| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dan Boger writes:
> I figure Larry will have something to say about this, but it's interesting
> reguardless:
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27748-2001Oct20.html
We cannot arbitrarily violate the rights of people (even non citizens) in
our civil law enforcement system, even if we are certain that they have
violated the rights of thousands of innocent civilians, until they have been
proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty. These are merely suspects. If
the circumstantial evidence is strong enough, try them. If they don't want
to do a deal, tough for them and, very unfortunately, tough for us.
But beatings, torture, or extradition to "convenient" third countries where
respect for rights isn't quite as crisp all seem ruled out to me.
I understand and emotionally sympathise with those that would violate rights
to extract vengeance or retribution. But we are dealing with a mental
disease and vengeance is not appropriate, retribution is not appropriate.
The disease needs to be eradicated for the good of the race, but we must be
more humane than they are in so doing.
Note that the rights of civil law detainees (even non citizens) differ (as
in, are more strong) from the rights of enemy soldiers on battlefields or
enemy citizens suffering collateral damage from attacks on military
objectives during wartime, I think.
Note also that confining someone after conviction is not, in my book, a
rights violation as that person has already abrogated their rights by
perpetration of an initiation of force.
This all seems consistent with what I have said before.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Larry?
|
| I figure Larry will have something to say about this, but it's interesting reguardless: (URL) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
