Dean's statement on OBL (was "my god man")

[worldgonekrazy]

The previous thread was locked because, I think, the title of it did not reflect the content. What I was trying to across with the title is this uneasy feeling that I have in my stomache right now. I just cannot believe that the tenet of "innocent until proven guilty", which forms the entire basis of our justice system, is even questionable. I would never have thought that it would be. I thought that despite all our differences Americans could at least rally around that idea.

But then this thing with Dean happens. He says OBL ought to get a fair trial, pure and simple. I seem absolutely nothing in that statement that can possibly be questioned without first throwing a fundamental truth ("innocent until proven guilty") out of the window.

Yet, it seems people are willing to do that. Dean has been attacked by the Conservatives, of course, but even more vitriolic seems to be the Dems' attacks on the statement. Gephardt released a statement in which he says OBL ought to be tried and executed (how can he say that without first presuming the trial will result in a guilty verdict?). I could practically envision the guy laughing maniacally as he pulled the switch on the electric chair.

Will our thirst for blood cause us to abandon principles every American (well, almost every American) has held dear for hundreds of years? This seriously scares me. No matter how bad it could get, I never thought that these principles could be attacked. Ever.

[Maeve]

1. It might also be because of this rule

7. Discussion topics that mention any or all of the Democratic presidential primary candidates are not permitted in the General Discussion forum, and instead must be posted in the General Discussion: 2004 Primary forum.

You might want to try the other forum.

[worldgonekrazy]

3. Its not about the candidate though

Its about the questioning of a fundamental tenet in society. Dean's got nothing to do with it.

[madfloridian]

10. Not long ago, you would have found agreement here on that tenet.

It is a shame it is not that way now. It is simple and fundamental, and it needed to be said.

Once this forum would have agreed with you, just as once the lies of the Iraq war were criticized.

Things have changed, I fear.

Up is down, wrong is ok now, and right depends on the candidate.

[worldgonekrazy]

11. Scary, ain't it?

This is what I am trying to get at. I know I'm not doing a good job putting into words but it is like...what are we willing to compromise here? ANYTHING? EVERYTHING?

[madfloridian]

14. I have been trying to say this lately. No one wants to hear it.

I posted a long thread about all the lies that they told leading up the war. It was nearly ignored.

I don't know if you saw where they jumped on Dean for saying he would explain his religious views.....this was only done after attacks from the right and from Lieberman that the candidates were not religious enough.

He was condemned. I think he is right, religion is private, but they won't let him leave it as a private thing. So he is doing as they ask and talking about it, and then he gets slammed for trying to be religious.

Trust me, earlier this year, the Iraq invasion was NOT ok here. It was built on lies.

Now some are fearful that we need to pander to the ones who think it is ok.

I think we need to get the truth out to the people and quit pandering.

[worldgonekrazy]

16. I'm with you all the way

I was a lurker here at DU for a time during the pre-war days, and I know that the attitude was a LOT different then. Everyone is so quick to throw their principles out the door rather than investigate pragmatic ways to get the message out. We are in the right on this and people will understand it if you give them a chance.

[KoKo]

15. Agree, Mad! Once we could agree on most things here, not anymore.

It's disheartening to feel if you didn't support the Invasion of Iraq, and see problems with how it was done, and believe the Constitution should have been followed, and that one is "innocent until proven guilty" that you are now "in the minority" here. Plus, there are other "niggling little points" where what some of us thought were "Democratic Ideals" are being turned around on our heads and made into something "questionable" at best, and not "middle enough" at worst.

[Maeve]

12. The rule says "mentions"

The question "Have we abandoned the idea 'innocent until proven guilty'?" is perfectly valid; no question. The answer is: in many cases, yes, particularly in cases where the actions in question are widely known/believed.

If the moderators lock this thread, I suggest you leave Dean out of the subject AND first post since he has "nothing to do with it."

[Wonk]

2. Read a little further in the rules

7. Discussion topics that mention any or all of the Democratic presidential primary candidates are not permitted in the General Discussion forum, and instead must be posted in the General Discussion: 2004 Primary forum.
Ê
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=937547

Try it one more time here, in the proper forum.

[FDRrocks]

6. Seems to me it covers a broader issue, really.

[worldgonekrazy]

7. It has nothing to do with the primary

I mean yeah, I mention Dean and Gephardt, but not really in connection with the primary or anything. I am merely trying to highlight the disturbing nature of today's fear obsessed society.

[Eric J in MN]

4. innocent until proven guilty is for jurors

Innocent until proven guilty is for jurors.

An average person can say he considers someone guilty even if there hasn't been a trial yet.

Whether it's appropriate for a President or Presidential candidate to declare someone guilty before a trial is up to you.

[FDRrocks]

8. The Court of Public opinion is fascistic, imo

[worldgonekrazy]

9. Its a principle, and as such ought to be followed at all times

This isn't a rule we are talking about here. We are talking about a fundamental principle of our society.

[Cha]

5. People are so weird. Bottom line.

Dean makes sense and some can't handle that. Course I know the bushes throw 'em jail without charging. they are not intelligent enough to do things by our constitution! :kick:

[RBHam]

13. Fry 'em all!

We'll execute all those guys who suicide bombed us!

[SahaleArm]

39. Conundrum - How does one justify Afghanistan?

If Bin Laden's innocent under law so are the Taliban. Now of course every person is innocent under law regardless of how mangled Dean's words were. If that tenet holds true then the invasion was not justified or is it different when jurisdiction crosses international boundaries?

[Bombtrack]

17. there is nothing to support Bin Ladens innocence.

It's amazing that people here have no problem with calling Bush a murderer, yet we need to give ole Bin Laden a chance.

It's fringe thinking at it's worst. The US will go through the motions if he is caught, but all evidence clearly points to his guilt in multiple terror attacks and widespread funding and training of terrorists

[worldgonekrazy]

18. My response

First of all, you are looking at it the wrong way. Our legal system requires support for bin Laden's guilt, not his innocence. This is the entire point of the thread.

Furthermore, the principles of "innocent until proven guilty" and a "fair trial" require that we need to see evidence before annointing bin Laden as guilty.

And then, I will say this, even though I know it makes me sound like a "fringe thinker", but there really hasn't been much evidence put out there that bin Laden or even al-Qaeda was invovled with 9/11. Is bin Laden guilty of other acks he could be charged for? I should think so. Is it possible that we haven't seen all the evidence against al-Qaeda for 9/11? Perhaps, but if so, we need to see it (or at least some jurors need to see it) before we can justly place blame.

[Bombtrack]

19. have you read any of the congressional reports?

Or do you think all of our intellegence personel decided to frame him?

[madfloridian]

21. Why are you so upset at the thought of due process?

That is strange to me.

[Scott Lee]

25. It's extremely curious to me. See, democrats love our basic rights.

Hmmmm.....

[dansolo]

22. If he is guilty, then it should be easy to prove

If there is so much overwhelming evidence, that people are absolutely convinced that OBL is guilty, then it should be a simple matter to prove it in a trial. People also forget that a trial is not just for the American public. It is a more important matter to prove Osama's crimes in an open court to the Muslim world, so that we can minimize his becoming a martyr. While many Muslims support his actions, there are many that are in denial that Osama was even involved. There are plenty of conspiracy theories floating about, and if Osama is executed without a public trial, there will be many people who will continue to believe that he was a scapegoat, and not really behind the attacks.

[worldgonekrazy]

31. Well said

I was talking to some people about this over dinner and I came to the decision that an open international trial would really be the only way to go. Too bad the Bush Administration is far too cowardly (and probably has far too many potentially un-closeted skeletons) to do it.

[madfloridian]

20. Who said he was innocent?

:shrug:

No one said he was innocent. That is exactly what the poster meant. It is simple tenet of our foundation, we prove people guilty.

[AndyTiedye]

30. Send Bush* AND Bin Ladin to the Hague

They both deserve a fair trial.

[Scott Lee]

24. I support putting both BinLaden AND Bushhole on trial

Because, like Howard Dean, I believe in Due Process.

You?

[stickdog]

27. Exactly. He's already been tried and found guilty by the corporate media.

What more do you want?

Death is too good for Emmanuel Goldstein.

[LouisFC]

23. Did you miss the tape

where OBL not only admitted his guilt but was talking about how he knew that the heat from the jet fuel burning would cause the buildings to collapse and thereby maximize the death toll.

There is no question as to guilt. I will leave the discussion of how to punish him for his crimes to cooler heads than mine.

[worldgonekrazy]

32. Where in the tape did OBL declare Due Process to be dead?

I don't think he did it, but if he had, well then I can see why the Bush Administration capitulated to him on it. After all, we took troops out of Saudi Arabia and staged the main battleground for the Jihad movement to appease him.

[Crunchy Frog]

38. That tape will

have to be thrown out as evidence. He hadn't been read his Miranda rights before he made it.:P

[stickdog]

26. We can't possibly extend the right of a fair trial to OBL.

That would be un-American.

[Brian_Expat]

28. It is sooooooo sad to me

It is very depressing to me that a Vermont fiscal conservative and social liberal who favours the court system and death penalty after a fair trial could get painted as a "soft on terror left-wing extremist" by so many.

What's the problem with a public, fair trial? Isn't that what America is all about?

What's the problem with a balanced approach to the terror problem?

All this brutal "kill kill kill" rhetoric from so many people frightens many Americans, not to mention the rest of the world, and makes America seem unbalanced to many people in the UK (who often ask me "what are people thinking over there?")

[Scott Lee]

29. Brian, you are so right. But this is what happens when partisanism

goes completely berserk. Rationality, logic and reason get pitched right out of the window.

[worldgonekrazy]

33. It is especially sad that...

Dean is painted as a "soft on terror left wing extremist" right here on DU. Jesus Christ, we eat our own now.

[frustrated_lefty]

34. It is scary.

Everyone deserves a fair trial. It seems to be reaching the point where it's "unpatriotic" to suggest that. Perhaps we should just eliminate the judicial branch and send everyone to Guantanamo?

[Shanty Oilish]

35. "Everyone deserves a trial." Not!

Bin Laden does not deserve a trial. If efforts to kill him ever succeed, will any of our candidates call this immoral? I don't.

He is a continuing threat who has masterminded the murder of thousands and has publicly proclaimed his intention to murder more. You don't try to safely capture such a fiend and put his "right to trial" ahead of public safety. He should be located and promptly destroyed.

[stickdog]

36. He is a continuing threat who has masterminded the murder of thousands.

Yeah, he's an evil genius scientist mastermind living in his very own high tech Batcave. A real 21st century Lex Luthor come to life!

Death is too good for Goldstein.

[RageAgainstTheirMachine]

37. I agree with you wholeheartedly

This principle is fundamental to our way of life.

[TheWebHead]

40. I think you throw out the..

'innocent until proven guilty' reasoning once UBL was on videotape gloating about his role... again, I don't see the political advantage of Dean saying this. Who is he going to gain support from in saying this about bin Laden? Even the Saddam "safer" quote, which most Americans seemed to have agreed with, should have provided additional context to explain the price we paid to go to war on many levels made us less safe. That one sentence is just paraded in column after column, cable news debate after cable news debate, talk radio diatribe after talk radio diatribe... and it's having an effect on the independents and moderates despite his success with the Dem primary voters.