From: Damien Sullivan (phoenix@ugcs.caltech.edu)
Date: Wed Aug 14 2002 - 00:03:55 MDT
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 01:24:05AM -0400, John K Clark wrote:
> >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".
>
> True, but I don't see the problem. Can you think on any nation at any time
The problem is that we have universalist ideals the US doesn't live up to.
> in the history of the world where a country (or individual for that matter)
> did not want to be judged by different rules than anybody else? I can't. The
"All people are created equal." "All people are equal before the law." "Rule
of law, not rule of man." The EU seeks to induce the growth of international
law. The US, especially under Bush, is sticking to Big Man with Stick -- what
progress in civilization has moved away from.
After 9/11 Le Monde said "We are all Americans." In a better world, we'd have
a Le Monde doctrine -- to treat everyone as if they were Americans, or as we
would wish Americans to be treated in other countries. Instead we have
secret detentions, talk of military tribunals, restriction of counsel and
evidence...
> I think state sponsored assassination is a fine thing, certainly it's better
> than the alternative, war and mass death. I like the fact that the person,
> often the only person, responsible for your grievance is the one who is
No. The person you think responsible for your grievance is 'punished'. What
if you're wrong? Fair trials, due process?
I read recently about how John Adams, near the beginning of the Revolution,
defended a British officer in a manslaughter trial, I think regarding the
Boston Massacre, although the details are fuzzy. (London Review of Books, I
believe.) The mob wanted a lynching, but Adams insisted on the principle of
fair trial for everyone. The officer was even acquitted.
-xx- Damien X-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:04 MST