[Skybird]

Guilt must not just be assumed or claimed - guilt and/or responsibility must be proven.

"Pressumed innocent as long as not proven guilty" is an inevitable pillar of Western justice systems that separates a police-state's arbitrariness from justice.

Rumours, hear-say and suggestions that a suspect is guilty, is no replacement for proving guilt. Claims that so9mebody would not be held by the military or the police if he were not guilty, are not only circular logic, but illustrate a deeply worrying lack of care and an as deeply worrying, unfounded blind trust in these organisations. But hierarchical organisations like these are runb by humans and thus they are as prone to human flaws, errors and corrupt decisions, like any other - you never should trust blindly.

Holding people in captivcity without being able to prove their guilt, is a sign of a dictatorship both in that it can be done without society and government objecting, and in that the intention is illustrated to act that arbitrarily.

Protecting intel sources which would get compromised if evidence needs to be shown to prove a suspect'S guilt, is not acceptable in that intelligence preventing a fundamental principle of the justice system does not serve peace, freedom and democracy, but tyranny - it is the intel of a policestate, then. That can be a dilemma, yes. But who said life is easy.

Police work done at home, suspects captured in own home nation, is not comparable to a shooting war at the frontline in another country.

Suspects held by the military, also need to be proven guilty within a reasonable timeframe. Else the miliutary behaves as a tyrant and a threat to freedom itself.

"Guilt must be proven". That is as simple a truth as is "Waterboarding and implementing agony on a subject is torture". It is disgusting to weasel around these simple truths.

And some people here give me the feeiling that they have not understood the difference between law-and-order, and revenge.