[MD] Sin Part 1

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Case to Platt]
If you think an accusation is sufficient I think you are being terrible
inconsistent.

[Platt]
You seem to view terrorists as common criminals worthy of rights. I see them as
dedicated enemies of U.S.Constitutional protections, thus forfeiting any
rights.

[Arlo]
What Case is repeatedly saying is that how do we know everyone who is a
supsected terrorist actually IS a terrorist, if we don't subject them to due
process. Not everyone who is being held without trial was picked up wearing a
big sign saying "Terrorist" around their neck. Some are being held, without
charges, without trial, on the basis that they "may know" something or another
about terrorist activities. 

In other words, you are labeling them "terrorist", read "guilty", going on
nothing other than "if they were captured, they are guilty". All Case is saying
is that we need more than "Rumsfeld's word" that prisoners are actually guilty
of the crimes they are accused. (Yeah, yeah, Rummy-Ache is gone, I know that.)

And here's the bottom line, is "innocent until proven guilty" a social pattern
or an intellectual pattern, because if its the later it supercedes national
law, and should not be something we can pick and choose who it applies to (at
our convenience). If it applies only to US citizens, then it seems to be a
social pattern, one which we organize our own people around, but don't extend
it to others.