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: TimF who wrote (77240)	7/30/2008 1:48:51 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543310

>>Any enemy combatants. Also their proposal was to have military tribunals to determine whether someone might be an enemy combatant. While opposing giving them full access to the normal US court system process (something that captured enemy combatants have never gotten). You can't run a war by "lawfare". When you have captured enemy you typically will not have enough evidence to prove their status beyond all reasonable doubt, but you can't just let them all go, and if you do push such a policy you will see a lot fewer captures, and a lot more simply killed (or if they do somehow get captured and recorded as such than they will have a much higher risk of being "shot while attempting escape", even if they don't actually attempt escape.<< Tim - Any person could be designated an enemy combatant, including US citizens arrested in this country. That happened in at least one case, and the Administration had to be forced to even grant the man, Jose Padilla, a hearing. The Military Tribunal plan was concocted after the fact, when pressure to come up with something other than, "we can hold them as long as we want to, and we don't have to tell anybody why" became too great. And of course, the decisions Military Tribunals are not subject to appeal or review. It is not necessary to prove a detainee's status beyond a reasonable doubt to fulfill the obligations of Habeas Corpus. That's never been the case. You only need that for conviction, though a Military Tribunal might have a lower standard for conviction, as well. - Allen