Quote:
Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Not to speak for Spanky, but I think we've both said repeatedly (i) no, the government should not be holding truly innocent people indefinitely, but (ii) assuming they were - and this is a major, major assumption - no they should not be entitled to habeas corpus nor should the law be expanded. He has other non-judicial means of recourse, such as a plea from his foreign ambassador.
|
Why are you opposed to checks and balances? If the government is holding an innocent man it knows to be innocent, why should he have to depend on the interest and persuasion of his ambassador?
Its un-American. If you believe that the government should not be holding innocent people indefinitely, you should believe that said innocent people should be able to do something about it.
