Mike Lorrey wrote:
> Yes, however, the 'innocent until proven guilty' only applies maximally,
> generally, to those who willingly accept the jurisdiction of the state
> and participate voluntarily in the justice system. When one becomes a
I have no idea of what this is supposed to mean. A fugitive who
flees going to court is not assumed more guilty of the crime ve
is suspect of committing automatically. Perhaps ve simply does
not trust the system. Not that unrealistic an attitude.
> fugitive, a suspect is far less likely to be granted bail, etc. as a
> non-fugitive would be. Similarly, a person who has violated INS rules
> and moves to an unreported location when their visa expires makes
> themselves a fugitive, and because of this, are not entitled to the same
> sort of trust and respect of 'personal recognizance' that a voluntary
> participant in the legal process would enjoy.
It depends. Someone who took flight might be denied bail
legitimately but this does not mean they have less rights than
they did before.
> Detaining those who have violated the terms of their visa are justly
> being detained because they are, at the very least, flight risks, even
> if they are not participants in an actual terrorist plot.
Not so. Most people who run past their visas are not flight
risk and haven't run anywhere. And they are certainly not
justifiably detained outside of normal conventions of having
people know their whereabouts, having legal representation and
knowing the precise charges against them.
> The claim that they are being denied access to lawyers is not true. Some
> refuse to accept court appointed lawyers but do not have the means to
> hire lawyers of their own.
I am sorry but there is quite a bit of testimony that many of
them were denied lawyers and in some cases even their lawyers
had no idea of their location or the charges, if any, against
them. There is no point in your claim this is a lie.
> Nor does being held for military tribunals strip one of a right to a
> lawyer. Because, though, it is a military court, the lawyers are all
> members of the JAG corps (i.e. US military officers), which I would
> expect some foreigners would be hesitant to accept as defense counsel.
I, a citizen, would be "hesitant" to accept such counsel. And
there are many other high irregularities with a military
tribunal including not being able to know the charges or full
evidence against you in order to present any sort of real
defense. All of this has been gone over before. I am surprised
and not very happy that you choose to sweep it under the rug to
once again try to get your positions accepted. This is, in my
opinion, very dishonest.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:32 MDT