[ikeboy]

>I can't believe anyone would bother making such a fatuous point, to which the obvious response is simply: plenty of uncharged and unconvicted (and even convicted for that matter) people have not broken the law.

Which is entirely irrelevant. Your claim was that innocent simply meant not found guilty, which is incorrect. There's a "presumption" of innocence: "innocence" means they actually didn't do it, and the law assumes they're in that state until proven otherwise. That doesn't mean everyone presumed innocent is innocent.

>If stating that black sites are set up specifically to detain people without charge and torture them is "misleading", according to you, please explain what you believe the purpose of black sites is.

I didn't say that. I specifically suggested you use "unconvicted", but if you'd used "uncharged" it would be fine. The word innocent is problematic for reasons I've explained.

[hartpuff]

> Your claim was that innocent simply meant not found guilty, which is incorrect.

What I said is: "by definition, the people being tortured, not having been found guilty of any crime, are innocent". Which is not incorrect.

I'm going to assume you know the principle of innocent until proven guilty, since it was in my last reply, quoted from Cornell's Law site.

> the law assumes they're in that state until proven otherwise. That doesn't mean everyone presumed innocent is innocent.

Okay, point me to a legal principle akin to innocent until proven guilty that instead states might not be innocent even if they have not been found guilty.

> The word innocent is problematic for reasons I've explained.

That it's problematic for you does not make it problematic.

[ikeboy]

I did above. See actually innocent.

There's presumption of innocence and hen there's actually innocent.