From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Tue Dec 18 2001 - 23:30:46 MST
Mike Lorrey wrote:
> You should not misrepresent other people's statements. I was justifying
> the use of drugs to interrogate uncooperative individuals who we have
> evidence were involved in terrorist groups.
What evidence? Invisible evidence that the accused and his/her
legal representation (if any is allowed) is not allowed to see
or no about? Charges they are not told about? I'm sorry, but I
fail to see how that is anything but allowing the government to
torture whomever they please whenever they please.
>
> I have argued that those who, by their actions, have declared themselves
> outside the realm of civilized behavior, who do not declare any status
> as a combatant in some martial arm of a government, strip themselves of
> their human rights under the Geneva Conventions (which I highly
I am a human being. I believe I have certain rights just on
that basis. Or should the phrase "fundamental human rights" be
abolished from all languages?
> recommend you actually read before you continue to make a fool of
> yourself). They do not deserve the protections of civilian US Courts.
> They are unlawful combatants, violating the most important of
> international laws. Such people are properly prosecuted in military
> tribunals, as war criminals properly are.
>
Actually, they deserve fundamental protections simply as human
beings. If you don't think so then I don't see much point in
continuing this discussion. War criminals are actually brought
before high courts in most of the cases I know of. What
combatants? Supsicion is not being a combatant. Many held
today that the FBI worried wouldn't be cooperative and wished
they could use drugs or torture on (as "just a thought") are not
even suspected of being in any way involved of anything
themselves except having an expired visa. But the suspicion is
"they know something". This is a witch hunt and does not belong
in any civilized country and especially not this one.
> Apparently, you still have not seen the videotape where bin Laden
> confesses his guilt and that of his organization. If after seeing it,
> you are still not convinced that al Qaeda and the Taliban are the
> epitome of evil and need to be wiped out, then there really is no hope
> for rational discourse with you.
That, is irrelevant to the main point. Even if this tape is the
truth (which is questionable until examined by independent
experts), it still would not prove that anyone is the "epitome
of evil". That *is* a pointless construction. If admissible
evidence, it is strong evidence that bin Laden is behind 9/11
along with at least some parts of Al Qaeda. But the Taliban,
despite their obvious odiousness, are only guilty by
association. They agreed to have bin Laden in the country and
supposedly had required (but obviously not adequately enforced)
limitations on his activities. Oh, and they didn't turn him
over when we demanded it or else. Do you honestly expect all
right thinking people to believe that this is sufficient that
all of them should be killed? Or will just removing them from
power be sufficient?
- samantha
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:12:39 MST