RE: Is this seriously worth it? Guantanmo inmate never charged with a crime, dies after 11 years in US custody
September 24, 2012 at 3:43 am
(This post was last modified: September 24, 2012 at 4:07 am by Tiberius.)
Is it seriously worth it?
No.
It's not even unseriously worth it.
The two are not synonymous. One can commit a crime and be found not guilty (i.e presumption of innocence holds), and one can be innocent of a crime and found guilty.
Shell is 100% correct. We cannot know if someone is innocent (as in, they did not commit the crime) just because they didn't go to court. Nor can we know if they are innocent if they do go to court. We are fallible beings; we get things wrong all the time.
Now I'm sure she'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure Shell does not support torture or the existence of Guantanamo as it currently is. She isn't condoning torture or detaining people without charge or trial; she is stating that we cannot pretend to know that any of the people there are innocent or guilty, that's all.
No.
It's not even unseriously worth it.
(September 24, 2012 at 12:03 am)Minimalist Wrote:Shell said something similar in another thread but apparently you still don't get it. There are two types of "innocent": innocent under the law, and innocent as in "actually didn't commit the crime".Quote:We cannot pretend that we know whether the man is innocent just because he never went to court.
I'm sorry, Shel, but you are way off base with that. We like to claim ( falsely, it seems ) that we are a nation of laws not men. The presumption is "innocent until proven guilty"
The two are not synonymous. One can commit a crime and be found not guilty (i.e presumption of innocence holds), and one can be innocent of a crime and found guilty.
Shell is 100% correct. We cannot know if someone is innocent (as in, they did not commit the crime) just because they didn't go to court. Nor can we know if they are innocent if they do go to court. We are fallible beings; we get things wrong all the time.
Now I'm sure she'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure Shell does not support torture or the existence of Guantanamo as it currently is. She isn't condoning torture or detaining people without charge or trial; she is stating that we cannot pretend to know that any of the people there are innocent or guilty, that's all.
