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: Lane3 who wrote (72301)	6/15/2008 8:16:31 AM
From: KonKilo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542042

I'm impressed with how many people here are so much smarter and so much more visionary that I am. You are asking whether terror should be dealt with as a crime or as an act of war. Then you point out the inadequacies of traditional law enforcement to be an effective force against terror. Then you ask if there should not be a third way. All good questions and reasonable points. In fact, though, there already is a third way: our own intel apparatus working in cooperation with that of other countries. As evidence, consider how many plots have been uncovered before they came to fruition. (That so many of them have involved hapless gangs plotting hare-brained schemes is no indictment of the intel that unmasked them.) Legal wiretapping, website monitoring and the infiltration of gangs has proven highly effective in the WOT, more so than blunt military force, IMO.

To: Lane3 who wrote (72301)	6/15/2008 10:11:20 PM
From: Cogito	Respond to of 542042

>>I'm impressed with how many people here are so much smarter and so much more visionary that I am.<< Karen - I'm assuming that's sarcasm, and it stings. I'm aware that there are a lot of issues surrounding the trials of people who are foreign citizens and have been captured in foreign territory, and who do mean us harm, but are not soldiers in the conventional sense. I just don't see how the complicating factors require us to throw out our entire system of jurisprudence and start from scratch. I'm in this conversation because of last week's Supreme Court decision about Habeas Corpus for the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. The whole point of that decision is to confirm the concept of the presumption of innocence, placing the burden of proof of guilt on the state, which is where I firmly believe it belongs. Your idea that the way to deal with the innocent is to just leave them alone in the first place doesn't work. If there was some way to do that perfectly, Habeas Corpus wouldn't be necessary. Our entire legal system could be greatly simplified. The police could simply arrest only those people who are guilty, and haul them straight to prison, using some sort of table to determine how long to keep them there. - Allen