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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (24471)	7/19/2006 12:43:42 PM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541319

When the definition of combatant is determined solely and secretly by the capturing power, and not even the Red Cross can have a private meeting with the prisoners, it bears a strong resemblance, IMHO. Arbitrary detention at the whim of an unaccountable power.

To: TimF who wrote (24471)	7/19/2006 1:28:13 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541319

Imprisoning people without trials indefinitely, on hearsay, as in the Bastille, is pretty much universally considered to be the worst violation of human rights possible. Which is why we call the writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum the Great Writ. en.wikipedia.org The administration argued, and lost the argument, that habeas corpus did not apply to the prisoners taken in the "War on Terrorism." The administration argued, and lost the argument, that these prisoners were not entitled to a status hearing. The administration argued, and lost the argument, that these prisoners were not entitled to due process at their status hearing. And now they are casting about looking for a way to hold them forever, since the "War on Terrorism" will never end. This will fail, too. The only real solution needs to be fashioned using treaties and international law, but this will probably have to wait until the next president.