Mike Lorrey wrote:
>
> 3BD4C323.2A9D65A2@objectent.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Samantha Atkins wrote:
> >
> > In case you think my response is paranoid please check out the
> > following link. Note that this list of people hauled in
> > includes citizens as well as non-citizens. How many of them
> > would you like to give sodium-pentothal (not exactly harmless)
> > to and/or torture?
> >
> > http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/10/22/inv.civil.rights/index.html
>
> This is funny: "The Saudi Arabian government is so concerned it is
> hiring U.S. lawyers to find Saudi citizens taken into
> custody and to represent them."
>
> This is the same government with a long record of taking Americans into
> detention, torturing them, and refusing to let them see American
> diplomats or legal counsel. Don't you see how they are using our own
> system against us? For a terrorist, an open society is its own greatest
> weakness.
>
> Furthermore, the following quote exposes the bias: "More than 800 people
> have been arrested, and more than 360,000 tips have been pursued in the
> largest U.S. criminal investigation in history. But authorities have yet
> to develop evidence that anyone in custody knew of the September 11
> attacks, according to The New York Times."
>
> It is known that at least four of the detained suspects have had highly
> incriminating evidence seized on their persons which implicate them in
> the 9-11 attacks. One of whom was arrested after telling his flight
> instructor that "I don't need to know how to land or take off, I
OK. Four out of 800? How many of them are simply innocents
scooped up? WIll you treat them all as "prisoners of war" - a
notion applicable to captured combatants of warring countries
but not to random sweeps of the "usual suspects"?
>
> The fact that the author lies about this indicates the bias of the
> article, and thus it is worthless.
Wrong! The author did not lie but quoted the NY Times. That
they have bias is certainly not a condemnation relative to the
bias rampant in almost all the reporting everywhere of
everything related to this entire mess. Do you think it is only
your "objectivity" and supposed lack of bias that allows you to
toss out whatever confronts your own views as worthless at the
slightest hint of inconsistency? It is an old habit but
actually useless at arriving at a better approximation of the
truth.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:15 MDT