Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
> "J. R. Molloy" wrote:
> >
> > Since the FBI have been doing this to American citizens for decades, it should
> > surprise no one that they would do it to suspected terrorist non-citizens.
> > This is shock level zero.
>
> For once, I agree with J.R.
>
> It surprises me mightily that those who distrust the government,
> and do so with good cause, would now trust the government to
> have wider and more uncontrolled and unscrutinized powers than
> it has ever had as long as they claim that these powers are "for
> your protection". We must not deliver the people to goons in
> order to "fight terrorism". Terror begins at home.
Those of us who distrust the government trust these foreign infiltrators
and terrorists even less. Much as the Nationalists and Communist Chinese
joined forces to fight the Japanese invaders, we must do the same. My
goals (and those of other freedom lovers) are anathema to the radical
islamic world. They are a classic example that the enemy of one's enemy
is not always one's friend. I, and others, can at least maintain our own
assets and abilities while contributing to the fight, and if the
government doesn't relinquish it's police powers when the conflict is
over, I will most certainly be involved in measures to force it to. Now
is not the time, though. We must renew the social trust by weeding out
those who seek to undermine it permanently, and they should not be
treated with TLC.
Further note: The Geneva Conventions also say that they only apply to
those who agree to abide by them. When an insurgent/infiltrator/enemy
combatant uses civilians and civilian assets as shields, the Geneva
Conventions recognise that they then become a combatant target. There
are no war crimes committed.
This is much like in soccer: you play for the ball, not the opposing
player. If an opposing player is injured, but the ump determines you
were playing for the ball, then there is no foul.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:16 MDT