I don't think we should use a reasonable doubt standard for these guys, either. Classify combat event types by seriousness and dangerousness.
If it's more serious, go on preponderance of the evidence (51% standard). Or if there's reason to believe the EC has information about something more serious. We've got to protect against a ticking nuke scenario.
If it's less serious, go on clear and convincing proof (75% standard).
Do allow interrogation, with standard methods, from the time the potential EC is first picked up. Which can be used against him if he stays in the military side of the system.
no subject
If it's more serious, go on preponderance of the evidence (51% standard). Or if there's reason to believe the EC has information about something more serious. We've got to protect against a ticking nuke scenario.
If it's less serious, go on clear and convincing proof (75% standard).
Do allow interrogation, with standard methods, from the time the potential EC is first picked up. Which can be used against him if he stays in the military side of the system.