Guilty untill proven innocent on 22:02 - Aug 25 by Davillin |
I don't know what Dwight posted, but I can reply to your response. It is legal under U.S. law to hold someone without charge -- if he's a prisoner of war.
Just as your country did during WW2, the U.S. held prisoners of war on U.S. soil. One of my uncles spent some time as a guard at one in Texas before he went to Europe. Then, there was no question about the Germans' and Italians' status.
At the time Guantanamo was first used, however, there was something of a legal question of whether the inmates were prisoners of war or civilian prisoners.
The Obama Administration in the past six years have shifted the answer all the way to "civilian prisoners." Hence all of the problems. If they are prisoners of war, there's nothing wrong with Guantanamo.
In the eyes of many, regardless of what this Administration says, we are at war and they are prisoners of war. Oh, well, that's democracy for you. |
And that's the crux of the problem these suspects are civilians not prisoners of war per se.
Under this suggestion by Boris Johnson unless they could prove otherwise they would be presumed guilty, how do you prove you are an aid worker in a war zone?
Freedom fighters or terrorists is the old age question. That can never be answered easily by any democracy. | |
| Life is an adventure or nothing at all. |
| |
| Guilty untill proven innocent on 22:42 - Aug 25 with 953 views | controversial_jack |
| Guilty untill proven innocent on 22:14 - Aug 25 by Pacemaker |
And that's the crux of the problem these suspects are civilians not prisoners of war per se.
Under this suggestion by Boris Johnson unless they could prove otherwise they would be presumed guilty, how do you prove you are an aid worker in a war zone?
Freedom fighters or terrorists is the old age question. That can never be answered easily by any democracy. |
So, we can conclude then, that BJ is a complete and utter fundamental opening! | | | |
| Guilty untill proven innocent on 22:44 - Aug 25 with 953 views | Davillin |
| Guilty untill proven innocent on 22:13 - Aug 25 by controversial_jack |
I don't' think kidnapping people from their homes and various countries not related to the battlefield qualifies as being prisoners of war. It's not even close |
Not disrespectfully, I will not respond to your post, above. I don't want to beat a dead horse and your mind is closed, and your post is not rationally related to the thread. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Guilty untill proven innocent on 22:51 - Aug 25 with 947 views | controversial_jack |
| Guilty untill proven innocent on 22:44 - Aug 25 by Davillin |
Not disrespectfully, I will not respond to your post, above. I don't want to beat a dead horse and your mind is closed, and your post is not rationally related to the thread. |
Oh, there we are then! | | | |
| Guilty untill proven innocent on 22:53 - Aug 25 with 937 views | DwightYorkeSuperstar |
Does anybody else think it's embarrassing that an intelligent man like Dav blocks people on football forums. |  |
| |
| Guilty untill proven innocent on 23:05 - Aug 25 with 936 views | Davillin |
| Guilty untill proven innocent on 22:51 - Aug 25 by controversial_jack |
Oh, there we are then! |
Thanks for that. | |
| |
| Guilty untill proven innocent on 00:15 - Aug 26 with 929 views | Highjack |
I don't know the figures but I imagine there are people who go out to these places to do charity work or to help out in hospitals etc. |  |
| |
| Guilty untill proven innocent on 00:17 - Aug 26 with 927 views | Highjack |
Also how the hell would they police it? If you're flying out to Afghanistan you are presumed a terrorist? Well what if you are one of the millions who fly to Pakistan every year and just hop over the border in a car? 7
Boris is an absolute fruitloop and entertaining as he is he really should think with that undoubtedly extraordinary brain of his before spurting rubbish like this out. | |
| |
| Guilty untill proven innocent on 03:43 - Aug 26 with 911 views | dameedna |
| Guilty untill proven innocent on 21:47 - Aug 25 by DwightYorkeSuperstar |
What about in American prisons where if you cannot afford your bail, often in the hundreds of thousands of dollars even for non violent and less extreme crimes, you are stuck in prison, quite often for a number of years before your trial?
It's detaining people without knowing they're guilty, only being released if proven innocent in their trial. Sounds like what Boris wants if you ask me.
I disagree with it too by the way. It's as silly as his floating airport legacy idea. |
Send them overseas to work in Israel |  | | |
| Guilty untill proven innocent on 09:00 - Aug 26 with 875 views | JackoBoostardo |
Too many people liberally ignoring the real world threats modern terrorism poses. It's a war without borders and against an enemy that has no questions about slaughtering the innocent!
We DO need to change in time with current requirements. We DO need to get tough against these sub-animal scumbags. People who don't see them as a threat I hope never have to encounter one of their bombs, as they are far more proficient at explosives than their battlefield prowess. But then it's frequently said they bring fear by the fact they're fearless in battle, as they are wanting to die for their cause!
We are going backwards by being soft on these bast@rds! Too many being blinded by ineffective human rights considerations which mostly protect the perpetrator, not necessarily the victims or the innocent! |  |
| |
| Guilty untill proven innocent on 10:20 - Aug 26 with 874 views | fergusferret |
| Guilty untill proven innocent on 13:01 - Aug 25 by JackoBoostardo |
Why should we afford human rights to those who so freely and blatantly ignore the same rights in their victims.
National Security, and the protection of innocent civilians must surely be the prime concern for all in charge.
I'm all for stricter controls in this sense. Terrorism is not a 'normal' crime and we are not dealing with a 'normal' enemy here! They have no morals, no guilt and no civility - they're sub human in everyway and not worthy of a human rights act as a shield! [Post edited 25 Aug 2014 13:15]
|
So I hope they will treat any British Jews off to do their stint with the IDF with the same diligence | | | |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 11:58 - Aug 26 with 848 views | JackoBoostardo |
| Guilty untill proven innocent on 10:20 - Aug 26 by fergusferret |
So I hope they will treat any British Jews off to do their stint with the IDF with the same diligence |
What a strange comment. There's a difference between national service and terrorism. [Post edited 26 Aug 2014 12:04]
| |
| |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 12:38 - Aug 26 with 831 views | jackb |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 11:58 - Aug 26 by JackoBoostardo |
What a strange comment. There's a difference between national service and terrorism. [Post edited 26 Aug 2014 12:04]
|
so anything is OK if sanctioned by a government?? |  | | |
| Guilty untill proven innocent on 12:53 - Aug 26 with 832 views | JackFish |
I'm sure those that are for this idea would be equally supportive if they or a family member/friend was held under the new rules. |  | | |
| Guilty untill proven innocent on 13:52 - Aug 26 with 822 views | Catullus |
| Guilty untill proven innocent on 21:43 - Aug 25 by exiledclaseboy |
No, being remanded in custody while investigations are continuing means that you're considered to be at risk of absconding if you were given bail. It's not a presumption of guilt because there is no such thing.
Guantanamo is different. It's an abomination and a stain on the surface of humanity. |
Held in remand is sort of a presumption of guilt though. They are certain you are guilty and will run given the chance, semantics I guess.
We cannot do away with innocent til proven guilty, ECB is right and it would be on a whim. It hasn't been thought through.
But maybe we can change the rules for certain crimes. Can we call terrorism a humanitarian crime and say all arrested on suspicion or charges of terrorism will be detained in high security until their trial?
They should also be exempted from certain human rights laws. They should have no visitors save their lawyer, the maximum sentence could be a whole life tariff with no parole for the most extreme offenders and time served will be in isolation in specially built new prisons. They would get nothing from the outside world, no tv, no papers and no phone calls. All they could have would be their religious rights, a reasonable cell and food and exercise facilities.
Terrorism, especially the IS brand, is not a normal crime and should not be treated normally. They can have their presumption of innocence and a fair trial, but if found guilty beyond any doubt, their whole world comes crashing down and they never see anyone again apart from their jailers, not even other prisoners. | |
| |
| Guilty untill proven innocent on 14:04 - Aug 26 with 819 views | Davillin |
| Guilty untill proven innocent on 13:52 - Aug 26 by Catullus |
Held in remand is sort of a presumption of guilt though. They are certain you are guilty and will run given the chance, semantics I guess.
We cannot do away with innocent til proven guilty, ECB is right and it would be on a whim. It hasn't been thought through.
But maybe we can change the rules for certain crimes. Can we call terrorism a humanitarian crime and say all arrested on suspicion or charges of terrorism will be detained in high security until their trial?
They should also be exempted from certain human rights laws. They should have no visitors save their lawyer, the maximum sentence could be a whole life tariff with no parole for the most extreme offenders and time served will be in isolation in specially built new prisons. They would get nothing from the outside world, no tv, no papers and no phone calls. All they could have would be their religious rights, a reasonable cell and food and exercise facilities.
Terrorism, especially the IS brand, is not a normal crime and should not be treated normally. They can have their presumption of innocence and a fair trial, but if found guilty beyond any doubt, their whole world comes crashing down and they never see anyone again apart from their jailers, not even other prisoners. |
The changes you suggest regarding pre-trial custody can be done on a case-by-case basis, but only by a judge, and only after a full and open hearing.
"Held without bail" happens relatively infrequently, and then in cases as you describe, and after a full and open hearing.
Some of your suggestions about their prison life do border on the Draconian [at least over here, where bleeding hearts always prevail. That is NOT to say that I disagree.]. | |
| |
| Guilty untill proven innocent on 14:11 - Aug 26 with 817 views | Batterseajack |
| Guilty untill proven innocent on 21:47 - Aug 25 by DwightYorkeSuperstar |
What about in American prisons where if you cannot afford your bail, often in the hundreds of thousands of dollars even for non violent and less extreme crimes, you are stuck in prison, quite often for a number of years before your trial?
It's detaining people without knowing they're guilty, only being released if proven innocent in their trial. Sounds like what Boris wants if you ask me.
I disagree with it too by the way. It's as silly as his floating airport legacy idea. |
On the face of it, what Boris says makes sense to me. It someone was in those countries and not involved in fighting with ISIS, then it should be fairly easy to prove.
But unfortunately our track record makes me think that this probably won't work so smoothly in reality and we'd soon end up hearing stories about innocent people being detained for years without trial like in Guantanamo. | | | |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 14:25 - Aug 26 with 811 views | JackoBoostardo |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 12:38 - Aug 26 by jackb |
so anything is OK if sanctioned by a government?? |
You trying to aim at the situation on Israel, yet we are talking about ISIS.
Israel, it could be argued are acting in self defence, and there IS evidence they are appearing to attack civilian areas because Hamas do have hidden rockets and launchers there. This is a fact!
ISIS is neither a government sanctioned fighting force, nor an army signed to anything remotely resembling a coffee of conduct - they are as legitimate an army as Al-qaeda. They are guilty of terrorist activities and the slaughter of countless civilians who do not subscribe to their doctrines and ideology.
By not supporting tougher action against these terrorists, I suggest you would leave the UK vulnerable... Something we've been far too complacent over. | |
| |
| Guilty untill proven innocent on 14:31 - Aug 26 with 809 views | Davillin |
| Guilty untill proven innocent on 14:11 - Aug 26 by Batterseajack |
On the face of it, what Boris says makes sense to me. It someone was in those countries and not involved in fighting with ISIS, then it should be fairly easy to prove.
But unfortunately our track record makes me think that this probably won't work so smoothly in reality and we'd soon end up hearing stories about innocent people being detained for years without trial like in Guantanamo. |
The only innocent people on the planet are still guzzling mother's milk.
And both of them are "iffy" innocent at best.
[Cynics are often right, you know.] | |
| |
| Guilty untill proven innocent on 14:58 - Aug 26 with 799 views | Catullus |
| Guilty untill proven innocent on 14:04 - Aug 26 by Davillin |
The changes you suggest regarding pre-trial custody can be done on a case-by-case basis, but only by a judge, and only after a full and open hearing.
"Held without bail" happens relatively infrequently, and then in cases as you describe, and after a full and open hearing.
Some of your suggestions about their prison life do border on the Draconian [at least over here, where bleeding hearts always prevail. That is NOT to say that I disagree.]. |
They may be Draconian, Davillin, but can anyone argue they are any worse than the beheadings or crucifixtions IS carry out? Or the kidnappings, be they westerners for ransom or young women to be used as sex slaves or virgin brides?
Fire with fire, eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. It's that kind of time. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
