Only some presumed innocent
The liberal news channels keep repeating the same warning about Sgt. Bergdahl: In America, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. That is a fine principle, but liberals apply it selectively.
Jerry Sandusky was found guilty by the media long before his trial. Joe Paterno, who did nothing wrong, was fired because of Sandusky's association to Penn State's athletic program.
The media convicted George Zimmerman long before his trial for killing black teen Trayvon Martin. President Obama declared him guilty too.
He was found not guilty, but the media, Obama and the black community think Zimmerman got away with murder.
Then there are political witch hunts, like the convictions of state Sen. Jane Orie and her sister, Justice Joan Orie Melvin, for campaign violations. The local media and Allegheny County Democrats declared them guilty before their trials.
The sisters broke the law, but I wonder how many politicians broke the same laws, but weren't punished. Let's go after some more politicians — even some Democrats.
What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
I do not know if Sgt. Bergdahl is innocent or guilty. I do know the cost to get him released was too high.
Obama should be held responsible personally if any American soldiers or citizens die as a result of the release of five Taliban terrorists. His actions were illegal and strengthened our enemy.
Is that an impeachable offense?
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Positive & healthy ...
- Ferguson & contradictions
- Sticker shock
- Russia, not Rice
- ... Or free-riding fad?
- Thanks for the coverage
- Goodell’s ‘pick-six’
- More answers, please
- Blame judges
- If not now, when?
- Hiring in Westmoreland II