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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (52307)	10/19/2006 2:22:44 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

I think for normal criminal trials, the presumption of innocence, the right to confront your accuser, the right to appeal, etc. should not be removed. But I don't think captured enemy in times of war should have to be processed through criminal trials. In fact if we gave Al Qaeda operatives full Geneva conference POW rights, it can be argued that we couldn't try them in normal courts. Courts exist to find someone as guilty. A POW isn't considered guilty, not generally at least. Specific POWs might have committed specific crimes and be tried for them, but being a member of the enemy isn't supposed to be considered a crime. They aren't held as punishment but rather to render them unable to fight without killing or crippeling them. They are presumed to be innocent, but they are held anyway.