Home | Community | Message Board


SoulSpeciosa Kratom
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Amazon Shop: Scales

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1
InvisibleCJay
Dark Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 931
Loc: Riding a bassline
Guilty Until Proven Innocent
    #3235898 - 10/09/04 09:43 AM (12 years, 11 months ago)

The precept that the entire US and UK legal system is built on is: Innocent until proven guilty.

At least that is what it  was  built on. It seems times have changed and our protection under the law is slipping into immediate damning conviction. In both the USA and UK sweeping anti-terrorist laws and Patriot Acts undermine both the rights of the citizens and the concept of the law. People can be locked up without question, without appeal, without any rights under the law - at the mere breath of accusation of terrorism. This effectively means that if the government does not like your ideas or the way you live they just say ?terrorist?, and you are conveniently removed from society - indefinitely, possibly permanently and at the whim of a prosecution beyond justice and the precepts of Law.

As well as this, never ending attempts to install Total Information Awareness Systems and things of the sort make the entire population the source of suspicion and implied guilt.

The installation of national ID card schemes is top of the agenda on both sides of the Atlantic - and what will these cards do for security? Absolutely nothing in truth. Will terrorists? cards have the word ?Terrorist? emblazoned on them in the ?occupation? section so bus drivers know not to let them on? Will paedophiles have their status emblazoned on theirs? Somehow I think not. These people cannot truly be known until they are caught and they are proven guilty, once that is done those offenders should and do carry the mark of guilt with them. In enforcing this tagging at birth the entire population will loose a valuable commodity of liberty, and gain a brand mark of guilt.

Anything is able to be put on anybody. And the victim has to fight to prove their innocence. This is backward - accusations must be evidenced.

Law enforcement of this sort is more indicative of a police state than a democracy that values (constitutional/legal) safeguards of free association and equal protection under the law. The kind of measures that are outlined above sound incredibly Orwellian, and much like the kind of  ?security? enforced in Burma, N.Korea, China and the now dead Soviet Empire. This noose that is being slipped around the neck of modern democratic Western society by its governors is the antithesis of its idealistic purpose.


And this practice has been adopted both home and away. On a selective basis and without any evidence or consistency (save to the benefit of the oligarchs) guilt is presumed on other nations. This is a guilt that cannot be exonerated, and that is definite despite being case-less.

"As soon as the sanctions were lifted he had every intention of going back" - Cheney on Saddam?s weapon?s program, Oct 2004


Clearly a presumption of guilt, without evidence or proof. And as Swami put well in another thread:

Quote:

Cheney is the king of double-speak. Basically, no matter what was or was not found, or who was or was not involved, the reasons for war were justified.

Imagine Cheney as a prosecutor: "Your honor, the defendent had no drugs or paraphenalia in his possession which is proof that he is hardened drug abuser."

Seriously, no matter your leanings, how can anyone accept this "logic"?
 




Cheney practices victimisation and our laws do too. There is not a wisp of justice to be found there.

"I can apologise for the information that turned out to be wrong, but I can't sincerely, at least, apologise for removing Saddam." - Tony Blair, Oct 2004

Tony managed to apologise and take responsibility without actually doing so, and why is he still pleased to have removed Saddam since Saddam was guilty of nothing? Because the mere assertion of guilt in our new school of law is equal in weight to a conviction by judge and jury based on proof in the old school of our law. and hey, what Tony says goes.

"Had we had a few months more (of inspections before the war), we would have been able to tell both the CIA and others that there were no weapons of mass destruction (at) all the sites that they had given to us." - Hans Blix

Always a bastion of sense, but never-the-less a man denied the rights of his position, Hans Blix tells us how it really was for the team whose duty it was to investigate Saddam?s imaginary arsenal. Unfortunately before Blix team had the chance to expose the truth, the ?Coalition of the Willing? had to invade while the pretext was still strong.

Blix was the safeguard of the system and he was tossed aside in a desperate attempt to deny the practice of our true Law. That being: evidence and proof before charge, charge and trial before conviction. Innocent until proven guilty. In this case there was no evidence, and no proof - but Blix could not be given an opportunity to show this to the world. The USA and the UK wanted IN, and so arms were twisted and the position desperately forced. Despite Saddam being declared no threat to the world by Rice and Powell in 2001. Despite the fact that Saddam had absolutely no opportunity to build any weapons (or anything) since then due to the harshest of sanctions being imposed on his nation. Despite UN weapons inspectors being hard at work scurrying over the country and their leader imploring for them to be allowed to finish their job, which would take no more than a matter of a few months.

Despite all of this - the US administration and the British Prime Minister could not wait those last few months?..Why? Because Saddam was doubtlessly about to unleash on the world death and destruction on a scale unparalleled? An unleashing that was timetabled to take place in those next few months. Did they hold some irrefutable proof of his stockpile of weapons? Was there any case whatsoever? The answer is: No. Why did invasion have to take place IMMEDIATELY, because the world was about to find out from the UN weapons inspectors that Saddam had nothing but sand in his back garden, and that could not be allowed. The agenda of global control the USAdmin and its allies had set out would have collapsed if they had waited those few months. And as another old saying to do with the law goes: ?possesion is 9/10 of the law?. Of course this is just a layman?s expression, but essentially the invaders have put this adage into effect. Try getting them out now!

?May 29, 2003--Possession is nine-tenths of the law. That was confirmed on May 22 when the United Nations Security Council voted to legalize the military occupation of Iraq by the United States and Great Britain.
The Security Council handed over both governmental power and unlimited economic control of Iraq's oil wealth to the U.S. and British occupying forces.
The United States administration managed to secure an overwhelming vote of 14 of the council's 15 members. Only Syria refused to even attend the vote.
This infamous resolution will long be reviled. It establishes a dangerous precedent. And it places every developing nation at far greater risk of predatory imperialist war.
The vote swept away the 65 UN resolutions against Iraq that had imposed 13 years of the cruelest sanctions in history. These sanctions have now been replaced--with a resolution that gives the U.S. and Britain authority far beyond any given to an occupying power in UN history.
There is no time limit for U.S. political rule and economic control over Iraq's resources. The May 23 New York Times bragged that the United States had "gained the authority to do as it sees fit."
The United Nations will be allowed to "check" the resolution after one year. But since the United States and Great Britain have veto power, this is meaningless.
Control of Iraq's vast oil wealth is explicitly granted to the U.S./British Authority. Representatives of the UN, World Bank and International Monetary Fund will be allowed to "participate." So these financial institutions, which are dominated by U.S. capital, can express their opinions.
Before the war began, France, Germany and Russia--all members of the Security Council--had warned that U.S. action would constitute a breach of United Nations resolutions and a violation of international law. Why did they reverse themselves within the space of less than two months?
Why did the United States go back to the UN? Why did Washington need the UN vote?
The U.S. administration threatened that if it didn't succeed in winning this vote, the very future of the UN would be at stake.
The bargaining for votes had nothing to do with assisting the people of Iraq or solving the enormous humanitarian crisis created by the war and the years of sanctions. It was a series of secret agreements on the division of Iraq's past and future wealth.

LAW AND POWER

In order to understand the vote's significance and the sweeping mandate over Iraq handed to the U.S. ruling class and its junior partner Britain, it is necessary to examine the importance of law in capitalist society.
In carrying out their war against Iraq, Bush and the Pentagon brass broke their own laws as well as international treaties the United States had helped construct on the conduct of war, including the Nuremburg and Geneva conventions. They violated the UN Charter and flouted the UN Security Council in initiating the war. They violated the U.S. Constitution and War Powers Act.
Yet law is of enormous importance to the ruling class in the United States, and to all capitalist property relations on a global scale. The giant transnational U.S. corporations want and need undisputed legal authorization in order to sell billions of dollars in Iraqi oil that they now control...
There are billions of dollars in contracts for reconstruction at stake-- and billions of dollars in future loans, designed to bleed Iraq into overwhelming debt to pay for this reconstruction.
The enormously profitable business of reconstructing all that U.S. bombs laid waste has major corporations in the United States, and thousands of smaller sub-contractors around the world, anxious to resolve who is authorized to sign contracts.
Banks want to know who has clear title to the billions of dollars that the UN Security Council froze in 1990 at U.S. insistence. These funds, which rightfully belong to Iraq, could be held for years or decades and be a source of endless litigation, if no one has the authority to lay hold of them.
That's why the Bush administration used bribes and threats to secure the vote...
As bribes to gain the votes of France and Russia, the United States used the leverage of the billions of dollars in loans that Iraq owed these countries from before the 1990 war.
These loans will be restructured. Any illusions that the UN would be a vehicle to resist U.S. domination were shattered by these countries' collusion.
The authority to negotiate and structure loans and oil contracts for future development is the most sweeping power. Only the banks will benefit. This was Washington's priority.
The U.S. military didn't fight this war to give the Iraqi people free health care, free education, subsidized housing or food. These are programs Washington wants to destroy. Each Iraqi ministry that organized to provide these basics was looted and destroyed.
To understand what the U.S. corporations and banks have in store for Iraq, look at the situation next door in Saudi Arabia. In order to stay in power, an utterly compliant and corrupt feudal group, the Saud family, has let U.S. and British oil corporations get the lion's share of its oil and gas. This is the country with the largest oil reserves in the world, the most oil pumped and a smaller population than Iraq.
Saudi Arabia, despite its oil wealth, has been bled dry. Billions of dollars have been spent for worthless military equipment that can only be maintained by U.S. technicians. It has become a debtor nation.
Most Saudi women are still illiterate. And except for the modern cities of Riyadh, Mecca and Medina, a large part of the population still lives in mud villages.
Knowing this, can anyone believe that U.S. imperialism plans to spend any significant part of the money it will control from Iraq's oil on human needs? The plans call for the reconstruction of oil fields, pipelines and ports, and little else.

CAPITALIST PROPERTY IS LEGALIZED THEFT

The purpose of law and of the whole state apparatus of cops, courts, prisons and especially the military is to guarantee that the wealth accumulated over generations of legalized theft and the exploitation of millions of workers--in sweatshops, the slave trade, the near-genocide of indigenous nations, and colonial conquest--stays in the hands of a tiny class of globally powerful super-rich capitalists.
Only a tiny fraction of the whole body of law under capitalism deals with issues of human rights. These are the laws and rights that have been won through the massive mobilizations of the oppressed. The guarantees in the Bill of Rights such as the right to free speech and assembly, now under such severe attack, came in response to demands from below.
Laws against slavery, laws prohibiting child labor, laws minimally protecting the rights of workers to organize and form unions, laws against the most blatant forms of bigotry and discrimination--all these came from powerful grassroots movements.
These laws dealing with rights for those without large-scale property are always under attack. The laws dealing with property ownership are endlessly reinforced.
The only times in history when the laws of property have been successfully challenged have been in revolutionary mass upheavals that altered the whole fabric of society.
The Iraqi people have overturned past efforts at colonial domination. The mass demonstration that swept across Baghdad as the UN resolution was being debated was a sign that the people are increasingly aware of what the United States has in store--and that they are determined to resist.
Although UN agencies may be able to distribute some emergency food supplies, the Security Council vote to authorize and legalize colonial subjugation will teach a lesson to the world movement.
It is an infamous decision that sets a far more dangerous precedent. No confidence can be placed in this institution that is incapable of challenging U.S. imperialism. It is made up almost entirely of bourgeois governments that do not represent the people of the world.
The struggle against imperialism and war can only be carried out by an independent movement of the masses of working and oppressed people worldwide. For the first time this movement has had a glimpse of its own potential.
This is the future?

http://www.iacenter.org/iraq_un-503.htm

Who really broke the law? And who is a genuine guilty party with evidence, nay more than that, actual proof of the law breaking that has taken place stacked against them?

In carrying out this unprovoked invasion and occupation of another state the US and UK governments have only succeeded in the type of action that Japan and Hitler failed in when they instigated their respective chapters of WW2.

And what of UN resolution 1441? Considering how selective the USAdmin is in requesting the enforcing of resolutions and considering that in fact a weapons team was in place in Iraq with the chief weapons inspector happy that the required progress was being made satisfactorily, and the entire inspection would be complete within ?a few months?. It seems the use of this resolution as justification by the USAdmin is less than tenuous. In fact all it says is the USAdmin wanted war no matter what, they wanted IN no matter what, they wanted ownership of the nation no matter what, and that this was a done deal.

Besides resolution 1441 is piled with as much bullshit for leverage as the USAdmin?s rhetoric:

?Recognizing the threat Iraq?s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security?

What fucking proliferation of weapons of mass destruction? A recognized fact? Someone?s imagination ran a little wild at the prospect of all those $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ up for grabs. That is why the invasion had to happen (while Saddam was co-operating) before the UN weapons inspectors had a chance to complete their task - because the damning verdict of guilty without trial was about to be exposed as a pack of lies.

Guilty-Guilty-Guilty


Below is just a sample of the wildly fallacious statements made by the US administration in order to get this invasion off the ground. Each one is a presumption of guilt that was heaped on the defendant as though already a conviction by judge and jury. This is delusion in the most horrible and pathological sense, or it is worse, it is damned bare face lying. Either way these people are not fit to govern or to mete out any kind of law:

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
- Dick Cheney, speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
- George W. Bush, speech to UN General Assembly, Sept. 12, 2002

No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
- Donald Rumsfeld, testimony to Congress, Sept. 19, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Jan. 9, 2003

What we know from UN inspectors over the course of the last decade is that Saddam Hussein possesses thousands of chemical warheads, that he possesses hundreds of liters of very dangerous toxins that can kill millions of people.
- White House spokesman Dan Bartlett, CNN interview, Jan. 26, 2003


Time to wake up and smell the coffee. It?s a beautiful morning! :o) :sun:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBleaK
paradox
Registered: 06/24/02
Posts: 1,583
Last seen: 3 years, 9 months
Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent [Re: CJay]
    #3236572 - 10/09/04 03:59 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

not even gonna read all that at the moment.
just want to say,
at no point ever in history, are you deemed "innocent"

the saying should go, "guilty untill proven not-guitly".


--------------------
"You cannot trust in law, unless you can trust in people. If you can trust in people, you don't need law." -J. Mumma


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent [Re: BleaK]
    #3236578 - 10/09/04 04:02 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Actually, under American law, and I assume under English law, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Thus, the defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty. However, the Patriot Act, among other pieces of fascist legislation, undermines this principle.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBleaK
paradox
Registered: 06/24/02
Posts: 1,583
Last seen: 3 years, 9 months
Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent [Re: silversoul7]
    #3236940 - 10/09/04 06:09 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

i disagree, i would say that they are at all times "under suspicion of guilt" untill proven "not-guilty"
at that point you go back to just being suspicious.

i say again, at no point is anyone deemed "innocent"


--------------------
"You cannot trust in law, unless you can trust in people. If you can trust in people, you don't need law." -J. Mumma


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 1 year, 3 months
Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent [Re: BleaK]
    #3237162 - 10/09/04 07:53 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

That was one of the most ignorant and nonsensical rants I have ever seen. Just to take on what I think is the biggest bit of stupidity in the early part of this crap, the rules of evidence applied in American courts DO NOT apply outside them. There is a lot about them that I don't think should apply in them but they do and so be it. If you don't believe, after knowing about the corruption in the UN with france, germany, russia and Saddam that there is NO COURT you are a total, egregious fool. Go back to sleep. Spare us your dream log.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,770
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 8 days
Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent [Re: zappaisgod]
    #3238394 - 10/10/04 05:54 AM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

If you don't believe, after knowing about the corruption in the UN with france, germany, russia and Saddam that there is NO COURT you are a total, egregious fool.




What exactly are you gibbering on about here?


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAaronEvil
The GuitarVillain
Male

Registered: 09/27/04
Posts: 1,706
Loc: California
Last seen: 6 years, 4 months
Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent [Re: GazzBut]
    #3238492 - 10/10/04 06:56 AM (12 years, 11 months ago)

I think he is referring to the oil and money Saddam used to pay off these countries. But I wont get into that on this thread. Read up on how he gave oil wells and money to various countries in the UN so they would no back Bush. I dont agree with what Bush did, but I dont think the UN should take bribes.


--------------------


There is not a lot of difference between a fox hole and a grave; but knowing that you dug your ditch and climbed in anyway.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,770
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 8 days
Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent [Re: AaronEvil]
    #3238825 - 10/10/04 12:33 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Its weird how it works in reverse with Israel isnt it? The US bribe the Israeli's with big fat dollar and then cynically derail the UN process, in favour of Israel, with their right to veto...Seems a bit arse about face!


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleCJay
Dark Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 931
Loc: Riding a bassline
Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent [Re: zappaisgod]
    #3246345 - 10/12/04 06:55 AM (12 years, 11 months ago)

exactly - the governments of the world are a bunch of lying cheating scumbags and there is no justice - and the USA is lynchpin number one - ensuring that it puts itself in the best position to command the bribing and take the biggest slice of the cake

Maybe you had better wake up bwoy! Coz this thing you call a dreamlog - it's politics in practice.

Professional shafting and sharing out the spoils.

Just make sure you've got the biggest shaft!


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleCJay
Dark Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 931
Loc: Riding a bassline
Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent [Re: BleaK]
    #3246359 - 10/12/04 07:09 AM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

the saying should go, "guilty untill proven not-guitly".





That's how you like it??

What a shmuck you are. So according to you we are all guilty on presumption. Guilt is our nature and we have to prove that we are not guilty. There is no such thing as innocence with regard to crime, even if one has had no involvement, has no knowledge of the crime whatsoever and one is a million miles away from the event.

Since all it takes in your world is an allegation -

See you in prision!


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1

Amazon Shop: Scales

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Innocent Until Proven Guilty
ShroomismM
570 10 01/03/03 07:37 AM
by Evolving
* Innocent until proven guilty silversoul7 468 9 04/29/03 04:19 PM
by Azmodeus
* Blix: Iraq had no WMD since 1991
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
Xlea321 3,981 106 09/23/03 05:43 PM
by infidelGOD
* Blunkett wants to charge innocent people for time in jail. Edame 2,046 13 03/21/04 07:49 PM
by smuddlepuddle
* Blix - "No WMD since 1991" Xlea321 736 8 12/25/03 11:46 PM
by enimatpyrt
* Confessions of an Anti-Sanctions Activist wingnutx 781 2 01/29/14 06:52 AM
by theindianrepublic
* 500,000 iraqi children dead because of US sanctions. Albright: "The Price Is Worth It"...
( 1 2 3 4 all )
exclusive58 5,885 79 11/09/05 07:42 AM
by GazzBut
* Do you think sanctions work? SirTripAlot 1,380 11 01/13/07 01:38 AM
by astralplaynes

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil
1,055 topic views. 1 members, 4 guests and 9 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Original Seeds Store - Cannabis Seeds
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2017 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.026 seconds spending 0.001 seconds on 16 queries.