Habeus Corpus and the Gitmo Bay detainees

Our American government is a system not primarily responsible to logic or reason, but rather to a majority voice. The judicial system provides an appeal for any minority, provided their purposes are lawful... logicians among them. It is my duty not to neglect to voice dissent, if I find the law at odds with logic, but if I hope to effect political change, I am responsible for persuading enough people to my viewpoint, that we can make ourselves heard in terms of numbers. This process takes (among other things,) time. The long established practice of employing lawyers has its basis in logic. Any representation a person makes about himself is subject to the paradox of self reference. Famous examples include "Evaluate True or False: This statement is itself false." "Have you stopped beating your wife?" And "Can God create a rock so big, that he cannot lift it?" It is appropriate then, that a person have representation in any case where he is called upon to "prove" a negative proposition. That this person should have special knowledge of laws in general, and have a trust-based standing with the court is a good addition, but added as an afterthought, not the reason that representation is a necessity. Our 5th and 6th amendments to the constitution reflect my point. The ruling in Miranda vs Arizona in 1966 did not really bear on the matter, except that it made these rights more famous than the Beatles, by requiring the state to prove universally that every person should be made aware of these rights. Nor is this discussion new to you. My discussion begins to be more novel as follows. In any case where self reference is a problem, there does exist one other appeal. Mathematicians call it the exhaustive algorithm. For example, if the crime in question should have taken place in Montana, and I can show by some vehicle or mechanism, from the moment of my birth to the present that I have never been in Montana, then I have satisfactorily shown that I did not commit the crime, even in that case in which I must become my own advocate. I did not commit it because I cannot commit it. Clearly this does not answer that class of crimes that I possibly could have committed and did not. Eventually, even the most creative application of the exhaustive algorithm will not suffice, though I be innocent in all respects. I enter into this discussion because this is the generically lawful motive of the investigator: he would like to compel the exhaustive algorithm as often as possible. In general, the American justice system has contented itself to date with the argument that even if we let some guilty go free (and increasingly more so over time, which dismays us,) we should never commit that injustice of incarcerating the innocent, if we afford them the correct defense, including but not limited to representation. Enter the discussion of ideological piracy or terrorism. Here the wrong perceived is not against a person or corporation, but against the nation. The substance of the constitution that directs officers of the government to "provide for the common defense" would be thought to supercede amendments. Not only is the overhead of setting the guilty free an altogether more serious concern, but the seduction of compelling what I have called "the exhaustive algorithm" is in a class all its own. If every pirate/terrorist must tell all he knows, then no pirate/terrorist known to him is safe; if they cannot know each other, they cannot co-operate, and we have arrived at a real hope of abrogating terrorism/piracy. A majority of American Citizens are sensitive to the potential for abuse. There appears to be no time limit on the pre-trial phase of detention at Guantanimo Bay, and the person is de-facto imprisoned, without a trial at all. If I were to obtain the audience and approval of our Supreme Court, I would have accomplished nothing... they do not make the laws. In order to persuade the law makers, I would have to convince them of its political advantage. To abbreviate, I despair of this. We are a nation of businessmen without time for Adam Smith, politicians without time for Machiavelli (who wrote what I believe to be the authoritative manual for oppressors,) Christians without time for the Bible, and redeemed only by Generals who will not neglect Tsun-Tzu. We do not want to make the process of "compelling the exhaustive algorithm" unavailable - it is our hope of fully up-rooting piracy/terrorism. We want to make those who exercise this authority accountable. To do so, we want to define: What office has authority to levy this charge? What criteria should govern those who populate its ranks? Can we formalize exactly who should make the studied determination that charges should be brought? While the burden on the state might not rise fully to the level of indictment, it should equally well not be at the discretion of persons who in the end are not answerable. Can we formalize the class or list of crimes that we will investigate in this special and different way? Can we devise a case for this class, such that the person under investigation has a built in penalty for refusing to co-operate with "the exhaustive algorithm." For example, could we say "Whether in conjunction with a counselor or not, you will continue to be lawfully incarcerated until you have answered all questions on the record - truthfulness to be determined later." I realize this removes the discretion needed for diplomacy, but we hope to do this only in our above mentioned formalized class of pirate terrorist threats. I believe that in forcing the issue, "compelling the exhaustive algorithm," we should make a reciprocal arrangement. Every question and its answer in this process should become part of a record, such that the accused should be able to appeal to it at some future date. In this imagined solution, where our hapless victim has run afoul of the system and become accused of piracy/terrorism, I think we can fairly define some finite, non-null time frame during which all relevant questions must be asked. If a person refuses to answer, they continue to be held, but if they answer all, I believe they should go free at the end of that time frame, if no formal charges have been brought. Those more trained than I in the conception of laws might be called upon to formalize exactly how the aforementioned record of questions should be accessible. I think we can agree that publishing it in the newspaper defeats the purpose, but defining it as a state secret removes the government's liability, and accountability fails. I have no elegant suggestion here. If charges are brought, and this person is found "not guilty," the state should be liable in some way. I truly think that this is the only way to enforce accountability. Certainly our model of punitive monetary damages has been seen to fail, and I will enumerate my thoughts on that at another time. In designing the liability, it is well to remember that a state that sponsors piracy/terrorism will see advantage to be had in generating false accusations against its own citizens, only to have them found innocent later. So this mechanism should be designed with particular rigor, but we cannot safely fail to address it - it must be answered. I have called terrorists pirates because Dr. Ross Anderson, in 2001, observed that Osama Bin Laden used piracy to take over an airship. Anti-piracy laws are on the books, and a war on Piracy is abundantly constitutional. No Pirate is going to be grandfathered out of a conviction. I don't believe that anyone can profitably write in the answers to these questions, when presenting them to the American Government. However, enumerating questions gives less offense than other avenues, and provides a starting point for those sincerely seeking a solution. I balance the arrogance of suggesting that I alone have discovered a solution where all others have failed, against the despair that neither have I been able to meet these others, nor does their voice appear to have been heard.