At 1:55 AM -0500 9/2/02, D. Simmons wrote:
> >> It has been established enough to go to the trouble, danger, and expense
> >>of flying them half way around the world.
>
>>Established by who? On what basis? Suspicion, based on undisclosed evidence,
>is >not established fact. A belief by the the governing authorities that a
>person may be a >threat is not proof. Lacking specifics, it does not even
>amount to a solid accusation.
>
> By their captors -- and that will do for the short term.
No, it won't do at all. That is a perfect definition of arbitrary detention.
> >POWs of course are permitted under international law to be detained without
>any >charges. But they must be sent home when the war is over. If they are
>not POWs, as >your government maintains, then they have a right to be told
>what they are accused of >and given the opportunity to defend themselves.
>
> Who said the war is over? As to the second, they have been accused of being
>members of a terrorist group. I agree, the charges should be formalized and
>final disposition should be in court.
Was being a member of Al Queda an offense under US law? Even if it was, they were not residents of the US and so did not engage in the activity within US legal jurisdiction. Hence the offense you suggest is ridiculous, even if there is such an offense under US law, which I doubt. I think you are making it up as you go along.
A proper charge would be conspiracy to commit murder in the US. Which I believe the US citizen has been charged with. The accusation of being a member of a terrorist organisation is just waffle.
> >When a state abandons the rule of law and reverts to arbitrary authority, it
>is known as >fascism, or just plain tyranny. Those who advocate this are
>fascists. You seem to be >advocating or defending this?
>
> I would have to first accept your premise that the rule of law has been
>abandoned.
You don't just accept it, you appear to revel in it.
> >Basically, your argument seems to be that the end justifies the means, but
>the >principle of rule of law is that the end does not justify the means.
>
> My argument was that the prisoners in Cuba are not being treated in an
>inhumane or brutal manner. Are there times when the end does justify the
>means? Probably. Perhaps in moments of defense against an unconventional
>enemy. Or perhaps the illegal activity engaged in by those making up the
>Civil Rights movement in America. Or the unlawful activity of the
>anti-apartheid crowd in South Africa. Or perhaps illegally attempting to
>organize workers in third world factories. There may even be times when the
>ends justify ANY means.
Yes, that was the position taken by the Nazis too. And Al Queda too, come to think of it. My, what interesting philosophical company you are keeping.
>However, I think it is a bit of a stretch to claim that interrogating Al
>Queda members or Taliban 'soldiers' broaches the question of "does the end
>justify the means".
Well if that isn't it, what is the justification? Might is right? It doesn't seem be justified under either US or international law.
Bill Bartlett
Bracknell Tas
|
