Isn't detention without charges, the same as prison for innocents?

Question

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2126704,00.html

No evidence, no trial, no charges.

I know that approximately 30% of the people on Y/A will agree with this policy, but I also know that approximately 30% of the world is filled with pure evil.

There was a time when there was a difference between a suspect and a convict.

In the "war on terror" we are ALL suspects.

You know how to have this deleted, don't you? It's the little flag icon. Just click on it.

Answer 1

Yes, you are correct.

Detaining someone without charges is exactly that.

Even bail hearings, where the person is held pending trial, requires both valid charges and at least a bare showing of evidence that the prosecution can sustain the burden to prove guilt.

Throwing out both requirements allows for political imprisonment based purely on accusation and speculation.

Interestingly, this was British law centuries ago, which is why the US Constitution forbids it. But still the US practices it, even though our Supreme Court has repeated rules that it is illegal and unconstitutional.

It would be sad to see Britain fall back on the ancient barbaric ways of injustice.

Answer 2

HEIRARCHY OF PROOF

Court


1) Metaphysical Certainty = Philosophical ( 100% certainty)
2) Beyond a reasonable doubt = Convict in criminal court
3) Clear, satisfactory, convincing = Forfeiture
4) Preponderance of the evidence = 50 % and a grain of salt more or a (feather)

Police


5) Probable cause = Search, seizure, arrest, warrant
6) Reasonable suspicion = Stop, frisk ( brief and for weapons outside of clothing)
7) Mere suspicion = Gut instinct and just observe nothing else

Answer 3

It will stop soon, even the conservative supreme court has ruled against bush and his ways.

Answer 4

Of course, unless Cheney's involved..

Answer 5

Only if you actually read the U.S. Constitution which Bush has not.

Answer 6

It most certainly is.