"Innocent Until Proven Guilty" Talking Point

It's been said of Libby, Rove, DeLay, Abramoff (until recently), Ney, Taft (in OH), and countless other Republicans embroiled in scandal.

"Well, remember, Tim, that although <insert corrupt republican here> has been indicted, in this country we are innocent until proven guilty, and therefore there is no reason why <corrupt republican> should step down, or resign, or be removed, or have his security clearance revoked."

The proper response to such a statement is, of course, "Bullshit!"

"Innocent Until Proven Guilty", like so many other catch phrases, has meaning insofar as it relates to CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.... that is, the government cannot imprison you without proving your guilt in a court of law. Well, unless your name is Jose Padilla.

But when there is legitimate reason to suspect wrongdoing directly related to someone's job, it is NOT a violation of our foundational American principles to remove that person from that job until such time as they are cleared in court.

Fer instance:

If your child accuses her babysitter of hurting her, and there are cigarette burns on your child's arm, do you fire the babysitter? Or do you keep her on because she is innocent until proven guilty?

If you find out that the new head of your accounting department has just been arrested for embezzling from a previous employer do you let him keep doing your books when he makes bail and is awaiting trial? He is innocent, after all....

If your kid's school bus driver is arrested for DUI on a Saturday night, and you find out about it, do you let your kid get on that bus Monday morning? Ain't been proved guilty, so what are you concerned about?

If your number one domestic advisor is the target of an investigation by a special prosecutor for violating national security, do you allow him to keep his White House job and his security clearance? Wouldn't want to fire an innocent man while there's an ongoing investigation going on...

There's your rebuttal.

"Innocent Until Proven Guilty" does not mean that we have to ignore specific, credible evidence of wrongdoing. If someone is arrested, or indicted or has been notified that they are the target of a justice department investigation for reasons that directly relate to their job, it is not unreasonable to expect them to be removed from that job, at least temporarily.

Lots of people who are innocent (because they haven't been proven guilty) are placed on no-fly lists because it's better safe than sorry.

Lots of people who are innocent (because they haven't been proven guilty) are rendered to foreign countries for :ahem: interrogation.

Yet politicians under investigation (or indictment, Mr. Delay!) for corruption are allowed to keep on running our country because they haven't been found guilty, and are therefore completely beyond any kind of reproach or censure!

I think that when the indictments start flowing from the artesian well of "Just Desserts" that is the Abramoff plea bargain, we will hear this "innocent until proven guilty" mantra repeated about every Republican who is sprayed with fan-splattered feces. Here's hoping that they won't be allowed to get away with it.

(edited for typogrpahical erorrs)

the judicial system has a problem of being as corrupt as the politicians. Just look at the fiasco over the 2000 election where Gore won and Bush snatched the Presidency because of b & c of the SC.

...suspended with pay during any investigation of wrongdoing (think teacher and touching allegations or cops and weapons being discharged).If it's important enough for a lowly city worker how can we take the chance of NOT suspending one of the 1000 most important members of our government since the future damage could be correspondingly great???

You have nailed it precisely. Now, let's go forth and spread that meme! I want to see our Democratic leaders refuting the RW talking points in language like this that will resonate with everyone.

How are these 'publicans any different? :shrug:

are in jail.

meaning in the context of legal proceedings, not in the court of public opinion.

it goes beyond simply the "court of public opinion". Using the "innocent until proven guilty" mantra to justify keeping someone in a job which would be compromised by the actions they are accused of is irresponsible at best.