Originally posted by plawrence:
But since we don't know whether or not they are guilty without a trial, I don't understand how you can make that assumption without first giving them a trial.
I think its probably more like the situation where a man shoots three people in broad daylight, there are at least two dozen witnesses, and the news story still has to say "alleged" murderer even though its obvious who the perpetrator was.
Originally posted by plawrence:
Imprisoning these people without a trial or the airing of the evidene against them does nothing more than make people wonder whether or not there actually is any evidence, and provides even more anti-American political ammunition for our enemies and those who we are trying to convert to democracy.
Which brings into discussion whether its better to be
fair, or to be
feared.
I think, if I was running the country, in the case of terrorism, I'd prefer the latter.
Originally posted by plawrence:
No, it's degenerated because some people are more interested in making the thread a laugh-fest with a bunch of clever quips rather than address the issue of why they presume all of these detainees to be guilty without a trial.
Was that before or after you called us (its obvious you implied myself, though I'll give you the benefit of a generalization before I "condem" you) and our arguments a bunch of silly bullies?
