Presumption Of Innocence

Presumption Of Innocence is the basis of our laws, but other civilised countries use presumption of guilt and you must prove your innocence to escape conviction.

So the question, in this era of terrorists, is should presumption of guilt apply to all suspected terrorists?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by echnidna

So the question, in this era of terrorists, is should presumption of guilt apply to all suspected terrorists?

---

I suspect not. Sorry I've tried to write the next sentence but it won't come out right, perhaps someone else can express it better. All I can say is presumption of guilt is very dangerous territory but so is a terrorist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by echnidna

So the question, in this era of terrorists, is should presumption of guilt apply to all suspected terrorists?

---

Yes, but in countries where the presumption of guilt applies it is the Magistrate, who with your help, actually conducts the search for your innocence.

The police based on the initial enquiries makes the arrest and then the Magistrate takes over and directs and supervises the police investigation. So the police is subject to judicial direction in their further investigations.

Same effect as our system provided that you co-operate and help the investigation, but keeping silent will hinder your case.

Btw in most of those countries there are no juries only Magistrates and Judges decide your guilt, so guilty people are not usually let of by the defence lawyers bamboozling juries.


Peter.

so yer really don't wanna upset the beak :D

I suppose it works, they got the Bali 9

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by echnidna

I suppose it works, they got the Bali 9

---

It works, as most of the world uses that system. Only England and their former colonies have the other system.

If Napoleon had succeded in his wars against England we would have it too for it is based on his code of laws, which he enforced on most european countries through his conquests.


Peter.

After reading this I decided to do a bit of research. Came across this from Wikipedia.

Quote:

---

The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Council of Europe says (art. 6.2): "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law". This convention has been adopted by treaty and is binding on all Council of Europe members. Currently (and in any foreseeable expansion of the EU) every country member of the European Union is also member to the Council of Europe, so this stands for EU members as a matter of course.

---

Link

This basically says that there is a presumption of innocence for all European countries.


The presumption of guilt does allow for someone or groups to be targeted. Look at the Haneef case. How does he prove that he didn't know that his cousin was a terrorist? And that he had no involvement in the UK attacks?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sturdee

keeping silent will hinder your case.

---

Ahh yes, "Anything you say will be written down and may be used in evidence againt you".

"Everything l say officer?"

"Yes, everything you say."

"OK, write this down: -
PLEASE OFFICER, DON'T HIT ME AGAIN, PLEASE DON'T!!!"

:p
P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sturdee

but keeping silentC will hinder your case.

---

Yes, I would have thought so too. :D :D :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sturdee

but keeping silentC will hinder your case.

---

Keeping a silentC? Why would you want to?

Yuk yuk yuk :D

I thought that was what the media is for..... sorry, couldnt resist.

Presumption of guilt is effectively what happens when the facts get reported, when there is no shock there is no reporting. The court of public opinion lives on half facts. Take Mr Haneef, we will never know, effectively he has been declared guilty by the minister. The Court case is only a show.

As for terrorists, the violent kind need to be located and dealt with, preemptively..., risky when you get it wrong..... after an event....., pity the political masters with the brief. I think when we allow the terrorist fear to get us they have already won. Western society is built on an ideal of personal freedom, at the very least the freedom to consume. When personal freedoms get eroded (including the presumption of innocence) they have won.

My biggest problem is the term "terrorist". By this I assume we mean a person who instills fear or terror. Broad bunch that one. Every "warning" from a pollie on any subject qualifies to some degree. Maybe we could return to the cold war, the enemy was well defined then, now we just get a warning that there is a "credible threat" and people get scared. I think its a control tactic and those pinpointed as "terrorists" are puppets to support the status quo. How many of the incarcerated "suspects" have turned out to be the real deal, I suspect we will never been given the facts.

Sebastiaan

Come on now, we all know that presumption of innocence is just a term that's bandied about to make people think that we are enlightened. We all know the real story. There's no doubt these terrorist types are guilty, you can tell just by looking at them. I mean, look at this Haneef bloke - he looks like a terrorist to me in that grainy black and white. And what about the picture of him in a jumpsuit hiding his head. What's he got to hide? Guilty as sin!

Now what's this about the minister for immigration? He's only doing his job. The two matters are not connected, he's just doing what I've been calling for now for a long time. Anyone who is a bit dodgy, looks suspicious, or talks funny should be banged up and deported. If they were born here, deport 'em anyway. What do we have the character test for if we're not going to use it, for heaven's sake?

Bloody chardy sipping bleeding heart liberals, the lot of 'em!

The presumption of innocence concept would be perfect if the purpose of the court was the search for the truth. Unfortunately.........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentC

What's he got to hide? Guilty as sin!

---

No Silent, show some compassion. He clearly isn't hiding.

That photo is a picture of a man in despair.

Do you blame him? He was being transported to his new digs, and they'd just told him that his new home is just outside....

IPSWICH!! :wink:

Cheers,

P
:D :D :D

Well at least he wont get killed by tiles falling off the wall in the bathroom!

(Why do I always want to spell it IPSWITCH?)

Actually, the whole episode is turning into a debacle. Looks like they're about to drop the case. How do they keep getting things so wrong?

I admire the way Johnnie has handled it though. One of those times he probably thanks god for the separation of powers...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sebastiaan56

As for terrorists, the violent kind need to be located and dealt with, preemptively..., risky when you get it wrong..... after an event.....,

---

Very risky, as this whole debacle in Iraq has taught us. Just where are these WMDs?

Here’s an article that I found posted in another forum. It’s a long, but interesting read;

Quote:

---

Iraq Vets Bear Witness

"I guess while I was there, the general attitude was, A dead Iraqi is just another dead Iraqi, you know, so what?”

"The frustration that resulted from our inability to get back at those who were attacking us led to tactics that seemed designed simply to punish the local population that was supporting them,"

“So you've just humiliated this man in front of his entire family and terrorized his entire family and you've destroyed his home. And then you go right next door and you do the same thing in a hundred homes."

"We don't go around like detectives and ask questions. We kick down doors, we go in, we grab people."

In the thousand or so raids he conducted during his time in Iraq, Sergeant Westphal said, he came into contact with only four "hard-core insurgents."

“Oh, this is a guy planting a roadside bomb'--and you don't even know if it's him or not--you just go in there and kick the ???? out of him and take him in the back of a five-ton--take him to jail."

"They were wearing Arab clothing and military-style boots, they were considered enemy combatants and you would cuff 'em and take 'em in,"

"I remember on some raids, anybody of military age would be taken,"

"I knew that a large percentage of these prisoners were innocent,"

Specialist Murphy said one prisoner, a mentally impaired, blind albino who could "maybe see a few feet in front of his face" clearly did not belong in Abu Ghraib. "I thought to myself, What could he have possibly done?"

They open the body bags of these prisoners that were shot in the head and [one soldier has] got an MRE spoon. He's reaching in to scoop out some of his brain, looking at the camera and he's smiling. And I said, 'These are some of our soldiers desecrating somebody's body. Something is seriously amiss.'

"a lot of guys really supported that whole concept that, you know, if they don't speak English and they have darker skin, they're not as human as us, so we can do what we want."

(Lots of other gruesome stuff. Murders, brutality etc.)

Last September, Senator Patrick Leahy, then ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, called a Pentagon report on its procedures for recording civilian casualties in Iraq "an embarrassment." "It totals just two pages," Leahy said, "and it makes clear that the Pentagon does very little to determine the cause of civilian casualties or to keep a record of civilian victims."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sebastiaan56

pity the political masters with the brief.

---

I suppose we’ve got to be thankful that it's not as bad as that in Australia.

Good onya Johnny boy. Keep supporting Bush with that brief:
“…it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. … All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.” - Hermann Goering

The laws that are passed in the name of fighting terrorism is just frightening.

Bush has just signed an executive order criminalising the anti-war movement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by www.whitehouse.gov

(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:
(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or
(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;
(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or
(iii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.

---

Link

Fricken scary really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bitingmidge

No Silent, show some compassion. He clearly isn't hiding.

That photo is a picture of a man in despair.

Do you blame him? He was being transported to his new digs, and they'd just told him that his new home is just outside....

IPSWICH!! :wink:

Cheers,

P
:D :D :D

---

Could have been a lot worse really - could have been just INSIDE Ipswich :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grunt

The laws that are passed in the name of fighting terrorism is just frightening.

Bush has just signed an executive order criminalising the anti-war movement.



Fricken scary really.

---

Its just as bad here where our own personal freedoms has been eroded by the government in the name of "the war on terror" when as now is being demonstrated the government can't be trusted to administer justice.

Our forefathers fought real wars, shed blood and died to protect our freedom and our civil rights how come these rights can be wiped away with the stroke of a pen without consulting the population by some politician who is morally and ideologically bankrupt?

Do we need a bill of rights in this county?...America has one I think and it doesn't seem to be helping over there.

How can we enshrine basic human and legal rights in our constitution to protect us from political whims or politicians who don't have the peoples best interest at heart?

The way things are going, if we don't correct this situation soon I will fear for my kids growing up in this society.:(

Sadly you are right BT but the freedoms we so richly enjoy are taken advantage of by those perpetrating terror and the catch 22 is to deny them some advantage takes away some of our freedom and in sense is a victory for them - is there a balance?? Most likely not.

What is the root of most terror is it having a global society and with that come all the hate people have for one another as they have more access to each other they didn't find so readily years ago except during a war and invasion?

Could we be redneck and eradicate all who don't fit our ideal or appear a threat (Hitler ideology) or refuse them access by example UK has more terror cuz it has more people from where they originate - are we wrong to profile people - there is no easy or comfortable solution - but what will society accept?

If, in the name of safety, we trade off our rights, we find ourselves on the slippery slope towards totalitarianism. (There was a wonderful quote from T. Paine that put it so much better than I ever could.) I haven't a clue how OZ is reacting to the worldwide terrorism hysteria, but the direction we in the US are heading is truly frightening. Silent C, what does a terrorist look like? Anyone different than you?





"Who are you Mr. John Q. Smith?"
"Well, you"re one of us!...we think...maybe.."

Don't you have satire in the US? :wink:

BTW did you take your name from The Mixtures hit?

OOps. Sorry. I'm just a little touchy (touched?) about this subject.:(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capt. Zero

I haven't a clue how OZ is reacting to the worldwide terrorism hysteria, but the direction we in the US are heading is truly frightening. "

---

Our leader is Bush's great mate and stalwart supporter. He has also been honoured by the Republican party over there. If he wins this election and retires I reckon he'll become the ambassador to the US.

Our situation is similar to yours. We have a game going here called "tough on terror" which has basically eroded rights of association, free speech and engendered a culture of secrecy. Im not sure there is a polly who has the guts to call it out for what it is. There is a war of terror going on, its used to get re-elected.

BTW, I think I like this Obama guy, he's willing to talk to the leaders of the axis of evil! There might be hope for the west yet,

Sebastiaan

Don't know what BTW means. Obama seems like a nice guy, but neither he nor any 'pretender' has taken a stand on...well anything really. We don't have candidates here, we have auditions.





"Mr. President, where can I get a job?"
"Well, in the future, we don't expect to have those kind of problems, son."

BTW = By the way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TEEJAY

Sadly you are right BT but the freedoms we so richly enjoy are taken advantage of by those perpetrating terror and the catch 22 is to deny them some advantage takes away some of our freedom and in sense is a victory for them - is there a balance?? Most likely not.

---

I'm not sure I agree with that line. If we can't deal with a terrorist investigation using existing intelligence and investigative measures then we can't effectively carryout every other criminal investigation which clearly is not the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TEEJAY

What is the root of most terror is it having a global society and with that come all the hate people have for one another as they have more access to each other they didn't find so readily years ago except during a war and invasion?

---

I think if anything the fact that the world getting smaller logically would lead to a better understanding and tollerance of other cultures and religious beliefs, clearly this is not the case - My opinion as to why this is the case is due to our politicians past and present that have used prejudice and mistrust as a smokescreen so that they can further their own gains.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TEEJAY

Could we be redneck and eradicate all who don't fit our ideal or appear a threat (Hitler ideology) or refuse them access by example UK has more terror cuz it has more people from where they originate - are we wrong to profile people - there is no easy or comfortable solution - but what will society accept?

---

No, because by doing this you perpetuate the hatred, prejudice and mistrust that breeds terrorism.

I don't think it is luck that has seen Australia largely free from terrorist attack until now. We have until recently had a fairly tollerant society that gave everyone a fair go. No hatred or repression - No terrorism
Edit I should also add that until recently we havent taken a bully boy approach in impossing our will on other countries.

BT I wish you were right but to a drug addict or a terrorist the compassionate sypathiser is the first target.

Being global and getting closer to each other doesn't necessarily create love and understanding but rather opportunity for my first sentence.

BTW I wish you were right.

SMH:

Quote:

---

The Commonwealth Director of Public prosecutions has dropped the terror charge against Indian doctor Mohamed Haneef.

Commonwealth prosecutors withdrew the charge of supporting a terrorist organisation in Brisbane Magistrates Court this afternoon.

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions Damian Bugg and Australian Federal Police commissioner Mick Keelty will hold a joint press conference this afternoon.

The conference has been scheduled for 3.30pm (AEST) in Canberra.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentC

SMH:

---

By all accounts they made a complete botch of this case

I wonder if they'll give him back his visa? I wonder if he'll still want it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentC

I wonder if they'll give him back his visa? I wonder if he'll still want it!

---

No apparently there are "other matters" that we're not allowed to know about that mean he can't have his visa back (according to Andrews). :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TE

[quote=TEEJAY;553829

.

BTW I wish you were right.

---

Its hard to know who is right these days because we are fed a lot of lies and misinformation by our politicians via an obliging media, which brings me back to why its important to enshrine freedoms... in this case the freedom of the press to tell us the truth (i'm refering to the anti-sedition laws) not that there seems to be any free press left in this country.:((

Thanks Rupert et al

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by craigb

No apparently there are "other matters" that we're not allowed to know about that mean he can't have his visa back (according to Andrews). :rolleyes:

---

"A rowdy protest group has formed at the Brisbane Magistrates Court demanding compensation for the doctor, who has been in custody for 25 days."

Wonder how much he will get if anything?

Ahh the many twists and turns of the department of immigration they will most likely turn a 1 million dollar compensation into 7 million :rolleyes:

If I was him, I would sit out detention and let them send me back to India and never set foot in this country again.

[quote=Bleedin Thumb;553868][quote=TE




Its hard to know who is right these days because we are fed a lot of lies and misinformation by our politicians via an obliging media, which brings me back to why its important to enshrine freedoms... in this case the freedom of the press to tell us the truth (i'm refering to the anti-sedition laws) not that there seems to be any free press left in this country.:((

Thanks Rupert et al[/QUOTE]

Yep truth is often lost in the sale of a paper or news story.

I like the freedom to bear arms, but hey that hasn't done so well either, I still like it :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentC

If I was him, I would sit out detention and let them send me back to India and never set foot in this country again.

---

Can be a long time - detention works in years not day or months.

Where he is from is not appealing to him either. He seems to have support of his workplace and many around him here. If he went through this by his own govt in his own country I doubt it would rate a mention in their news.

Travel oversaes and they laugh at our news it is so preoccupied with trivial issues such as the rights of one person - in their country it is about many deaths/slavery/real terrorism/plague all real juicy stuff not the fluffy feal good stuff we become so obsessed with.

Hicks would have been shot in the paddock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentC

If I was him, I would sit out detention and let them send me back to India and never set foot in this country again.

---

I was going to suggest that I would take up arms.... but then I read Teejays post and realised that Im not allowed to.:(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bleedin Thumb

... If we can't deal with a terrorist investigation using existing intelligence and investigative measures then..........

---

Intelligence???? Didn't the government sack the only intelligence agent we have that got the WMD info on Iraq correct (Andrew Wilkie). By rights, they should sack the whole ONA (is that what it's called?), re-employ him and listen to what he says, rather than tell the ONA et al what to say.
Go on....tell me I'm wrong:cool:
TM

Ok you're wrong :D:D:D:D