Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Pacifier
Do you really think it is OK to arrest someone before he commited a crime just because he thought about maybe commiting one? Minority Report?
|
dksuddeth already touched on this, but I'll expand.
I *knew* someone would bring up that movie, simply because I was thinking about it myself when writing my post...
It's a big dilemma, isn't it? Do you prevent crime by picking up the likely suspects, or do you wait for the crime to happen before picking them up? As I already said: you may want to assume "normal" criminals are innocent, because the consequences aren't that bad. However, in a world where terrorists have made it clear they want to acquire WMDs, the consequences of not arresting these people before they act often are unacceptable.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Pacifier
Sorry, but to arrest someone, detain him "for ever" without trial because you just suspect him to be a member of some terrorgroup just isn't. That violates human rights. If he has done something (and AFAIK the membership in a terroristic organisation is "something") bring him up in front of a trial
|
These days, with all that's going on in the world, I do think it's okay to lock up/deport potential terrorists before they strike, even IF there's not enough evidence to convict them in a court of law. That's simply because it's so hard to prove conspiracies, especially those thought up by well-organized groups like Al Qaida. I do believe there should - at the very least - be a periodic review of the evidence and circumstances of the prisoners, to make sure their imprisonment is still warranted.
I do not fear my government, at least not as much as I fear terrorist nutjobs.