Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (121827)	6/23/2005 8:18:40 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793914

Ok, I know you're coming at this from a different background. And I am not doing a very good job of explaining things, in part because these people, as we both acknowledge, are neither fish nor fowl, neither persons who have violated United States law, nor persons who are covered by any particular Geneva Convention. Nevertheless, they are being held by US employees and agents, and as such, are entitled to due process and habeas corpus review. "Due process" is a very nebulous concept, and depends on the individual circumstances. At a minimum, I would argue, it means that the persons in detention are entitled to review of their status before a neutral fact-finder, notice, the opportunity to be heard, the presumption of innocence, the right to be present, the right to know what evidence is being presented against him, and the right to controvert that evidence. It's not because of who they are. It's because of who we are. Most of the things listed above would apply in a civil proceeding as well. It would apply in administrative hearings before non-judicial fact finders, e.g., Worker's Compensation hearings before a state bureaucrat. It would apply to the detention of illegal aliens. It would apply in Small Claims court. That's the way we do things.

To: Lane3 who wrote (121827)	6/24/2005 1:40:11 AM
From: KLP	Respond to of 793914

karen, I think there is an even more basic question that needs to be discussed with most Americans before we figure out if we use a military or criminal model.... And that question is: Do we really have an enemy? Or are these just various bands of terribly misguided brothers who have been told by their leaders to kill Americans, Christians and Jews, but other than that tiny detail, are nice folks after all? After that question is decided, THEN we can figure out what to do when dealing with them. One way in which this country is polarized is the question of whether we use a military or criminal model in dealing with our enemy. We need to find a way to communicate. One just can't dismiss those who favor a criminal model as airheads or those who favor a military model as brutes, depending on which pole one clings to.