From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rms2g@virginia.edu)
Date: Tue Aug 13 2002 - 16:23:45 MDT
Good post.
Rafal
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-extropians@extropy.org
[mailto:owner-extropians@extropy.org]On Behalf Of Harvey Newstrom
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 3:13 PM
To: extropians@extropy.org
Subject: Re: globalization of fear
On Tuesday, August 13, 2002, at 12:47 pm, CurtAdams@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 8/13/02 6:56:41, asa@nada.kth.se writes:
>
>> There is a huge missed opportunity here: right after 911 the US
>> government could have acted as a paragon of democracy, the open
>> societiy and human rights. It would have earned it further respect
>> and while not silencing the harshest critics it would have made
>> many moderates feel that the US acted justly
>
> The US gov't has actually been well-behaved. What's weird is all
> this Orwellian rhetoric accompanying so-far mild actions. The
> only really objectionable thing I can think of is the secret detentions.
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".
We want American POWs treated well under the Geneva convention, but
insist that our prisoners are exempt from those rules. We want other
nations subject to the World Court and their soldiers tried for
atrocities, but insist that our soldiers be exempt. We insist that
criminals be extradited to the US for trial, but won't extradite our
citizens to other countries for trial. 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 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 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. 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.
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.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:03 MST