Developereo
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2009
- Messages
- 14,093
- Reaction score
- 25
- Country
- Location
I have, lets review together shall we, you replied to this:
Where does he claims they are guilty? he does no such thing.
OK, I thought you were referring to something else. There were multiple conversations going on and, if you don't indicate which particular post you are quoting, I can't know to which conversation you are referring.
Another poster had implied that these people are guilty, and I thought you were referring to it.
As for your example, it comes back to the simple premise that people are innocent until proven guilty. You guys are working backwards and assuming that, if the police detain someone, then that person must prove their innocence.
So I stand by my statement that, barring a conviction, these people should be viewed as innnocent.
Not quite, the OP states that no reason was given yet, your terminology implies randomness and that no reason exists, a fine difference I know.
Most of the rest of your post boils down to "there was a reason for detaining these specific individuals but it was not made public".
Since most of these people were released, and this happened three times this year, the police justification doesn't seem to have been well founded.
I see you have a habit to pretend you know about the subject and pass opinion as fact.
Uh no. It only seems that way to you because you may not understand which part of "due process" is being violated. Note this amendment to NDAA:
Another amendment from Virginia’s Bob Goodlatte that would require the government to provide definitive evidence that a detainee was an enemy combatant also passed
All along here, we have been talking about the authorities having to justify continued detention, and this amendment requires them to do so.
The part of "due process" that is being violated is the right to a timely trial, and we have not been discussing that here.
I don't get it, can you help me? Are you saying that the raid was illegal?
No, I am not saying that Russian police would break their own laws. However, as I indicated, unless there is imminent danger, police usually don't interrupt prayers at a religious place. It amounts to harassment to keep doing such raids and mass detentions during prayer. Especially, when most of the people are not violent criminals or terrorists, and are released subsequently anyway.
Do you take as fact any claims made by unnamed official which is quoted in a news paper?
Are you saying Reuters made up the specific quote by Putin as part of a conspiracy against him?
The comment about agenda was indeed inappropriate, I apologize
Thank you.
With programmes called Echelon, Prism etc....
Oh totally.
No one is claiming that the Western system is perfect. It's all relative, and we are talking about physical detention.