Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 5:59 pm
I seem to remember the topic being over citizens' rights, not economics or whose fault what war was.
Zuruck, I've agreed with you once or twice before.
It's not that I trust the government. I explicitly don't trust the government. BUT, I don't think this is a particular issue on which my distrust of the government needs to be voiced. The ability to hold a citizen who was caught trying to wage war against the country, but not bring charges against him due to the sensitive nature of some of the information involved in the case, seems to me to be an ability the government should have. I don't trust the government, but I also don't think the government should be unnecessarily hamstrung because their case against someone depends on information that's sensitive with respect to ongoing battle operations. I don't trust the government, but I think if they were going to hold this guy for no good reason they'd be able to manufacture evidence to do so without this particular provision...
So, without the provision, an innocent guy could still be jailed for life or executed because an untrustworthy government could manufacture a case against him. But without the provision, a guilty guy would be set free by a (semi-)honest government. It seems like, overall, that's a downgrade -- getting rid of the provision doesn't protect *anybody* any better, but it increases the risk of releasing somebody who really shouldn't be released.
I'd like to see the guy go to trial... but not if the evidence required to convict him would also put soldiers or civilians at risk.
Zuruck, I've agreed with you once or twice before.
It's not that I trust the government. I explicitly don't trust the government. BUT, I don't think this is a particular issue on which my distrust of the government needs to be voiced. The ability to hold a citizen who was caught trying to wage war against the country, but not bring charges against him due to the sensitive nature of some of the information involved in the case, seems to me to be an ability the government should have. I don't trust the government, but I also don't think the government should be unnecessarily hamstrung because their case against someone depends on information that's sensitive with respect to ongoing battle operations. I don't trust the government, but I think if they were going to hold this guy for no good reason they'd be able to manufacture evidence to do so without this particular provision...
So, without the provision, an innocent guy could still be jailed for life or executed because an untrustworthy government could manufacture a case against him. But without the provision, a guilty guy would be set free by a (semi-)honest government. It seems like, overall, that's a downgrade -- getting rid of the provision doesn't protect *anybody* any better, but it increases the risk of releasing somebody who really shouldn't be released.
I'd like to see the guy go to trial... but not if the evidence required to convict him would also put soldiers or civilians at risk.