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: Cogito who wrote (77241)	7/30/2008 2:08:22 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543313

As for US citizens, while the practical problem still holds to an extent, its much smaller and the general principle of Habeus Corpus for our citizens is important enough to accept this less problem. If it ever gets to the point of civil war or general insurrection when you could not reasonably respect habeus corpus rights there is a well established procedure that congress can suspend them. As for non-citizens, I don't think any nation involved in war has given full habeus corpus rights to captured combatants. You simply can't fight a war that way. Its typically impossible to prove things beyond all reasonable doubt, and often impractical to prove things even to a lower standard. Convictions are not the point. Captured enemy generally are not convicted of anything. They are held as the enemy, and are not assumed to have committed a crime by being the enemy. If they actually are convicted of a crime, than they can be held after the conflict is over, otherwise they have to be released. The Military Tribunal plan was concocted after the fact Many methods of dealing with problems, are concocted after you actually have the problem. Nothing unusual, or sinister about that.