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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (763500)	1/13/2014 1:16:38 AM
From: Sdgla	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572916

habeas corpus was one of the key things mankind fought for, for thousands of years. Thousands of years ? U serious ? LOL Maybe 700 years if u go back to England in the 18th century. Bush Bush Bush ... U guys yawned ? U should go write for Putin.

To: koan who wrote (763500)	1/18/2014 7:48:14 PM
From: TimF	2 Recommendations Recommended By Bilow Taro Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1572916

You do understand that many societies both in the past and today, get by without habeas corpus. Since they do get by, and have gotten by, without it, that shows that societies can get by without it. It doesn't mean dropping it or never getting it is a good idea, merely that it doesn't inevitably lead to the destruction of society. Also habeus corpus is not big government and doesn't require big government. In fact to the extent it keeps government from holding people without charge it is a restriction on government, not an expansion of it. (And to the extent its ignored or bypassed its neither.) Yet when Bush first threw it away Which he did not do. Enemy prisoners captured in war do not have habeus corpus rights. If they did I suppose we would have to kill them all, since such rights would mean we could not hold them. To hold them you have to charge them with something, but warring against our country isn't a crime (actions in doing so may be a crime, hence "war crimes", but just waging war isn't a war crime). In fact charging someone with a crime merely for taking part in a war would be a violation of their rights under international treaty. But then not allowing them to surrender, or accepting the surrender and then shooting them would also violate such rights. So I suppose if we are to follow your policy ideas we have to accept any surrender, but then release the people who have surrendered. Try running a war that way.