But of course they're not allowed to. If a thug beats you up, they don't "allow" you to talk about it either. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't go to the police --or in this case, to independent, foreign media outlets.
In that case you'll be officially labeled as an "enemy of the State" and qualified for a little, short, painless drone strike when you cross the street.
I wonder what would happen if, during the trial, they used testimony such as "And, if I had been tortured and brutalized, and had my family's lives been threatened to gain my compliance, I would not be at liberty to disclose such information."
Disturbing but not surprising. If you're a US citizen and outraged enough to spend a few minutes posting a comment here, why not write your local representative and express your feelings to them.
They're all that bad. We have to remember that voting isn't democracy. Unless there are true alternatives, having the freedom to choose between Pepsi or Coke is no freedom at all.
The system has been gamed; it's fundamentally broken. I believe that we need to have some form of direct democracy, such as allowing the public to vote directly on any bill, and if more than 25% vote in any district, their choice overrides their representatives.
Don't tell me it's a technical issue -- that's cowardice. We can do this. If you were CEO of a company, you wouldn't throw up your hands in impotence as your employees ran the company into the ground. It's our country. We're in charge. No more whining. We can do this.
What we need is strong fundamental protections of "rights", which no representatives can overrule.
Direct democracy can be far worse, since when the majority becomes fickle and wants to kill someone (such as Socrates) who is there to stop them? And worse, it's usually the VOCAL ACTIVIST minority that goes and votes or intimidates others, such as the nazi party.
Thinking direct democracy will solve everything is naive. Here are some links:
And by the way getting 25% of people to vote is not easy, without fines being imposed on the non-voters. Facebook wasn't even able to get 3% of people to vote, and that was online clicking a button.
Publius (federalist papers) wrote about democracies that they: have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. (Federalist 10)
The founders of the USA are kind of like the writers of the initial codebase and the protocol for amending it. Before there was programming, there was ... legal constitution writing.
The problem with direct democracy is that it does not necessarily encourage deliberation nor the dissemination of factual information (i.e., education). There are other ways of implementing direct democracy without having the system subjected to the whims and follies of special interest groups.
It's interesting, though I cannot envision how any system that does not enforce complete anonymity can avoid either corruption or domination by special interest groups.
We have them. They are constantly overruled. Gitmo, for example, is in direct violation of nearly all of them.
If we allow people to vote directly on bills, the constitutionality remains enforced, which means the founders would be happy and Socrates would be safe. The Nazi party was representative, that wasn't direct democracy.
You put out a lot of arguments but none of them showed very much thought.
California has direct democracy to a great extent. Let's see how well that works out for them in terms of economics for example.
The Nazi party is an example of a vocal and violent minority intimidating the majority into voting the "right way" for a single party to take over or staying away from the polls.
Nonsense. Overthrowing Louis XVI was one of the most important movements of the enlightenment. Napoleon was popularly supported, remember, because people were sick of the monarchy.
Democracy, direct or not, is the way forward. Accept it or not.
"Plebiscites are “referenda”, people’s votes, in which an authoritarian ruler invites the people to answer an often ambivalent, suggestive question, which he formulates himself. Using such plebiscites, a ruler bypasses and ignores his elected parliament and tries to claim direct legitimacy from the people. In this he is wrong, because he does not respect or follow parliament which has indeed been elected by the people and expresses their diversity and different interests"
In your case this would be bypassing congress, and bypassing debate because referenda are always formulated in questions that cant be debated. You're with us or with the evil doers
Plenty of people here have been employees watching helplessly as managers run the company into the ground.
Voting is not so crucial to democracy as pluralism: having lots of groups involved and making a difference. It's generally not feasible for people to really keep up with politics on an individual basis, so you need activists or union representatives or religious leaders or NGOs to do the legwork.
But the US suffers from being very fragmented, fractious and individualistic. In that environment it's hard to promote a third alternative that sufficient numbers of people can get behind.
I hate to sound condescending, but what are experiences with direct democracy? I recall someone mentioning that masses would make rather bad popular decisions with bad consequences that were hard to guess.
It might be true or false. Maybe masses still did better than politicians.
If you ask me, I think politics should be automated in some way. AI for that probably doesn't exist yet, but hey if they can replace surgeons, why not politicians?
I hate to sound condescending, but what are experiences with direct democracy?
While I'm American, I've lived for almost a decade in Switzerland which has direct democracy. I've seen it first-hand.
that masses would make rather bad popular decisions
In other words, you don't believe in Democracy. The whole point is that it comes down to the decisions of the people. Representatives were important when voting was a tough logistical problem; that's not the case anymore. Now they're a liability. There are 18 lobbyists for the finance industry per congressman, each representing a large amount of money in case what the people want contradicts what the finance industry wants. And that's just one industry. No wonder Congress currently has an approval rating of 5%. [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/09/congress-approval-r...]
It's abysmal, we agree, so why are we so petrified of an alternative that includes working together instead?
"Representatives were important when voting was a tough logistical problem"
That's not why the U.S. is a Republic with a legislature rather than a Democracy. It's because the founders thought that a (direct) Democracy was a bad idea. In a country where most people don't believe in free speech and think that it would be a good idea to force children to pray to Jesus in school, I tend to agree. As bad and corrupt as Congress is, this would be worse.
How do these direct democracy solutions scale? Hardly linearly with population.
I doubt you can organize USA's 300++ million people in the same way as a conservative and homogeneous small country (at least much less heterogeneous than USA; no gang/ghetto subcultures, for instance).
Edit: Cough. The same point were made in other comments, but clearer and with good examples. I'll leave it here anyway.
The problem with direct democracy, as I see it, is that it can be gamed just as easily for short term gain. Given how politics works in the US, as well as all the lobbyists and advertising budgets that go along with both of these I'd say that any policy that came up for a vote would be skewed one way or the other because the voter saw some "information".
Imagine SOPA had gone to a public vote. Who would have won, Hollywood or the public interest?
The bigger problem with democracy is how to stop the majority from prosecuting minorities? If majority of people voted - e.g. would gay marriages be allowed?! Would smoking tobacco become illegal (as in same laws that govern marijuana users cover tobacco users)?
They aren't all as bad as Feinstein. California liberals should stop with the "but we must reelect her, because otherwise someone who isn't connected to the San Francisco political machine might get elected". I'll take Boxer, Reid or even Bernie Sanders over Feinstein any day, and I'm not a liberal.
Your ideas are naive and it's clear you don't understand the purpose of representative democracy. Please don't confuse one of the worst representatives with "the system is entirely broken and should be replaced with this untested system".
The alternative to the US system isn't direct democracy.
First-past-the-post is the main problem. Better democratic systems are used all over the world where actual parties that represent a spectrum of opinions get actually elected.
I agree it's the problem in Canada as well.
For the first time a third party was able to come ahead of one of the two parties, but this had disastrous effects as it provided the opposition party a majority government and overall weakened the power of the center-left and left. And right now I have to decide if my vote will mean anything if I vote for the third party.
The third party's platform will be mixed proportional representation. Which I hope we see one day so maybe this won't be such an issue any more.
8 million people? I suspect the Bay Area might be able to make direct democracy work for a while. I wouldn't want to extrapolate that out to the West Coast though and certainly all of the states.
That's part of the allure of people championing state's rights as opposed to doing things on the federal level. Unfortunately I don't know of too many historical examples of power becoming decentralized.
It's not just the pure numbers, but geographical and cultural range. 8 million people in an area (16k sqmi) smaller than the US State of West Virginia(24k sqmi) are going to have an easier time understanding and voting on issues affecting everyone than 300+ million people in an area over 9 millon square miles. Direct democracy in the US could end up with even worse tyranny of the majority issues than already experienced. (Example, detonating multiple nuclear weapons in the state of Nevada in the 50s. It might have passed in a national vote, but likely not a vote only in Nevada.)
Incidentally this is PRECISELY why our country was founded on the idea of a weak federal government and strong state governments.. it's just too damned big with too many different competing cultures and ideologies to get anything done. This is why I'm a Libertarian. Yes, I believe some states would wind up terrible to live in because the people that live there are terrible. That is why I would choose to live in a different state.
While many founders wanted a small federal government, it was tried and failed twice with the Articles of Confederation. There is a level of power that the federal government needs to have or the states will simply bicker forever. On the other hand, state legislatures had to be taken out of the loop on electing senators (see the 17th amendment) because they fell into endless bickering. Different issues are best addressed at very different levels of the federalist system.
You like federalism which is biased toward States' rights, which is why you are a Libertarian? What?
Libertarianism is about individual rights, not States' rights. You can be both a Federalist and a Libertarian if you want, but one doesn't follow from the other.
> I don't see why 8 million people should make better decisions than 80 or 800 million people.
With a smaller group that is local to one another, they're more likely to share interests and understand one another. Communication is faster and clearer among the electorate and between the electorate and the elected.
George Washington turned down the title of king and set major restrictions on what the president could do. He set a precedent of only serving two terms (eight years), which almost every other president followed even though they didn't have to by law. The only exception was Franklin Roosevelt, who was elected to four terms but died in office. The 22nd Amendment limiting presidential terms to eight years was passed shortly after that.
I'm not very knowledgeable about the details, but it looks like he was basically handed the keys, and worked to transition to a democracy, rather than hold power.
I think the GP forgot to put "willingly" in there.
The Brits, after WW2, were exhausted. India had been clamoring for independence for ~50 years. And after the war, you suddenly had a million young men in India, well trained in arms and warfare; these men would have been hard to control with force. So they had no choice. Once India fell (i.e. became independent), the dominoes started falling, and soon the sun had set on the British Empire.
While I agree mostly with you about direct democracy, there's a catch: direct democracy needs an informed electorate. But then, if the electorate is informed, it won't vote for the current crop of representatives anyways.
I guess the driver behind the success of direct democracy isn't the fact that voters can vote directly; it's the fact that voters actually have to think before casting their votes.
The systems already set up to be resistant to change. There are a lot of better systems we can all think of, but there's no way to make them happen anymore. You need to consent of the people you're fighting against to put them out of power.
If enough people vote against them, that pretty much cuts them out of the picture.
I know, actually picking up the phone and making a call is much more difficult than making snarky, cynical comments on HN, but it's more likely to accomplish something.
If you care enough, you could even get out there and do something like work on the campaign of a primary challenger, or donate money to Amnesty, or anything else out there in the real world that requires time/money/effort.
I also used to think that my government wasn't a democracy because they don't represent me. But the truth is, they do represent the majority of the population.
If no branch of your government gives a shit about this issue, that's because the majority of your society doesn't either. So long as they have McDonald's and reality TV, who gives a shit about some random terrorists being tortured?
Change the mindset of your society and then, only then, you will see change in your government, but not before.
Sadly sker people don't want to face this simple reality. It's easier to play the victim card. To want to tear the whole thing down and start again. To say "my vote doesn't count so I'm just going to stand here and complain about how a mystical evil force of the wealthy or neohawks really runs everything" I guess they do because they actually give a shit and work the current system. When your opponent throws up their hands and leaves the court or playing field they can't be too surprised when the score gets run up.
The "I need to roll up my sleeves and work hard to make changes to gerrymandering, primaries and campaign finance reforms so that a much broader pool of American's can have a chance to run for and win" just isn't sexy. Heck one rogue sys admin and fringe blogger are single handily re-defining domestic and international politics. Imagine if every one else did just 5% of what they did to retool the current processes?
Heck one rogue sys admin and fringe blogger are single handily
re-defining domestic and international politics.
Gosh, I hope not. As much as I admire Edward Snowden, I sincerely hope the new definition of domestic and international politics isn't "Live in fear of the whistleblower." It's a terribly sad day when doing the right thing by the public is left to one lowly sysadmin in the entire intelligence community. I'd like to think that someday we can get back to asking for less of the totally naked transparency we're now demanding of the intelligence community, because we can trust them to do their job without abusing their power. Others have pontificated on how the NSA can restore that trust. I don't know how, I just hope that someday they DO.
"the truth is, they do represent the majority of the population."
Except that they dictate the choices people have. The majority of people vote on the issues that the major parties declare to be the issues. Gay marriage, not the validity of the war on drugs. Abortion rights, not our constitutional rights. It is a democratic system of sorts I suppose...
But the truth is, they do represent the majority of the population.
They represent a majority of the money. The country's strategic assets are held to ransom by a fraction of 1% of the citizens. We're playing modern Monopoly.
On the other hand.... Adopting the mindset of the majority is not the same thing as representing them. I have a job, kids, a wife with a job, a mortgage, school volunteering, yard work, housework, and on and on. I should be able to vote for people I trust and go on living my life to a reasonable extent. My representatives should represent me and my interests, not mimic my exhausted apathy.
It's not even just the Tea Party. If it were, we'd still see countless non-Tea Partiers taking to the streets everyday to protest NSA surveillance and government corruption. We don't. You can ask a typical American what they think and maybe half will say "Yeah, it's bad!", but they still don't do anything about it.
Americans just don't care enough to do anything. The few that do genuinely care are too afraid to do anything.
At least they exist. I think they are great even though I do not agree with all their positions. If anything, different groups of these don't necessarily agree on all points.
they are great because members from both parties are scared of them. they are great because members from both parties attempt to silence them.
My only concern is, where are the true grassroots groups from the left? OWS was manufactured. Tea Party suffers from attempts by monied interests attempting to take over but for the most part individual groups have shown resilience to that. Don't get me wrong, they have their loons but all political groups do.
We need to unsettle Washington more and more. Washington knows this, evident mostly by the abuses of the IRS, but the FBI and NSA are not far behind.
Let's get really real here: the Tea Party as constituted doesn't give a single toss about "responsible budgets, limited government." They are entirely in favor of bloated workfare military programs and governmental intrusion into women's reproductive systems. It's their thing.
The recent government shutdown caused significant chaos and economic damage. And over what? Healthcare that didn't even involve vast government expenditure. Wake me up when there's action on that scale against the much larger military budget.
Your pessimism and apathy is both disheartening and infuriating.
Make enough of a stink, and people listen. That is one of the few immutable laws of politics. If you are not getting the desired results, you're not making enough of a stink yet.
Boo hoo - protests were had, and it did not change things. So you keep working and keep trying, it's not like you get to just show up at a protest and everything magically gets better. It takes money, time, and hard work.
I was responding to the parent, a fact you seem to have taken out of context.
Care to elaborate on what possibly more could have been done in any of the cited examples that wasn't already done? Or indeed how you propose that "money, time, and hardwork" (sic) would help? I'd also be interested in why you feel money should be involved in preserving the right of any sentient being not to be tortured, invaded or denied the right to protest when the former happens.
> Care to elaborate on what possibly more could have been done in any of the cited examples that wasn't already done?
You don't always get your way, you know? You win some, you lose some. That doesn't mean that ... there's no democracy and nothing is possible and woe is us, etc... etc... blah blah blah.
> why you feel money should be involved in preserving the right of any sentient being not to be tortured, invaded or denied the right to protest when the former happens.
We're not talking about an ideal world (duh), but about the one we inhabit. In this one, sometimes justice is difficult to obtain, and requires sacrifice.
So you can either get off your ass and do something, or you can sit around complaining on HN. The former sometimes won't work, or won't accomplish what you had hoped to. The latter is guaranteed to accomplish nothing.
Utterly disagree - massive large scale "protest" is what got SOPA killed.
I have yet to see the cynics suggest a better reasonable course of action.
I also wish that people who have nothing constructive to add would kindly STFU instead of dumping all over everyone else's ideas and enthusiasm. I can think of no better way to ensure things never change.
More pragmatically, nobody has ever cared about the rights of foreigners. Xenophobia is something that is heavily rooted in pretty much every culture, and it comes to rear its ugly head at times like this.
It really never was. The fairy tale is over, the curtain pulled back, the unappealing truth revealed. This is how an imperialist super power operates. This is the necessity of maintaining a long established way of life, not some spiral into corruption and descent into madness.
Lead, follow, or get the fuck out of the way, as they say.
Your whining accomplishes nothing, and just might discourage people from getting out there and making a difference. You are aiding and abetting those who would stick to the status quo.
"Here's another guy thing that sucks. These t-shirts that say: "Lead, follow, or get out of the way". You ever see that? This is more of that stupid Marine Corps bullshit. Obsolete, male impulses from a hundred thousand years ago, "Lead, follow, or get out of the way". You know what I do when I see that shirt; I obstruct. I stand right in the guy's path, force him to walk around me, he gets a little past me, I spin him around kick him in the nuts, rip off his shirt, wipe it on my ass, and shove it down his fucking throat. Hey, listen that's all these marines are looking for; a good time." -- George Carlin
The venerable George Carlin just told you to shut up from beyond the grave. And yet you continue. We're all tired of hearing you say the same thing over and over again in this thread.
> The venerable George Carlin just told you to shut up from beyond the grave. And yet you continue. We're all tired of hearing you say the same thing over and over again in this thread.
Yeah, I'm sure good old George routinely assaulted people for wearing a t-shirt. Perhaps we should learn to tell the difference between comedy and effective politics.
Once upon a time information was classified to hide it from enemies. In the case of torture, where it's possibly an advantage for your enemies to know you'll torture them, it's clearly intended to hide the information from citizens.
Information is still classified to hide it from enemies, as it requires an effort. Immediately follows though, that the system now considers citizens its enemies, which is reasonable: if they knew everything it does, they would actively attack it.
"But prosecutor Clay Trivett argued that if detainees felt they were “mistreated in U.S. custody” they could file a complaint in federal court, and that should be sufficient."
Could they file a complaint? I thought the whole point of detaining them at Guantanamo was that they are outside the jurisdiction of the US courts.
They can file a complaint called a Bivens action seeking damages for violations of their Constitutional rights. However, even the analogous statute for when state police violate your rights (42 USC § 1983) is very difficult to win because, among other reasons, of a doctrine known as qualified immunity. A Bivens action is even harder to win, and under circumstances like these, I'd feel comfortable saying impossible.
Maher Arar lost, José Padilla lost, Shafiq Rasul lost, Arkan Ali lost, Abdul Al-Janko will lose. It's a remedy that exists only in theory. Similarly other courts have suggested that the torturers could be criminally tried. If you believe that will ever happen, I have a very nice bridge to sell you.
DoD Lawyer: "Your honor, let the record note Exhibit A: the Guantánamo Bay Suggestion Box. It is made available to facility guests every third Thursday of the month, between 8 and 8:07am."
I was under the impression that the only people who had a duty not to talk about classified materials are those with a current or previous security clearance.
The lawyers may have been given clearances so that they could see classified evidence. Also, in court, the judge decides what you may and may not talk about.
This point can't be sung enough. It always seems so absurdly obvious to me, but everyone is sold by their favorite media outlet, their upbringing, or whatever motivates the two-party voting base.
Sometimes I think people just like to debate when they have neat little debating packages lined up for them.
I wish we could have runoff elections in the US. Then you could vote for the candidate you really want to win; if they lose, you can then vote for your safe fallback choice. This would really open the playing field beyond D & R (so it'll never happen).
I agree the system would still balance around two systems, that's fine. Remember that political campaigns are about more than just winning. Look at the likes of Ron Paul, he gets an important message our and inspires people by running for office.
In our current system, a third candidate can only help the opponent most opposite of him win, but with runoff elections a third candidate would help the candidate closest to him win.
The difference with a runoff system is that multiple candidates from the same side of the political spectrum helps your cause instead of hurting it. Right now, if either party has multiple candidates running, it only punishes them.
Let me clarify the instability I'm referring to. I don't mean that a system of more than two parties causes chaotic policies in the country (actually, I'd bet against that). I mean that a system of more than two parties has a natural tendency to transform into a two-party system.
I agree. The best examples of third parties are the modern British Liberal party, and the insurgent Republican Party of 1860. But we can see that there were/are very strong regional factors in play, and that it never found a stable or quasi-stable situation where there were an obviously better menu of candidate choices.
The point is not abstaining from voting, but instead to vote for other parties. If enough people would do that, US would eventually get a healthy democracy.
(disclaimer: not US citizen. My country has government ministers from six different parties, including both conservative [religious and fiscal, two different parties], left, and the greens)
The political system will always revert to 2 major parties. That cannot change, it is the nature of the system.
I believe runoff elections would though. Currently if one party runs multiple candidates something like this happens:
Democrat 1 receives 33% of the vote.
Democrat 2 receives 33% of the vote.
Republican 1 receives 34% of the vote.
Democrats had two strong candidates with some differing views, and decided to let both candidates run so the people would have more of a choice. The result is that 66% prefer a Democrat but a Republican ends up in office.
(Spare me the "their both corrupt" speech, I use these parties only as an obvious example.)
This called the spoiler effect, and a runoff vote would prevent it. Right now more choices in the vote results in chaos and the candidate most people DON'T want ending up in office. With a runoff vote, there is no negative with more choice.
We saw this in action at the last Oakland Mayor's election. Now, if we can just set aside the qualities of Jean Quan (the mayor elected), it was interesting to see that the person who got the most first-place votes actually did not win. He was the "establishment" candidate, and both political parties were pretty pissed that the election had turned out unexpectedly.[1]
People may say that her election is a mark against IRV or RCV; but that's not the point! There will always be cases where someone incompetent gets elected. But the interesting thing in her case was that the groups who control the elections behind the scenes (PSUs, lobbyists, parties) were completely thrown off. Her election showed that it is possible for someone who is not beholden to the existing power structures to have a shot at election.
My home state of New Hampshire gurantees the right to revolution in the constitution. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind. So it's all "within the system" :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_New_Hampshire#A...
When the people rise up and take back their government. Its not going to happen without mass bloodshed though, because the powers that be simply won't give up without a serious, hard-core fight.
Makes no sense to me. The guidelines are clear: "Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon... If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic."
The NSA stuff seems to have given us a critical mass of political whiners. Can't wait to see a Show HN for "HN minus politics."
That was never something we were at a loss for. The new phenomenon is the systematic conversion of this technical forum into a political one. It's a shame that the process is irreversible.
No one seems to be mentioning the reason why these people were actually in Guantanamo in the first place - because they are dangerous terrorists who represent a threat to freedom and democracy.
Giving these crazed Islamist terrorist criminals the same rights as the rest of us is like spitting in the face of every victim of 9/11.
> Giving these crazed Islamist terrorist criminals the same rights as the rest of us is like spitting in the face of every victim of 9/11.
Isn't that the whole point of the trial? To determine if they are terrorist criminals? If it is a certain as you think it is, why would they need to suppress information? Surely, you aren't opposed to a trial where the outcome is certain?
Executing the accused without a trial is actually spitting in the face of every victim and tarnishing their memory. That would mean that we've destroyed the foundation of the United States using their deaths as an excuse.
I hope you're joking. If not, take a quick look at this Wikipedia article [0] or, if you have a half hour, the Guantanamo Files themselves [1]. Hint: ctrl+F "innocent"
Since they haven't had a trial you have no idea if they were rounded up cab drivers or terrorists. Since their trials will now be show trials and not allow lawyers to question coeced statements they made under torture we probably won't even know after either.
If the case is so clear, then they will be convicted with the full rights as the rest of us, won't they?
Once upon a time, I was waiting in the Illinois state supreme court room for my then SO to be sworn in as a new member of the bar. Behind me, two little old ladies were chatting. "What they did to those babies, they do not deserve a trial." The topic was the (alleged, at the time) Oklahoma City bombing perpetrators.
That is an interesting line of thought, isn't it? Bad people do not deserve good trials. Obviously only good people deserve good trials. Wouldn't it be wonderfully efficient to simply dispense with the trials for all those bad people? In fact, why have trials at all? Good people do not need trials. We just let a cop or judge decide who is good or bad. The good people deserve trials, but since they are good, we can just set them free. The bad people, right to jail for you. Done!
The trial system as a tool of justice rests on the assumption that even very very bad people deserve fair trials so that society can make a sober assessment of whether and to what degree they should be accountable for the particular crimes. Otherwise it is all theater.
If you do not positively believe in open and fair trials for bad people, do not pretend you believe in trials at all.
> NOT giving these ALLEGEDLY crazed Islamist terrorist criminals the same rights as the rest of us is like spitting in the face of every victim of 9/11.
The value of the law is not to give comfort to terrorists or evil doers, the benefit is in protecting everyone else. If those accused of the most heinous crimes are denied the benefit of law then all it takes to deny anyone that benefit is to level an accusation against them.
Maybe you think that you are safe from such things because your skin color, religion, or culture distances you from the terrorist archetype of the here and now (brown, arab, islamic). But without the benefit of the law such protections are extraordinarily flimsy and can be shredded at a moment's notice. What will you do when someone accuses you of being a child rapist? Those folks surely deserve no protection of the law, right? What will you do when someone accuses you of being a communist? Or a hacker? Or a pornographer? Or a media pirate? Or a dissident?
(P.S. I'm assuming I haven't fallen victim to poe's law, but I can't be sure.)
Not giving these people the same rights as every other human makes me scared that my human rights will not be respected. Guaranteeing a fair trial is an expression of ourselves, not a reflection on the people being tried.
