This is repulsive [politics]

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by FIREWALL

Please say who your responding to and explain what you mean.

Your thoughts are important.

Important my eye...

Here's my humble opinion: our legal system was not set up to address the criminal who is a part of any massive, ongoing conspiracy designed to cause continuous harm and, ultimately, the complete destruction of the system itself.

Think about that for a moment, if you will - if, outside the context of terrorism, I said that there was an effort to undermine, damage, and destroy our very way of life would you actually find that to be criminal?

Seems like an act of war to me.

However, it really isn't. Terrorists are no more capable of waging war on us than, say, Haiti. Ultimately, this is something new we're facing.

So, it makes no sense to treat this as a traditional war. Furthermore, it makes even less sense to treat this as merely criminal. So what do we do?

My personal suggestion is the creation of a specific code of justice pertaining to terrorism, but alas, that is not on the agenda. However, in the mean time, it seems to me to make sense that we assure that people with a single-minded drive to do harm to us are unable to do so.

Hence, I am in favor of indefinite detention - so long as the cases are reviewed regularly and fairly, until which time we develop a code of justice pertaining specifically to the treatment of known terrorists. All cases should be subject to regular review.

Furthermore, I think our legal system, in cases of terrorism by non-citizens, should adopt a "guilty until proven innocent" policy so long as the charges are able to pass a judicial evidentiary hearing perhaps presided over by a grand jury.

That's what I meant. I doubt you'd want the long, mundane details of how I believe the judicial code should be revised regarding terrorism, but if you do, let me know.