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 (52328)	10/19/2006 5:49:44 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 90947

You are confusing the issue of detainment justified by a crime and detainment justified by being designated an "enemy combatant". Actually that's what you seem to be doing. ("presumption of innocence" etc.) I was pointing out how enemy combatants have no reasonable expectation of the types of protections given to accused criminals. They do however have some advantages that criminals don't get. They can't be executed (unless they are also convicted of a crime), they get released at the end of a conflict (which may be a disadvantage if the conflict is sufficiently long, but you can't give a captured enemy "consecutive life sentences" or anything like that without conviction of a crime) 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? I've already said that people captured as enemy combatants should have some ability to dispute the claim. The "presumption of innocence" ideas isn't an issue, because "innocence" isn't an issue. They aren't being accused of breaking laws. They should be able to present evidence that shows that they are not enemy. (Strictly speaking they don't have to be combatants if they directly support the combatants even if they don't fight themselves they could be detained, just as German soldiers in non-combat units could be and where detained by allied forces in WWII.) But giving them an opportunity to present such evidence, doesn't require the full protections available in an American (or British or Canadian) court. It also doesn't require proof beyond all reasonable doubt. If we attempt to require proof beyond all reasonable doubt than we would be adding additional (and rather impractical) protections. Not having such requirement doesn't represent ignoring, violating, or removing anyone's constitutional rights or their rights under international treaty.