thought you were copping some attitude in your response because it seemed like you were arguing points that I'd already addressed (and agreed with)... if I misinterpreted, my bad. no problem with you disagreeing.
seems like a pretty big leap to me to say that because the ACLU is raising concerns about the conditions he's being kept in, that they obviously want him out altogether. but I do agree that the they probably would say that incarceration BEFORE someone is convicted should only be used as a last resort. in fact, I think anyone who understands and endorses the concepts the American legal system is built on would say that. People are only held in jail before being tried and convicted because a judge determines there's no other option that would ensure public safety or prevent then from fleeing. It IS supposed to be seen as a last resort. If there was another way to ensure those two things, I believe that the ACLU (and hopefully the entire legal community) would be in favor of it. keeping him in jail now should not be to punish him, or to bow to public opinion. but I see no indication that the ACLU believes there is another option in this case...they just seem to believe that keeping him effectively in solitary confinement is not justified.
No problem, you're right we were agreeing as to the why he has to be incarcerated. I wasn't giving you attitude, sorry if it came off that way.
One of their things is that the ACLU oppose incarceration as a policy, they view it as a last resort and even then only as a means of rehabilitation.