Email address obfuscation in effect -- please
click here to turn it off.
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
Mike Miller wrote:
On Mon, 2 Oct 2006, Christian M. Cepel wrote:
I can see that you've really thought this through carefully.
Though this statement is made in sarcasm, I actually have.
To me, these people have no rights whatsoever. They forfeited those
rights when they engaged in terrorism.
Here's the part that I don't think you are thinking through carefully:
Who are "these people?" You say "they engaged in terrorism," but that
is not how the government will define "these people" -- they are defined
as having been *accused* of engaging in terrorism. The difference is
not all that subtle and it is the key to understanding most objections
to the proposed policy. An accusation of terrorism cannot provide a
reasonable basis for taking someone's rights away. We need to review
such claims against a person in a hearing.
Even in WWII, captured enemy soldiers who did not get Geneva convention
rights were tried by a military tribunal. Is this wrong?
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Home | FAQ | Server | Presentations | Mailing Lists/Archives | Member Tools | Links | Sponsors | Contact