> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-extropians@extropy.org
[mailto:owner-extropians@extropy.org]
> On Behalf Of Doug Jones
> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2001 8:32 PM
> To: extropians@extropy.org
> Subject: Re:
>
> dudescholar@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > [Mike Lorrey wrote:]
> > >
> > > In a war of insurgency, as this one is, there are no front lines
to
> > > 'capture' prisoners on. This ain't no Stalag 13, no "Hogan's
Heros",
> > > lady. Wake up and smell the patchouli. The enemy has infiltrated
our
> > > homeland, they walk among us, dress like us, and try to act like
good
> > > little westernized muslims.
> >
> > So, someone under CIA surveillance comes up to you in an airport and
> > asks the time. The operative, because of your now known contact
with a
> > "suspected" terrorist notes, "Round him up for questioning!" and
when
> > you say you don't know anything it's OK to pull out all the stops to
get
> > you to confess to your "knowledge"? I'm not sure I like the idea of
> > sacrificing individuals on the alter of paranoia.
>
> Strawman. Limited resources could not be wasted on every potential
> contact, and stealth would also argue against overt action of that
sort,
> lest the object of surveillance notice that everyone he talks to gets
> yanked into the shadows like a bad episode of "Get Smart".
Do you think some potential "contacts" are being ignored in the search
for the perpetrators of the WTC crashes?
It also seems to me that "limited resources" are becoming less "limited"
as technology advances allowing more aspects of one's personal actions
to come under examination.
> On the other
> hand, I *would* like to see a clear devlaration of war, so that the
> civil liberity infringements would be clearly identified and have a
> reasonble prospect of coming to an end. This damn vague executive
> branch not-quite-war without a congressional declaration is a step
down
> a slippery slope. War powers should not be granted so lightly.
Agreed.
> On the gripping hand, noncitizens do not have the full benefits of
being
> one of "the people" under constitutional protections. It has long
been
> SOP to indefinately detain foreign nationals without habeas corpus;
the
> Mariel Boatlift cuban prison sweepings that Castro cleverly shuffled
in
> are a good example- many of them are *still* in detention.
Since they are "non-citizens" this is OK?
> Some,
> perhaps many, of these people are innocent victims of a kafkaesque
> miscarriage of justice (Tam Minh Tran is a prime example, see
> http://www.refugees.org/world/articles/detention_rr99_1.htm). Is that
> an argument against using INS to detain terrorism suspects for a
> moderate time? No, the issues are separate; the problems with the
> IIRIRA can be, and eventually will, be corrected.
>
> I guess the point I'm rambling toward is that, yes, injustices *will*
> occur in trying to defend against this concerted attack on freedom-
but
> these will not destroy it.
I hope not.
On the other hand, if all my email can be automatically reviewed and
certain contents trigger a government workers' examination, if my phone
conversations can be automatically transcribed and certain contents
trigger a government workers' examination, if all my banking
transactions can be examined for suspicious activity and certain
transactions trigger a government workers' examination, and in the
future my cell phone continuously track my whereabouts, etc., are
freedoms not under attack? Can all privacy be eliminated and freedoms
continue to exist "undestroyed?"
Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:16 MDT