Seriously as a right winger?

Question

How mad would you be face a legal matter where you were not privy to the evidence against you?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19632877/


Is this just more "god bless America" stuff. Or National Nazi dictaorship?

Answer 1

There must be some serious oversight on the surveillance programs being used within the States. This "war on terror" could go on for generations. Do we just become fish in a bowl with no checks on what our government is doing behind the scenes?

Answer 2

Thanks for another example of the "do as I say, not as I do" mindset of the liberals/dems.

I guess it was okay when Robert Kennedy had illegal/secret wiretaps on Dr. King. Or Clinton giving the RIAA permission to enter your home without a warrant and seize your computer if they just THINK that you MAY have downloaded a song without paying for it.

Oh, and based on your name I'm assuming that your operating under the assumption that Republicans are racist. I suppose you are choosing to ignore the fact that it was Democrats that authored and passed the laws making slavery legal in the United States, that it was the Democrats that authored and passed the Jim Crow laws, that it was the Democrats that started the klan. And, it was Republicans that opposed and fought all of those things.

Answer 3

Well, I'm not right-winger, but I still wouldn't take you seriously.

As for domestic wiretapping, since it has apparently gone over your head, almost all politicians are in favor of it, including Democrats. They are arguing over the issue of warrants in connection with wiretaps. That is certainly a valid issue to be looked into...but don't think for one second that Hillary Clinton is just as much in favor of domestic wiretapping as is George Bush.

Pay attention to the issues an maybe you'll figure out what they are really about. Absolutely nobody is actually trying to stop domestic wiretapping...NOBODY!!! They simply want ol' Shrub to follow the rules they set up to govern them. (And that is legitimate.)

Answer 4

The burden of proof is on the accuser. These guys were the plaintiffs - the accusers in a civil trial. The burden of proof isn't as heavy in a civil trial ('preponderance of evidence' rather than 'beyond a reasonable doubt'), but it's still on the plaintif. Sorry.

Answer 5

I'll be more mad than you and well be very disappointed to our system of justice. I'll considered it as an uncivilized practice. I don't know if this things will happened to them if they will be more than happy than anybody else.
Two things.
- kept the faith with our legal system. Inspired and genius those framer of the laws.
- have patience, and have faith in heaven hope it will intervene. Heaven works in a marvelous way.

Answer 6

? The man has no evidence a crime was committed against him. If I was in court because some accused me of something while having no evidence to support their claim I would be confused, and a little or a lot annoyed.

Answer 7

What job were they doing that the possibility of wiretaps prevented it? I can't think of a single legal answer to that. Therefore, by all means, throw the case out.

Answer 8

The Nazi dictatorship began with a lot of "Deutchland ubber alles" stuff too.

Answer 9

We might as well face it. We have been sold down the river in the name of money & power. Absolute power.Bush has been answerable to no one. He has bypassed congress and legislation and does what ever he so chooses and they can't touch him. If we are still a Republic we can push our legislators to impeach and/or dethrone him. That is our responsibility and the only way to stop this regime.

Answer 10

Just what we've been trying to tell those neo-con nazi's all this time. This is the start of much more to come.