SI
SI
discoversearch

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 (77245)7/30/2008 4:34:24 PM
From: Cogito  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 543314
 
>>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.<<

Tim -

The Bush Administration wasn't even intending to try these people at all, until they were forced to consider doing so.

As for the "enemy combatant" designation, it is in itself an invention of the Bush Administration, a new "legal" classification that exempts them from having to grant any rights whatsoever to people so designated.

If this were an actual war, as you refer to it, then the provisions of the Geneva Convention would apply to all prisoners. The Administration has steadfastly denied that it does apply, due to the invented classification of these prisoner.

- Allen