I'm often astounded at the sheer naivete in statements like this.
There is no naivete; kindly refrain from your personal insults and characterizations made without evidence.
Aside from the fact that in most military operations, such captures are often the result of intelligence , which nobody wants to disclose in court, what's your plan for subpoenaing evidence and witnesses from Al Qaeda and the Taliban? Keep in mind that the burden of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt". So you need a far higher preponderance of evidence to achieve that.
Right, imagine the idea that we don't imprison people without actual evidence? Evidence we can prove before others, not merely claim to have.
That's exactly why we have constitutional rights, and yes, they apply to those we most despise, in the least convenient circumstances.
This is exactly why protections are created, they are easy to afford those we want to like; or where evidence is already public and either thoroughly damning or exculpatory.
The principle being upheld is clear;
better that 10 guilty men should go free, than one innocent man be jailed or executed.
That principle is known as Blackstone's Ratio, and has been a cornerstone of Anglo-Saxon law since the 1760s:
en.wikipedia.org
Benjamin Franklin went further:
Benjamin Franklin stated it as:
"it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer
Such a principle is not for when it is convenient or easy; but for when it is challenging and unpopular.
Cause authoritarian regimes everywhere always seek out and follow best practices on human rights?
No. One upholds one's principles because there is no reason to live if you don't. Hypocrisy is among the very worst sins.
The defense for violating one's own principles can only be necessity (as is the case with justifiable homicide based on self-defense or defense of a third party)
Even then, one must prove that a homicide was justifiable, not merely allege it and then claim you can't call a witness because its inconvenient or they wont' cooperate.
If you want to talk about international order, let's talk about how a P5 member is invading its neighbour with no substantial consequences from international organizations. Turns out this supposed international order is really only about what we can enforce.
Now that has always been true. Not right, but true.
In the same way that the United States refuses to sign on to the International Criminal Court, amongst many other treaties (though has few qualms about subjecting others to it).
But by no means is this unique to the United States; a host of countries regularly violate accepted international law and norms and do so with relative impunity because no one is willing or able to take action.
It has been ever thus. Its not ok; and we should strive to change that over time.
That China invaded Tibet or commits gross abuses of its Uyghur population, largely free from consequence is no reason to behave likewise.
Its a compelling reason to affect change such that this type of thing happens less often, and hopefully, one day, not at all.
en.m.wikipedia.org
www.themoscowtimes.com
