Dave wrote:
In the U.S., on the other hand, we generally operate on the principle that
all is permitted which is not forbidden.

Wrong, the Constitution specifically says that all powers not granted
expressly are reserved for the states, or for the people.... ie
everything that's not expressly permitted in writing is forbidden.


1- point out the section of the U.S. COnstitution which says "Persons
suspected of being involved in terrorism, or other unanmed & unknown
threats against the U.S., may be imprisoned & sequestered indefinitely
with no charges, no trial, at the whim of the current President."

2- do you think it's a good idea for the U.S. gov't (in theory a
proponent of "freedom") to simply grab anybody they don't like, and lock
them up forever, with no accountability?





...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.


Kinda like 'guilty until proven innocent' eh? I'm glad as hell you're
not *my* lawyer.

For the record- I am not against the idea of imprisoning & even
sequestering people taken captive in anti-terrorist operations. But
there must be a due process of law, and there must be accountability.
Both are sadly lacking at Gitmo.

DSK