• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Kucinich Legislation Would End the Extrajudicial Killing of U.S. Citizens

Goobieman said:
That's not what he said. You are deliberately misunderstandding him,

Police reasoaobly often kill those that break the law w/o those pople being arrested, going to trial or being convicted. They do so because those people do not follow the instructions of the police so that they CAN be arrested, tried and (possibly) convicted.
Click to expand...

Yes, but that isn't what is happening here. There's a difference between a police officer shooting someone during the attempt to apprehend someone and outright targeted killing. The officer has the overall goal of bringing you in peacefully so that you can stand trial. If you're unarmed and surrendering, you're (probably) not going to get killed.

Sending out a hit squad or predator drone with the orders "kill this guy" is an entirely different thing.
 
Travelsonic said:
Suspected terrorists or not, if they are US citizens, it is the duty of those enforcing the law and punishing criminals of anykind to make sure that any punishment is served only after proving they are criminals, especially with such a strong and heavily weighted charge like this.

Lets not dilute this the way the sex offender's list [and similar measures in that aspect] have been in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I support the legislation I think I made that perfectly clear.
 
Goobieman said:
Actually, completely.

Presumption of innocence is not found anywhere in the Constitution, contrary to your assertion. If you disagree, you may cite the text.


None of these things necessitate a presumption of innocence -- each of them could be in place just as easily with the presumption of guilt.

Now, admit you made a mistake and move on.
Click to expand...

Ok, wonderful. If conservatives are going to be questioning every past ruling of the Supreme Court, I think Obama should do something drastic to convince them. Let's see... Here, he could start making criminal accusations against his political enemies in the media, and announce that they have to prove their innocence. Just a few of them, you know, like Rush Limbaugh and such. The hue and cry about "innocent until proven guilty" would resound across the land.

With his tongue firmly in his cheek Obama could ask "From whence does this presumption of innocence arise, O Republican enemy?" The swift reply would be:

FROM THE CONSTITUTION OF COURSE Coffin v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And then we can finally take a step back from the insanity of the conservatives in today's world. I mean REALLY, people, what will you think of NEXT????
 
Dezaad said:
With his tongue firmly in his cheek Obama could ask "From whence does this presumption of innocence arise, O Republican enemy?" The swift reply would be:
FROM THE CONSTITUTION OF COURSE
Click to expand...
I'm sorry... I dont see where a case from 1895 that established the presumption of innocence cites the text of the Constitutuion that mandates a presumption of innocence.

If the case established said presumption, as your source says, how then could have said presumption been specified by the Constitution?

To wit:
The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law.
Click to expand...
Note the absence of any citation from the Constitution, here or anywhere else in the decision.

Further, the case describes the history of said presumption, almost all of which clearly -predates- the Constitution.

And so, while the presumption of innocrence clearly exists, it exists indepenedent of the Constitution; it is neither specified by the Constitution nor protected by it.

And then we can finally take a step back from the insanity of the conservatives in today's world. I mean REALLY, people, what will you think of NEXT????
Click to expand...
Clearly, your are ignorant of the specifics of this discussion, and have jumped off the deep end -- but then, liberals are like that.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom