3 ms·
Your question itself falls victim to one of the biggest fallacies highlighted by this article: that is, you accept that government accusation (e.g. that someone
by unclebucknasty 13y ago
Your question itself falls victim to one of the biggest fallacies highlighted by this article: that is, you accept that government accusation (e.g. that someone is an al-Qaeda member) is tantamount to guilt.
Establishing the truth of such an accusation is the very objective of due process. Thus, your question is internally inconsistent and circular. It literally cannot be answered.
- hrasyid 13y agoRight. So the difference is the "killable" status of suspected Al-Qaeda members must be established by due process, but for enemy soldiers the "due process" is simply the identification of their uniform. Then what is the effective and ethical way of waging war against non-uniformed enemy? Arrest everyone then try them? What if it's not practical to do that?