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?


Dave wrote:
Wrong argument on several scores, Doug.

That must be why you cannot answer the question I asked.

... But perhaps I can help you focus
your thinking more clearly.


I doubt it, since you cannot answer two simple questions on the subject.

As you know, the courts have held that those held in Gitmo are entitled to a
hearing in some form.

True, and actually a bit surprising. I assume things will be different
now the Chief Justice Roberts is in the saddle, and even more different
once Ms. Meirs joins in.

The next obvious question (not that I expect you to answer, since you've
scrupulously avoided answering my questions so far) is 'How long can the
U.S. hold prisoners without even granting them any hearing?' The answer
is obviously in excess of three years.

DSK

"DSK" wrote
...... I assume things will be different
now the Chief Justice Roberts is in the saddle, and even more different
once Ms. Meirs joins in.

No telling what either will do once a lifetime appointment that assures
their place in history frees them from political servitude. As a politician
and governor of California, Earl Warren was practically a fascist - anti
freedom, anti-union, pro big government and business. Yet his court upheld
out right to privacy which underpins Roe vs Wade, legalized birth control,
and a host of other "liberal" causes. What if Roberts was abused as an
alter boy ..... (c: