Originally Posted by mustachepete
You're confusing process with due process. Probably 100 million people have been murdered by their governments in the last 100 years. The great majority of them probably received legal process - an actual piece of paper authorizing arrest, some sort of disposition by an official, perhaps a ratification of the killings after they occurred. All on the record, all of it "legal" on paper, and all a sham.

Due process requires more, it's sometimes said that what's required is "fair play and substantial justice." You can't hand someone a blank piece of paper. It has to invoke a law. The law itself has to have been enacted in a legal way. And the law has to be interpreted in a reasonable manner. You can't know if these conditions have been satisfied unless you know the facts of the case to see if the law is applicable.

Again, the question being presented here is really a hypothetical: "Would you support a person who's had some charge filed against them by some government entity?" Absent a detailed scenario, I don't think there's much interesting in the question, but it does seem like anyone who would answer that question with a flat "No" lies outside of the traditions described in the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the Gettysburg Address, in that they think the government owns the people, instead of vice versa.


You could have saved a lot of time by just saying yes, or that you would support him if you felt the indictment or impeachment were unjust. Same passive-aggressive "yes" answer as JCrusher.


"...the successful annihilation of organized crime's subculture in America would rock the 'legitimate' world's foundation, which would ultimately force fundamental social changes and redistributions of wealth and power in this country. Meyer Lansky's dream was to bond the two worlds together so that one could not survive without the other." - Dan E. Moldea