BF2S Forums Do you believe the accused should be 'innocent until proven guilty'?

Of course. Which is why I disapprove of places like Gitmo. People have a right to a fair and swift trial and until the outcome of that trial should not be treated badly. If they're found guilty, that's another story.

Yep. Although, when it comes to a war. How exactly do you prove that so and so killed so and so? I'm all for giving a trail to everyone in gitmo, but some of the things might be hard to prove. Actually...everything would.

"He threw a grenade at me!"
"Whaaa? I was just sitting and eating breakfast"

"Both of you, prove your statements"

Both:

...and that's how it would go.

Absolutely.  However, in practice this is often not the case.  With the ability to transmit data anywhere in the world instantaneously, many of today's high profile cases are tried and convicted before they ever go to court.

Mekstizzle wrote:

Yep. Although, when it comes to a war. How exactly do you prove that so and so killed so and so? I'm all for giving a trail to everyone in gitmo, but some of the things might be hard to prove. Actually...everything would.

"He threw a grenade at me!"
"Whaaa? I was just sitting and eating breakfast"

"Both of you, prove your statements"

Both:

...and that's how it would go.

that's the absurd thing about a "real" ( formal ) war, like WWII, for example. After the end of the hostilities, all POW's are released, even those who killed dozens, if not hundreds of people.

As far as Gitmo is concerned, all of the detainees should be subject to the same prosecution process that civilians have a right to. Due Process, that is. You know, habeas corpus, innocent until proven guilty, a lawyer, a fair trial, etc...

Why deny them that ? Just because you don't like what they are fighting for ?
Even the Nazis got a trial, and they exterminated millions in death camps.

The problem with Gitmo is, that most of those detained there weren't even apprehended "properly", and that factual, hard evidence is probably hard to come by. After all, you can't have the CSI sweep Afghanistan.
Which leads me to believe that a lot of Gitmo inmates will eventually have to be released, because there is no way you could prove their guilt "beyond reasonable doubt" in a court of law.

I can only speculate, but I think it is quite likely that a lot of "arrests" of "terror suspects" by US forces go like this: http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=66405

are the majority of people innocent? yes? well, then you have your answer. as most people aren't criminals ( setting aside speeding tickets and the like) then your average joe isn't going to be a criminal, so innocent until proven guilty.

jsnipy wrote:

No, not universally. We all don't play by the same rules.

So you would lower yourself to their standards?

Become as barbaric as they are?