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: Ilaine who wrote (122014)	6/24/2005 4:00:57 PM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 793931

I think I did tell you, because I think I kept telling you that for purposes of my argument it didn't matter whether we used the military paradigm or the law enforcement paradigm. You can't scoop up a mass of men from in and around various battlefields, "tag-and-bag" them, and throw them into an anonymous prison and leave them there "for the duration" of a war that won't end in our lifetimes, or even indefinitely. Now, that's rich. Like the real estate bubble, you are full of froth today. Criminal law = presumption of innocence + burden of proof on the Government + subpoena power + competent counsel. War = none of the above, well, maybe a JAG fresh from law school. Read Hamdi. In wartime they can be tagged and bagged until the conflict is over or they are not longer a threat, i.e., too old to fight or harm us or they shave and start eating pork. Yep, that's the way it is.

To: Ilaine who wrote (122014)	6/24/2005 5:09:09 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793931

I think I did tell you, because I think I kept telling you that for purposes of my argument it didn't matter whether we used the military paradigm or the law enforcement paradigm. You know, during that colloquy I "called the question" of dueling paradigms no fewer than five times in addition to the number of times I (and other contributers) simply made reference to it. I may not know much about the law and legal systems, but I know of one legal concept, one that I learned on SI back in the days when posters discussed weighty things in good faith. It's called the last clear chance doctrine and it's about the responsibility of those who have an opportunity to avoid an accident but don't take it. If you really knew all along that you weren't arguing for a criminal justice paradigm against my war paradigm as I clearly thought, you had plenty of opportunity to clarify things. I knew we were experiencing a disconnect and that you were ignoring many of my points and questions, but it never occurred to me that you weren't arguing in good faith. Fooled me once...