Quote:
Originally Posted by Ptech
I saw the interview too.
Parsing words is what lawyers do for a living. I understood the point he was trying to make, and I think Kanade pointed it out--punishment is something administered for commission of a crime, in the strict legal meaning. And he was suggesting that since those at Gitmo had not been convicted of a crime, punishment could not possibly have occurred.
Which is pure sophistry.
This country is in trouble with men like him on the court. 5 out of 9 are Catholic now. I think that is bad news indeed.
|
~scratch head smiley here~ This concept or ideal is not unique in the USA but borrowed from England......... Where I don't think they view it's interpretation so narrowly......
There is an assumption here that punishment can only follow conviction......... When in fact punishment often times needs no qualification.......
For over 200 years in this country & I don't know how many in England the common understanding as well as the legal one has been a foundational prohibition against the use torture & related coercion......
Suddenly this is no more cause he said so.......