Rove - Guilty, Right?

[gordontravels]

I am equating only to the extent that in both cases the accused are American citizens who have been accused of wrongdoing.

The only thing this has to do with Rove is that someone made the point (you I think) that in this country you are innocent until proven guilty. That used to be the standard, and I'm sure that is the standard Rove would like applied to him, but his own Administration apparently doesn't feel that rule need apply to other Americans accused of wrongdoing.

You said:

Have Padilla and Hamdi been assumend innocent until proven guilty? Have they had a chance to prove themselves innocent? Did the prosecution prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? Did they have a choice of jury trial or trial by judge? Were they convicted? Did they have an appeal as to whether they were guilty?

Then you asked:

It is not only recent memory it is going on now under this Administration.
Both are American citizens. Both are accused. Neither has had a change to proclaim their case and face their accusers. Hamdi was locked up for years and finally release after the Govt was told he'd have to have some kind of legal proceedings. Padilla has been locked up for years without constitutional due process as to his guilt or innocence, except it is being litigated in the Courts whether the Govt has to give him due process at all and if so what kind.

IMO, Rove should get the same kind of "due process" as his Administration has given these other Americans.

I'm sorry but the laws you cite are through the Patriot Act and are designed for the safety of the citizens of the States. If an individual wants to subscribe to terrorist ideals I don't mind since these laws were passed by the representatives that we elected. You cite "Americans" in the post I referenced. That is me and I don't worry about a terrorism investigation or charges brought against me for them.

You are still equating terrorism laws against the judicial system. I will agree that there may be abuse built into the system because it is only a few years old but, I will be willing to err on the side of caution and our legal system works for the good of all. :duel

 

[Iriemon]

I'm sorry but the laws you cite are through the Patriot Act and are designed for the safety of the citizens of the States. If an individual wants to subscribe to terrorist ideals I don't mind since these laws were passed by the representatives that we elected. You cite "Americans" in the post I referenced. That is me and I don't worry about a terrorism investigation or charges brought against me for them.

You are still equating terrorism laws against the judicial system. I will agree that there may be abuse built into the system because it is only a few years old but, I will be willing to err on the side of caution and our legal system works for the good of all. :duel

Are not Padilla and Hamdi American citizens?

Are they more than accused?

Have they had they rights constitutionally guaranteed to Americans accused of a crime you assured us all Americans received in your earlier post?

 

[cnredd]

Are not Padilla and Hamdi American citizens?

Are they more than accused?

Have they had they rights constitutionally guaranteed to Americans accused of a crime you assured us all Americans received in your earlier post?

You're still missing why Rove is not an acceptible comparison....

Padilla and Hamdi are held due to laws enacted in the Patriot Act, which BTW, was authorized by Congress, thus debunking your accusation that "Rove should get the same kind of "due process" as his Administration has given these other Americans."...Administrations do not give or take "due process"...Sorry it hurts your partisan cheap-shot...

The Patriot Act is just an expansion of the RICO laws created 30+ years ago to include alledged terrorists...of which those two ARE...When the Patriot Act is expanded to include "Chiefs of Staff", then your comparison will be applicable...:roll:

 

[gordontravels]

Are not Padilla and Hamdi American citizens?

Are they more than accused?

Have they had they rights constitutionally guaranteed to Americans accused of a crime you assured us all Americans received in your earlier post?

Yes they are. No they aren't. They are being held under laws written by the Congress of the United States and signed into law after passing Congress by President Bush Their rights are guaranteed under the Constitution and the Supreme Court has ruled on the matter.

Britain also has the ability to impose lengthy holding of those under investigation of acts of terrorism. I think you just can't separate the laws applying to terrorism from the standard criminal laws of many countries around the world.

This is your problem not mine and like I said, I don't fear being arrested or investigated for terrorist acts here in the United States or elsewhere. I'm not going in that direction in my life. No box cutters. No pen knife. No bomb except for some of my posts. :duel

 

[Iriemon]

You're still missing why Rove is not an acceptible comparison....

Padilla and Hamdi are held due to laws enacted in the Patriot Act, which BTW, was authorized by Congress, thus debunking your accusation that "Rove should get the same kind of "due process" as his Administration has given these other Americans."...Administrations do not give or take "due process"...Sorry it hurts your partisan cheap-shot...

The Patriot Act is just an expansion of the RICO laws created 30+ years ago to include alledged terrorists...of which those two ARE...When the Patriot Act is expanded to include "Chiefs of Staff", then your comparison will be applicable...:roll:

Edit: I wrote this thinking I was responding to Gordontravels, and the statements I attributed to "you" were his, not Cnredd. Cnredd jumped in here defending Gordon's post and can decide whether he wants to stand by his statements.

+++

I will answer my own questions since you dodged them:

Are not Padilla and Hamdi American citizens? Yes they are American citizens. No one disputed that.

Are they more than accused? No. There has been no finding by any court of law much less a jury that Hamdi or Padilla actually did anything wrong. We only have the Government's accusation that they are terrorists.

Have they had they rights constitutionally guaranteed to Americans accused of a crime you assured us all Americans received in your earlier post? No they have not. They were locked away, incommunicado, without even the most basic due process. They have not been charged with a crime, had a hearing, a chance to proclaim their guilt or innocence, explain their situation, access to counsel, much less the right to have their guilt or innocence decided by a jury of their peers.

You boasted about how accused Americans, like Rove, are innocent until proven guilty. These accused Americans have been deemed guilty until proven innocent. Hell, not even that -- they have been deemed guilty without even the chance to try to prove they are innocent.

You can say "oh this is the Patriot Act" (if it is, I am eternally against it) or these guys are terrorists or whatever excuse you want to make up as to why these American citizens (and other who will follow) do not have the same rights as any other accused. The fact is they are Americans accused of wrongdoing who have not gotten the (constitutional) rights you said all Americans have.

Administrations do not give or take "due process"...Sorry it hurts your partisan cheap-shot...

These Americans have been locked away without even the most basic due process rights (in an act I would expect to happen in some two bit dictatorship, not the land of the free) specifically by this Administration, whose party controls congress. Nice partisan try passing the buck.

You bragged:

I know the legal system in the United States very well and it is among the most advanced in the world. Here you don't have to prove you are innocent. The prosecution has to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused has a choice of a jury trial or a trial by judge. Even if convicted, there are appeals through a court system that is extensive enough to assure the guilt or innocence of any accused. Is it perfect? Nothing is. To think that someone in our government conforms to another set of laws that we as citizens have no access to is to be ill informed at the least.

Having said that; would you care to name any case history in recent memory here in the United States where the accused American didn't get a chance to proclaim their case and face their accusers? Just give me the who vs. who and I'll be glad to look it up. You must know something I don't.

And I fervently hope you're wrong. I'm in court on Wednesday next. Again.

Despite your fervent hope, I just gave you two case histories in recent memory here in the United States where the accused American didn't get a chance to proclaim their case and face their accusers. You can admit that I am right.

 

[Iriemon]

Yes they are. No they aren't. They are being held under laws written by the Congress of the United States and signed into law after passing Congress by President Bush Their rights are guaranteed under the Constitution and the Supreme Court has ruled on the matter.
:duel

So what? What difference does it make what the legal excuse is? You were boasting about the rights accused Americans have. For whatever (lame) reason you or the conservative courts and government come up with for depriving these guys (and others to follow) of their constitutional rights, you cannot deny the fact that these accused Americans have not been given the same rights you claimed accused Americans have.

You asked me to give you names of accused Americans in recent memories who did not receive these rights. I gave you two. And there will be more to come if the Govt gets away with it. Do you agree with me, despite your fervant hope, that these accused Americans do not have the rights you boasted all Americans have in your earlier post?

And these are American citizens we are talking about. Never mind the hundreds (or thousands) of foreign citizens this Govt has locked away without even basic process like some two bit dictatorship.

 

[gordontravels]

Edit: I wrote this thinking I was responding to Gordontravels, and the statements I attributed to "you" were his, not Cnredd. Cnredd jumped in here defending Gordon's post and can decide whether he wants to stand by his statements.

+++

I will answer my own questions since you dodged them:

Are not Padilla and Hamdi American citizens? Yes they are American citizens. No one disputed that.

Are they more than accused? No. There has been no finding by any court of law much less a jury that Hamdi or Padilla actually did anything wrong. We only have the Government's accusation that they are terrorists.

Have they had they rights constitutionally guaranteed to Americans accused of a crime you assured us all Americans received in your earlier post? No they have not. They were locked away, incommunicado, without even the most basic due process. They have not been charged with a crime, had a hearing, a chance to proclaim their guilt or innocence, explain their situation, access to counsel, much less the right to have their guilt or innocence decided by a jury of their peers.

You boasted about how accused Americans, like Rove, are innocent until proven guilty. These accused Americans have been deemed guilty until proven innocent. Hell, not even that -- they have been deemed guilty without even the chance to try to prove they are innocent.

You can say "oh this is the Patriot Act" (if it is, I am eternally against it) or these guys are terrorists or whatever excuse you want to make up as to why these American citizens (and other who will follow) do not have the same rights as any other accused. The fact is they are Americans accused of wrongdoing who have not gotten the (constitutional) rights you said all Americans have.

These Americans have been locked away without even the most basic due process rights (in an act I would expect to happen in some two bit dictatorship, not the land of the free) specifically by this Administration, whose party controls congress. Nice partisan try passing the buck.

You bragged:

Despite your fervent hope, I just gave you two case histories in recent memory here in the United States where the accused American didn't get a chance to proclaim their case and face their accusers. You can admit that I am right.

I answered your questions in my first two sentences and didn't dodge your questions at all. If you aren't going to even read the first few words what's the point of debating with you?

As far as you saying I can make up anything I want, I thank you but will refrain. I prefer facts.

Fact is that if Karl Rove or Scooter Libby are charged and indicted they will be criminal charges. The Patriot Act you will forever be against is designed to curb the mass murder that comes with terrorism; indescriminately, viciously and for purely religious or political reasons. If there is any evidence against someone that connects them with terrorism I am for holding them as long as it takes to make the case or not. Is this fair? I think so. Should someone be compensated if held and then suffering no charges? I think that would be fair also.

I am not for being soft on terrorism either from someone who participates or someone that simply picks up the telephone and makes a threat for whatever purpose including fun. I am comfortable with the laws of my country. :duel

 

[cnredd]

[These Americans have been locked away without even the most basic due process rights (in an act I would expect to happen in some two bit dictatorship, not the land of the free) specifically by this Administration, whose party controls congress. Nice partisan try passing the buck.

Sorry to prove you wrong again...:shrug:

The Patriot Act is actually named "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001"

Now let's check on what party controlled the Senate at the time of this act being put into law...

50+49+1
May 30, 2001

The 100-member U.S. Senate had been split exactly down the middle: 50 Republicans and 50 Democrats. With Vice President Dick Cheney holding the decisive tie-breaking vote, the Republicans had control of the Senate. That meant they set the agenda and lead the committees.

Since committees are where most of the real work of government goes on, and since Republicans controlled the White House and the House of Representatives, party leaders were confident they could accomplish their goals.

But with Jeffords' announcement that he would become an Independent, the balance shifted: 49 Republicans plus 50 Democrats equals a Democratic Senate.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june01/politics_main.html

Seeing as how Senate only legislates resolutions that are passed by the House of Representatives first, it seems to me that the Democratic controlled Senate passed the Patriot Act on to the President to be signed...your ascertation that the Admistration is the same party that controlled Congess is false...

BTW - I've included the Patriot Act if you ever feel like reading it...:2wave:

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

 

[Iriemon]

I answered your questions in my first two sentences and didn't dodge your questions at all. If you aren't going to even read the first few words what's the point of debating with you?

As far as you saying I can make up anything I want, I thank you but will refrain. I prefer facts.

Fact is that if Karl Rove or Scooter Libby are charged and indicted they will be criminal charges. The Patriot Act you will forever be against is designed to curb the mass murder that comes with terrorism; indescriminately, viciously and for purely religious or political reasons. If there is any evidence against someone that connects them with terrorism I am for holding them as long as it takes to make the case or not. Is this fair? I think so. Should someone be compensated if held and then suffering no charges? I think that would be fair also.

I am not for being soft on terrorism either from someone who participates or someone that simply picks up the telephone and makes a threat for whatever purpose including fun. I am comfortable with the laws of my country. :duel

Why are you explaining all this? I never suggested you did not have reasons for why these accused Americans should not have even the most basic rights of an accused.

You boasted about what a great legal system America has and how all accused Americans have all these rights. I suggested you were wrong about that. You are. Not all accused Americans have the rights you said they do. It depends upon what they are accused of (and by whom). Just like I said.

To me, now that the shoe is on the other foot, it would be rough justice that Rove get the same "process" his government gives to some other accused Americans.

On other point, how do you know there is "evidence" against Padilla and other accused Americans like him. Because the Govt says so? Because you read it on the internet? Is that how the wonderful American justice system works?

 

[Iriemon]

Sorry to prove you wrong again...:shrug:

The Patriot Act is actually named "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001"

Now let's check on what party controlled the Senate at the time of this act being put into law...

50+49+1
May 30, 2001

The 100-member U.S. Senate had been split exactly down the middle: 50 Republicans and 50 Democrats. With Vice President Dick Cheney holding the decisive tie-breaking vote, the Republicans had control of the Senate. That meant they set the agenda and lead the committees.

Since committees are where most of the real work of government goes on, and since Republicans controlled the White House and the House of Representatives, party leaders were confident they could accomplish their goals.

But with Jeffords' announcement that he would become an Independent, the balance shifted: 49 Republicans plus 50 Democrats equals a Democratic Senate.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june01/politics_main.html

Seeing as how Senate only legislates resolutions that are passed by the House of Representatives first, it seems to me that the Democratic controlled Senate passed the Patriot Act on to the President to be signed...your ascertation that the Admistration is the same party that controlled Congess is false...

BTW - I've included the Patriot Act if you ever feel like reading it...:2wave:

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

You are trying to argue that this Adminstration has nothing to do with locking up folks like Padilla and Hamdi and others in their situation without due process? LOL

But how am I wrong? How does any of this demonstrate these accused Americans received the rights supposedly all accused Americans get as claimed here (and the constitution): http://debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=120961&postcount=17

Thanks for including the Patriot Act link. I looked thru it and didn't see a section that said we are suspending constitutional rights for anyone the Administration accuses of being a terrorist. Can you give me the applicable section, if there is one?

 

[cnredd]

You are trying to argue that this Adminstration has nothing to do with locking up folks like Padilla and Hamdi and others in their situation without due process? LOL

The admistration does not "lock up folks"...they have no authority to...The most they can do is have legislation passed through Congress that gives the authority to certain security forces(FBI, CIA...I don't know about local) to "lock up folks"...

Just because an Administration is a certain party, that doesn't make the whole government that party...It's not a "Republican controlled FBI" just as it's not a "Republican controlled IRS" or a "Republican controlled Postal Service"...

But how am I wrong? How does any of this demonstrate these accused Americans received the rights supposedly all accused Americans get as claimed here (and the constitution): http://debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=120961&postcount=17

UNTIL the Supreme Court rules that this is indeed unconstitutional(Or maybe a lower court?...I don't know how low on the judicial system this could be overruled), the Partiot Act can be applied legally and within the bounds of existing law...YOU are saying that they are being denied constitutional rights...so far, the judicial system disagrees...

Thanks for including the Patriot Act link. I looked thru it and didn't see a section that said we are suspending constitutional rights for anyone the Administration accuses of being a terrorist. Can you give me the applicable section, if there is one?

Once again, your accusation is that they are "suspending constitutional rights"...That is for the judicial system to decide...since the Patriot Act is still in effect, it seems that what you accuse it of is false...

And please stop with the "Administration" BS...It's the law enforcement agencies that are doing the accusing...whether or not the Admistration believes the accusations or not is irrelevant...They get their information directly FROM these law enforcement agencies anyway...

The "Administration" can accuse YOU of being a terrorist...but it wouldn't amount to a hill of beans...The FBI would have to make that accusation before the Patriot Act can be enforced...

 

[Iriemon]

The admistration does not "lock up folks"...they have no authority to...

Never claimed they did.

The most they can do is have legislation passed through Congress that gives the authority to certain security forces(FBI, CIA...I don't know about local) to "lock up folks"...

Congress does not have the authority to supersede the Constitution. But that is a legal question the Supremes decide.

UNTIL the Supreme Court rules that this is indeed unconstitutional(Or maybe a lower court?...I don't know how low on the judicial system this could be overruled), the Partiot Act can be applied legally and within the bounds of existing law...YOU are saying that they are being denied constitutional rights...so far, the judicial system disagrees...

I did not argue whether it was legal or not. That is a different subject. IMO these rights, set forth in several places in our Constitution, are not meant to be abrogated just by coming up with some a new label (enemy combatant). But that is just my view.

What I said was that not all accused Americans are receiving the rights Gordontravel said they had. IMO, these rights are constitutional because most of them (right to counsel, due process, jury trial, face your accusers, etc etc) are explicitly spelled out in various parts of the constitution. I can cite them if you want.

Once again, your accusation is that they are "suspending constitutional rights"...That is for the judicial system to decide...since the Patriot Act is still in effect, it seems that what you accuse it of is false...

As a legal matter, you are correct. As a matter of opinion, I am entitled to my own, thank you.

And please stop with the "Administration" BS...It's the law enforcement agencies that are doing the accusing...whether or not the Admistration believes the accusations or not is irrelevant...They get their information directly FROM these law enforcement agencies anyway...

Disagree. Whether you think it right or wrong, American citizens would not be locked away without process under a different Adminstration. These acts are the Bush-Cheney-Rove brand of "justice".

The "Administration" can accuse YOU of being a terrorist...but it wouldn't amount to a hill of beans...The FBI would have to make that accusation before the Patriot Act can be enforced...

I didn't think the Patriot Act gives anyone the right to lock people away without due process. Again, is there a section that says that? I didn't find one.

 

[cnredd]

As a legal matter, you are correct. As a matter of opinion, I am entitled to my own, thank you.

Disagree. Whether you think it right or wrong, American citizens would not be locked away without process under a different Adminstration. These acts are the Bush-Cheney-Rove brand of "justice".

Im gonna make this short and sweet...

It seems I can do nothing but agree to disagree...

I believe the Patriot Act is a legal matter, and it has not been overruled, so I'm fine with it...

The Bush-Cheney-Rove brand of "justice" is another partisan cheapshot...can't resist, can ya?...:shrug:

 

[gordontravels]

Why are you explaining all this? I never suggested you did not have reasons for why these accused Americans should not have even the most basic rights of an accused.

You boasted about what a great legal system America has and how all accused Americans have all these rights. I suggested you were wrong about that. You are. Not all accused Americans have the rights you said they do. It depends upon what they are accused of (and by whom). Just like I said.

To me, now that the shoe is on the other foot, it would be rough justice that Rove get the same "process" his government gives to some other accused Americans.

On other point, how do you know there is "evidence" against Padilla and other accused Americans like him. Because the Govt says so? Because you read it on the internet? Is that how the wonderful American justice system works?

Then we absolutely disagree and I will stand by my previous posts. I prefer to err on the side of caution if I must err at all. :duel

 

[Iriemon]

Then we absolutely disagree and I will stand by my previous posts. I prefer to err on the side of caution if I must err at all. :duel

Fair enough, but I never quite understood your answer -- are you arguing that accused Americans like Padilla and Hamdi get the same great rights you boasted all Americans get under our wonderful legal system? Or are you agree with me that they do not -- because of some section nobody can identify in the Patriot Act?