Is this seriously worth it? Guantanmo inmate never charged with a crime, dies after 11 years in US custody

[Hovik]

Thank you, Tibs. You are absolutely right.

Hovik is not a judge or a lawyer. He is not the legal system, a judge or even a juror. He said in the opening statement that the man had never committed an act of terrorism. That is not even kissing cousins with, "He was never found guilty in a court of law." I know I have made myself very, very clear, so I can only assume that people really think that everyone who has never been tried for a crime is innocent of it in all aspects of the word (Some of us here in this thread have committed crimes for which they have never been tried, and yet are still guilty). I object to padding facts, Min. That is all. It's exceedingly obvious from my posts, but hell, what are you going to do?

Whether or not he had committed a crime is entirely beside the point. Lacking evidence that he had done so, his innocence should have been presumed up until the point where evidence can demonstrate that he had committed a crime even remotely related to terrorism or otherwise. You seem to be pretty adamant on making the point that I implied he is "innocent" instead of "not proved guilty" as if that actually changes anything. Of course the default should be innocence in the complete absence of evidence to the contrary.

Perhaps my wording wasn't entirely accurate in stating that he had never committed an act of terrorism, but my point wasn't to literally state he is as innocent as a newborn; my point was that we have no reason to assume otherwise in the complete absence of evidence. Why are you so keen on splitting hairs here?

I mean shit, you could just as likely be a terrorist as far as I know. Am I going to assume that based on current evidence? Shit no. My assumption is that you're innocent of it, and I would maintain that assumption until being proved otherwise.