Subject:
|
Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 24 Jan 2007 22:49:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2822 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
A single attack can make a rebellion if it is by a citizen of the country. I
can’t remember if any of the Sept 11 bombers were US citizens but if so I
would argue it indeed was a part of a rebellion.
|
It’s pretty sketchy.
You could define “rebellion” as a group of citizens who take action against the
government. But does that action necessarily require that it’s an armed action,
or a physically destructive one? What if they were hacking in to the Pentagon
and destroying data? Rebellion? And obviously, it’s easy to notice when a LARGE
group of thousands openly defies the government, but what about when it’s only
one person?
It gets to such a fuzzy line that one COULD argue that any citizen who breaks
the law is rebelling, and is therefore exempt from the right habeas corpus. You
steal a stick of gum from the store? Rebel! Share music online? Rebel! Go 60 in
a 55 zone? Rebel!
Personally, I’m not sure I even like the whole idea of suspending habeas corpus
at all, ever. I recognize the preferability in certain circumstances, but I’m
not sure it’s really ever warranted to remove the right all together. The whole
idea is on the same grounds as torture. Are we justified in violating someone’s
rights for self-preservation?
If we think that Bob is a terrorist conspirator, because we found X as evidence,
I recognize that if we say “Well, we found X, that’s why you’re being held” may
indeed sacrifice the information that Bob might give us through questioning. If
he doesn’t know what we know, maybe he’ll give us a DIFFERENT piece of
information that we wanted. Makes sense. But in effect, we’re violating his
right to know why he’s being held, which is (I think) the same principle as
violating his right not to be tortured. It’s just a question of how many rights
we feel justified in depriving for our own self-benefit.
I admit I’m still sort of on the fence about it, but I think I’m slowly
convincing myself that the right just shouldn’t ever be revoked.
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
115 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
