It completely depends on the circumstances surrounding the incident. I can't make a blanket statement like that. In this case, yes. I can see why others wouldn't, though. I, personally, only need to be shown that a person was working with Al Queda. After that, I don't care what happens to them.
Why? Because I do believe this is a war on terror. It isn't a traditional war, where people don their sides uniform. It's different. If someone can show me a person was participating in this war, and was on the other side, then they can hold him for as long as they'd like with no complaint from me. That question has been answered to my satisfaction in this case.
I agree with what you are saying but the problem is it hasn't been 'shown'. in this country the legal way to 'show' someone was doing something that is illegal, is to get an inditment and make your case in court. then the accused can deffend themselves against your acusations.
as it is nothing has been 'shown' just claimed.
you may find the acussation alone to be proof. I don't. I find accusations that the gov't isn't willing to take to court extremely suspect. if it's true they can prove it, if they can't then, officially, it never happened. thats one of the main pillars our whole system of justice is built on.
aside from this guys inocence or guilt this sort of procedure is a huge threat to our way of life. legally, once we acept this, whats to stop the sitting president from just declairing all of his political adversarys 'enemies of the state' (says he knows it, doesn't want to prove it, just trust him).
this is a bigger threat to the security of america than al-Queda.
btw- it's been my experience that most people who ask that you trust them without proof, can't be trusted.
