From: Geraint Rees (g.rees@fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk)
Date: Sat Dec 22 2001 - 17:18:42 MST
On 12/22/01 9:28 PM, "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey@datamann.com> wrote:
> Of course, it is entirely because of this attitude that the 911 attacks
> were able to occur. We had Moussawi in jail for a month before the
> attacks, with him refusing to talk. If we were able to interrogate him
> further, then over 3,000 lives would have been saved. How many lives are
> such rights worth, especially in the case of people who are not even
> citizens?
The problem with this statement is that it presumes that it is possible to
determine the course of future events. How do you know that the individual
you are detaining at the moment should be 'interrogated further', with all
the abrogation of human rights that entails? If that helps mitigate horrific
crimes in the future then sure, deploy utilitarian arguments. But how do you
know in advance? And how do you decide when (and how) to stop the
interrogation if you haven't found out the plot that you "know" can be
thwarted, if only you interrogate a bit harder?
> Outside of OBL and al Qaeda, the rest of the blame for 9-11 falls
> squarely on the shoulders of the ACLU and their ilk.
I think this is a very unfortunate statement that you might like to retract.
I don't see any similarity between the activities of an organisation that
seeks to defend civil liberties in the US and a terrorist organisation
responsible for thousands of murders.
Best wishes,
Geraint
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:12:43 MST