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 (52315)	10/19/2006 2:59:36 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Being accused of being an enemy doesn't make you an enemy, but being an enemy isn't a criminal charge (if it was POWs wouldn't be freed at the end of the war). I do think that there should be some mechanism for people to show that they are not members of the enemy (perhaps military tribunals of some sort), but it shouldn't require proof beyond all reasonable doubt to hold someone. "They are presumed to be innocent, but they are held anyway." Give me a break, Tim--LOL! What break is needed. My statement is completely true. There is some similarity to the not uncommon practice of holding people thought to be a risk, without bail, pending trial. The two situations are far from being exactly the same (after all the people held without bail will presumably get a full criminal trial at some point unless they plead guilty or are released), but they are being held not because they are guilty but because they are at risk. Defendants held without bail are not held because of guilt for a crime and neither are POWs, or captured enemy combatants. Neither is presumed to be guilty of any crime but both are held.