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 (72444)	6/16/2008 9:19:45 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542214

I noticed that no one comment on my notion of just doing that--letting them go. Other than the comment that no one will take them. That's, of course, not possible, again because of the way the Bush administration has handled this. You need some sort of process to establish who to let go. It needs to be fair and to be perceived as fair. My own guess, fwiw, is that had the Bush administration put such a process in place, the issue would have gone away. But they didn't and habeus corpus was invoked. It became necessary because of the "lock em up and throw away the key" policies of the Bush folk. As for continuing to contest the decision, that's what always happens with SC decisions that stake out a bit of new ground. And, particularly ones with 5 to 4 decisions. And particularly ones in such hotly contested areas as this one. If you can find some way that's fair and reasonably resembles a just process, to separate out the serious from the unserious, without using existing criminal court procedures, then I'm all ears/eyes. At the moment, if we are to recover some of our humanity, we have to address all of this.