From: Brian D Williams (talon57@well.com)
Date: Tue Aug 13 2002 - 14:46:50 MDT
>From: Harvey Newstrom <mail@HarveyNewstrom.com>
>I must humbly disagree. The main problems with the US image is
>not so much what we do, but the way we want to impose different
>rules for "us" versus "them".
Really, let's have a look then.
>We want American POWs treated well under the Geneva convention,
>but insist that our prisoners are exempt from those rules.
No, we say the Geneva convention applies when both sides follows
it, when the other side violates it we say (correctly) that it does
not apply.
>We want other nations subject to the World Court and their
>soldiers tried for atrocities, but insist that our soldiers be
>exempt.
We have nothing to do with the world court. We said if they
attempted to make our soldiers operating under U.N. peacekeeping
missions liable, without proper safeguards we would withdraw them
from U.N. peacekeeping. The court is so poorly organised it is
better to err on the side of caution.
We should withdraw anyway. I served 4 years active and 2 years
reserve with the Marine Corp, and under the current system where I
might be subject to U.N. peacekeeping duties, I would refuse to
take the oath.
In fact why bother enlisting.
>We insist that criminals be extradited to the US for trial, but
>won't extradite our citizens to other countries for trial.
Examples please. Terrorists and unlawfull combatants exempt.
>We want all wars officially declared and for nations to cooperate
>with war efforts, but insist that our war does not need to be
>declared by congress and we won't cooperate with other nations.
We've never insisted on any such thing, and we've made it clear if
we're sneak attacked, anything goes.
>We want our borders to be sacrosanct, but insist that we be
>allowed to infiltrate other countries and assassinate our enemies
>without notifying the country.
We've made it clear we will pursue terrorists anywhere, we have no
intent on giving anyone information that might let them escape. I
suspect we will and do work with our friends, and ignore our
enemies or so-called "neutral" countries.
>We demand that our citizens receive basic rights to council and
>trial, and public disclosure both in our country and abroad, but
>we deny those same rights to citizens of other countries.
More examples please, and terrorists and UC's don't count.
>We demand that evidence against our citizens be made public and
>that the accused has a right to cross-examine any of it, but
>we insist that our evidence is secret and the accused have no
>right to know of their charges.
The rules for unlawfull combatants are different.
>All of these provisions may be supported by various arguments.
>However, it seems unreasonable to claim these powers for our
>country while denying the same powers to any other country. I
>have no problem with any of these actions per se. I only warn
>that any action we take will surely be taken against us at some
>time in the future. If we suspend any rights for others, we open
>the door for other countries to suspend our rights later. We are
>setting a dangerous precedence that we will be stuck with later.
>While everyone tends to agree with these actions when they are
>taken against others, I wonder if we will be as happy to support
>these actions when they are taken against us.
We're prepared to deal with the consequences of our actions. Any
actions taken against us will be met with appropriate response.
Brian
Member:
Extropy Institute, www.extropy.org
National Rifle Association, www.nra.org, 1.800.672.3888
SBC/Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:03 MST