In article ,
Dave wrote:

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:18:23 +0100, Peter Wiley
said:

Unfortunately for you, as Doug has pointed out, there doesn't seem to
be a category for you to legally hold them.

Here we have a major philosophical difference. You seem to be operating on
the "Captain may I" principle. That is, all is forbidden which is not
explicitly authorized. You can do nothing which is not approved by "the
authorities." A quite European notion foreign to most of us in this country.
How else does one explain the "category for you to legally hold them"
language?

In the U.S., on the other hand, we generally operate on the principle that
all is permitted which is not forbidden. Thus when someone says a particular
action is forbidden, the burden in on him to provide the authority for that
proposition, not on the person whose action is allegedly forbidden.

OK, then why do you hold Hicks? Your govt is forbidding him from
leaving Guantanamo Bay. You're saying that his departure is forbidden.
By your own logic, the burden is on you to show authority. You've just
demonstrated my point. Thanks.

I believe that Govt is forbidden to do anything not specifically
authorised. You think that the Govt can do anything not specifically
forbidden. You invert this in saying that I believe that *I* (and by
extension, all individuals) can do nothing without permission. That's
*your* argument WRT private citizens.

I assert that absent a law stopping him, Hicks has the right go as and
where he pleases. You assert that absent a law forbidding the Govt
holding him, it is free to do so. Then you attempt to invert this by
swapping the roles of citizen and Govt. Poor, Dave. Very poor.

Typical lawyer. Your approach leads to endless search for loopholes and
exploiting anomolies.

Your argument boils down to a statement that unless there's a law
forbidding your Govt from taking some action, it's ok to do it. Fine.

BTW, by no stretch of the imagination could I or my fellows be
considered European.

PDW