You do this every time. You make up something ridiculous to fight about and then go on and on about it.
Well, no, not exactly.
You said this:
Just to make it clear -- it is my position (and not just an argument, but my belief) that, regardless of whether you use the war paradigm or the criminal justice paradigm, as you define it, the detainees are still entitled to fundamental due process.
What "due process" means varies somewhat between the two paradigms, but at some point both sets of detainees will wind up in front of a US court and they aren't going to be given substantially different treatment there.
At the end of the day, whenever that comes, the detainees in Guantanamo will get their day in court, and by "court" I don't mean "kangaroo court."
And the case law simply doesn't support your position. Unless you think getting rid of the presumption of innocence and placing the burden of proof on the detainees doesn't equal a "kangaroo court."
But as I said, I think you are erroneously conflating your beliefs with the case law. As an advocate for a position, that's OK. But I haven't just fallen off the turnip truck, so you'll pardon me if I express my doubts. |
