What's next...

I was watching CNN today, and they ran a story about a bill that Bush is supporting. It will give a jury the right to look at evidence privately and convict a defendent on that evidence. The defendent may never know about the evidence or what caused him to be convicted of the crime. It would not be able to be contested by the defendent or his/her lawyers.

If that's not totally ****ed up, I don't know what is.

---

› See More: What's next...

That's wrong. The only word to describe it. I'm behind Bush, I like him... but don't support his ideas... You should have the RIGHT to view the evidence against you.

Sounds to me like Bush's wiretapping scheme.

I don't even think it's Bush himself that is bad, but the entire administration around him is so corrupt and two-faced, who know what's going on behind the scenes.

I mean, look at what happened to Colin Powell, he got kicked out by everyone else in the administration because he was probably one of the only normal, level headed, non-corrupt people in it !

As was the case in the days leading up to the Persian Gulf War, Powell was initially opposed to a forcible overthrow of Hussein, preferring to continue a policy of containment. However, Powell eventually agreed to go along with the Bush administration's determination to remove Hussein. He had often clashed with others in the administration, who were reportedly planning an Iraq invasion even before the September 11 attacks—an insight supported by testimony by former terrorism czar Richard Clarke in front of the 9/11 Commission.

I can't wait for an election.

Originally Posted by Robb4248

That's wrong. The only word to describe it. I'm behind Bush, I like him... but don't support his ideas... You should have the RIGHT to view the evidence against you.

Not to mention you couldn't contest it for a mistrial. Or revisit the trial because of tampering with evidence, etc.


EDIT: And one other thing...how can you be behind Bush, but not support his ideas? Aren't those the same thing? Maybe I'm just not making the same connection you meant to throw out there...

I mean, I like bush, he's not the brightest person, but I do have to admit, I like him... not sure why... just do. Some of his policies could be altered and some gotten rid of, but then again, what person doesn't have flaws? Politics is something very complex and something I wouldn't want on my shoulders.

that makes absolutly no sense what so ever and i do not see how that could work in a court of law...if thats the case they could throw anyone that they wanted into jail because they have evidence...but sorry we cant show you it

You can already arrest anyone without reason. The Bush administration changed things so you can hold someone as long as you'd like. It makes sense that they'd be pushing something like this now too.

Originally Posted by spum

You can already arrest anyone without reason. The Bush administration changed things so you can hold someone as long as you'd like. It makes sense that they'd be pushing something like this now too.

no you cannot arrest someone without reason they have to have something to bring you in on they cant just walk up to you and say come with me your going to jail they have to have something on you

The PATRIOT Act changed that. I don't remember the cover that they use. Suspicion of terrorism or something like that.

exactly suspicion being the key word and even with that they have to have some grounds to take you in..they cant just walk up to someone wearing a turban on their head and say "hey bin laden wears on of them you must be a terrorist" (not intended to say that muslims are the only terrorists just a example)

Originally Posted by danotoriousnic

exactly suspicion being the key word and even with that they have to have some grounds to take you in..they cant just walk up to someone wearing a turban on their head and say "hey bin laden wears on of them you must be a terrorist" (not intended to say that muslims are the only terrorists just a example)

They can detain for an indefinate amount of time, without a court order, and without providing evidence what-so-ever. The theory behind this is that if the evidence is presented, it may tip off other terrorists and they may change their plans, causing the government to lose their intelligence "edge".

It's a double edged sword, as I understand the reasoning behind it, but at some point a mistake will be made or the act will be abused.

It already has been abused. I remember reading an article (this was 3 or 4 years ago) that talked about a guy that had been arrested for nothing and had been in jail for 6 months. At the time of the article, he was still in jail. He had arranged a gay pride parade with approval from the city, and they arrested him the day of the parade for suspicion of terrorism. Because a gay pride parade with city approval really screams terrorist actions...