Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
No, it is because a ridiculous question.
|
It is an extremely valid question, one you felt you could not answer because it exposed the flaws in your argument.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
Sorry, "no one believes that" you say, but you immediately continue:
The only "link" you have is entirely specious.
This is *NOT* "understandable" at all, this is simply "guilt by association".
You have no proof, no evidence, no *reasonable* grounds for supposing that someone may be a terrorist, yet you consider it "understandable" that someone should be dragged in for questioning simply because they have been seen *next* to a suspect and you seem to think that *they* should be *happy* to be questioned in this way!
|
Perhaps you neglected to read what I actually stated Graham?
What did I state which relates to presumption of innocence when dealing with a suspect? Suspect being the operative word graham, it means that someone is suspected of criminal activity but has not be charged, or found guilty, they are still innocent!
Perhaps you believe that if someone is murdered in a nightclub the police should let everyone there go and not take them in for questioning, after all, most of them would have had nothing to do with the murder.
Or perhaps you have no idea how the law has been working for the past 50+ years?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
Justice? Presumption of Innocence? Not in Xaccers' country!!!
|
Intelligence? reasoned response? understanding of quoted text? Not in Graham's posts apparently!!!