SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : View from the Center and Left

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Lane3 who wrote (72112)6/14/2008 4:28:13 PM
From: Cogito  Read Replies (1) of 542011
 
>>Habeas Corpus was designed for civilian citizens. It was not designed for enemy fighters in a war. There's a big square-peg factor here that can't be brushed away so easily.<<

Karen -

I'll stand by my statement.

The legal status of people who we claim to be "enemy combatants", who have been detained in an undeclared war, is pretty murky. The Bush Administration invented that phrase specifically to ensure that such people would not be covered by the Geneva Conventions.

But in any system of justice worthy of the name, Habeas Corpus would have to be considered a fundamental principle.

It is simply not morally right to grab people who happen to be in a particular location, looking a particular way, presume they are guilty, throw them into a prison camp halfway around the world, and deny them the right to know what they are accused of, to be able to present exculpatory evidence, or to have any kind of hearing to even establish a factual basis for their detention.

Without Habeas Corpus, that's what you get.

The people detained at Guantanamo are not US citizens. But that doesn't mean they have no basic legal rights. Remember that while some of them undoubtedly are "enemy fighters", many of them are just innocents who have been detained by mistake.

- Allen
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext