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: TimF who wrote (52323)	10/19/2006 5:37:37 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

You are confusing the issue of detainment justified by a crime and detainment justified by being designated an "enemy combatant". Being designated by the Chief of the Armed Forces as an "enemy combatant" has serious consequences in restricting fundamental rights and freedoms. One needs the ability to prove that one is NOT an enemy combatant if one is to avoid arbitrary detention and restriction of freedoms. A true presumption of innocence as regards this arbitrary detainment would necessitate a mechanism to challenge this designation. Pretend you are travelling in Britain and their Prime Minister (or his designate) decides you are an enemy combatant. Would you think there could be some value in a presumption of innocence from that charge and therefore an opportunity to challenge the basis for the charge? Just wondering how you feel about the suspension of that presumption for (perhaps) your entire lifetime..or as long as hostilities continued in this hypothetical scenario??