Posted on 03/01/2005 5:07:32 AM PST by aculeus
It is a premise as old as the American legal system: The government has the burden of proof in criminal cases, and the accused is not required to say a word in his defense.
But when an American student charged in an al Qaeda plot to kill President Bush appears in court today seeking his release on bail, it is Ahmed Omar Abu Ali who will have to show that he is not a danger to his Northern Virginia community
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
"But when an American student charged in an al Qaeda plot to kill President Bush appears in court today seeking his release on bail, it is Ahmed Omar Abu Ali who will have to show that he is not a danger to his Northern Virginia community"
Ummm. seems like the standard ought to pertain to what he is charged with, not some peripheral red herring, as this implies.
The fact that someone was tortured does not mean that person is innocent.
We cannot shame these creatures into giving up. We will not convince the radicals of the errors of their ways. They are counting on future glory. We can only fight them and kill them until enough of them realize that we will not submit.
(banging of gavel) Point of order -- it's not a "fact" that he was tortured!
"...it's not a "fact" that he was tortured!"
That's correct, I was just trying to be concise. Even IF he had been tortured that wouldn't indicate innocence, nor would it constitute "sufficient" punishment.
It sounds like this whole family is a bad deal for America. They should probably all be deported.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.