Quote:
Originally Posted by hoyacoug
Am I a poor communicator? Perhaps. Either that or you are quite adept at taking things out of context (intentionally or otherwise).
|
I will just have to take solice in the fact that I am in good company here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoyacoug
As to your questions re what due process should be afforded, I have also already touched on this previously in this thread (and perhaps the reason you are not understanding the context of the discussion is because you have not taken the time to read the rest of the thread- not that I blame you, it is quite lengthy by now).
|
Yeah I can only really keep up with OUR discussion and even so am probably wasting too much billable time on it. :-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoyacoug
From a natural rights perspective, the detainees would not be entitled to a certain form of due process, IMO. They would be entitled to a fair process. I believe our natural rights guarantee us a right to a fair form of process rather than a specific form of process. This answer doesn't entirely say what the US should do, however, under constitutional principles (which was the basis for the Court's ruling).
Do they deserve the same due process you or I would receive? I doubt it. We have expanded on the concept of "fairness" and created a large regime of rules that only do apply to those within our social compact. We are entitled to do that. What we are not entitled to do is provide LESS than what they should receive under their natural rights. If a military trial can be fair to the detainees, then it would be an acceptable form (as the Court has stated as well under constitutional principles).
|
I'm surprised to hear you say that military tribunals would be okay with you. I think most folks anywhere left of center have rejected them and insisted that federal courts should be where these trials take place. I actually think this is fine as well. Here again, though, the devil is in the details. Which rights would be the baseline natural rights we would have to give them. Right to counsel? Okay. Right to confront and cross examine witnesses? Okay. Right to examine evidence? Hmmm. What if it is classified and could lead to soliders or intelligence officers being compromised. what if the accuser is an undercover asset? Right to compulsory process to get any witnesses in their favor present? Not as clear, that could include a lot of folks we can't reach. I think all of this points up, however, that this is an extremely thorny issue without a clean answer. Again, I give the administration credit for trying to deal with it although belatedly. I don't think they had to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoyacoug
BTW, when were you wrong on this board?  |
Frequently, and most of the time I'm not even aware of it.