Obama's unrepented terrorist connection

[jreeves]

Too bad it is just a character flaw that Prescott Bush sealed the documents for years of his dealings with the Nazi's avoiding all charges of Trading With The Enemy. Wouldn't that be, Um, UNAMERICAN?

I'll repeat it for you, Bush isn't on the Ballot. Whereas Obama is that's why him launching his career from an unrepented terrorist's house is relevant....

 

[jreeves]

Yet the way the laws of the land are written such statements only making the person an idiot. They do not make you guilty. Innocence is always presumed in American courts. No matter what you have done. No matter the proponderance of evidence we all walk into a court innocent. It is only the court jury or bench in a finding to convict that makes us guilty.

That is the piece that makes the American court system strong. We must by due process be found guilty. It may seem odd that one can admit a crime and still be innocent yet this is still the case.

Who said I was trying Ayers in court, I said he was unrepented terrorist. You don't have to be convicted of terrorism to be a terrorist. That's the reason I said that Obama launched his career from an unrepented terrorist's house. Since Ayers confirmed that he was a terrorist with his own statement, please explain how my logic is flawed?

 

[Abelian Sea]

I may think he is guilty but I can't say he is. It is a violation of his rights. I can't have it both ways. I can present evidence that he may have done a crime but i can't say he it anything. It would be an alleged crime. Either we follow the laws or we don't.

We can say Ayers is alleged to have done this I think he might be guilty. But to call him an outright terrorist is violating his right of presumptive innocence.

You're not the court system. You're perfectly free to not presume people innocent. It may get you in trouble socially sometimes, it may be unfair sometimes, but you are not bound by the same restraints as the justice system.

Making unsubstantiatable accusations in a sufficiently reputation-damaging way will eventually run you afoul of libel laws, but, as the saying goes, the truth is never libel.

For example, If Man A has openly admitted to doing Act X, then it is in no way a violation of Man A's rights for a private citizen to declare that he did Act X.

 

[Inferno]

He has no presumption of innocence. He has ADMITTED he did it. He has stated he wished he had done MORE. He is safe from prosecution because of a technicality.

Guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt. He has STATED he did it. He has provided details on what, when and how.

He can not be tried for it, but his guilt is not in question. He is not alleged to have done it, HE DID IT and has admitted HE DID IT.

Criminals confess in jails all the time. They are still not guilty until the trial. That is the law. If you love America you have to love the law. The law presumes innocence. No matter what you think of it this is the law. Sorry no guilty Bill Ayers.

 

[Inferno]

Who said I was trying Ayers in court, I said he was unrepented terrorist. You don't have to be convicted of terrorism to be a terrorist. That's the reason I said that Obama launched his career from an unrepented terrorist's house. Since Ayers confirmed that he was a terrorist with his own statement, please explain how my logic is flawed?

In fact you do. Osama Bin Ladem is an alledged terroist when he wouls walk into a court.

 

[dilloduck]

Criminals confess in jails all the time. They are still not guilty until the trial. That is the law. If you love America you have to love the law. The law presumes innocence. No matter what you think of it this is the law. Sorry no guilty Bill Ayers.

That's pretty much bullshit.

 

[Inferno]

You're not the court system. You're perfectly free to not presume people innocent. It may get you in trouble socially sometimes, it may be unfair sometimes, but you are not bound by the same restraints as the justice system.

Making unsubstantiatable accusations in a sufficiently reputation-damaging way will eventually run you afoul of libel laws, but, as the saying goes, the truth is never libel.

For example, If Man A has openly admitted to doing Act X, then it is in no way a violation of Man A's rights for a private citizen to declare that he did Act X.

Bill Ayers had a news story removed and apologized for in the Chicago Sun Times when he threatened to sue for libal as you say.

 

[jreeves]

Criminals confess in jails all the time. They are still not guilty until the trial. That is the law. If you love America you have to love the law. The law presumes innocence. No matter what you think of it this is the law. Sorry no guilty Bill Ayers.

Any person with half brain can tell he is a terrorist, people also understand that criminals get away with crimes. You trying to defend a self admitted terrorist is very amusing, so please continue.

 

[Abelian Sea]

Bill Ayers had a news story removed and apologized for in the Chicago Sun Times when he threatened to sue for libal as you say.

I don't know exactly what the article said, but if it accused him of no more than what he's already admitted to then the Sun would eventually win.

Eventually. After spending lots of money on attorneys and court fees and losing face as being involved in such a lawsuite at all. Which is probably why they backed down.

Remember, anyone can threaten to sue anyone else over anything. It's a terrible idea if you have no case, but if you have even enough of a case to bring it to a trial (even if you won't win that trial) it can be an effective intimidation tool.