From: Phil Osborn (philosborn2001@yahoo.com)
Date: Wed Jul 30 2003 - 19:16:59 MDT
In response to Mike Lorrey (see below or go to
http://www.extropy.org/exi-lists/extropians/0307/12188.html:)
And just who decides and how that this individual
violates the Geneva Conventions by acting as an
illegal combatant? The U.S. military? Without a
public trial by jury? How convenient. As I said, if
rights are defined as due process, then we are all
perfectly free right now (to follow the law, that is).
The whole point of Guantanemo is that these people are
accused of something which carries legal penalties.
That accusation does not constitute a conviction. No
matter WHO makes it. That's the whole point of public
trials, juries, due process and the recognition of
basic human rights, which exist independent of any law
or state. AFTER they have been convicted by a proper
public jury process, with access to counsel, privacy,
rights to appeal, etc., THEN, if they are duly
convicted, and ONLY THEN can you with any claim of
legitimacy make the kind of ludicrous Kafkaesque
claims you make below.
BTW, my understanding is that now all the U.S. state
has to do to nail you or me is to make a similar
declaration that we have de facto, by our actions,
given up our U.S. citizenship - and all the "rights"
(as they now define "rights") it entails - by acting
as a foreign combatant. Then we could end up down
there too - and we might.
On another related note, I am sorry if I have confused
the discussion of a "free state." Originally I know
the discussion referred to an existing "state" of the
U.S. However, somewhere along the thread, the
perspective broadened and that's where I came in. The
same issues apply however in the narrower context, and
any reliance upon "state sovereignty" or "state's
rights" might be dampened by reference to the Fed's
actions here in California, where they have had no
qualms about going after medical mariuana users,
despite objections from the "state."
I do agree, however, that moving any "state" in the
general direction of libertarianism would be a good
thing, and I am considering what actions I might take
if this project appears likely to actually succeed. I
note that Mary Margarette in Fort Collins, CO, tried
this a decade or more ago, and got quite a few
libertarians to move there, but apparently without any
great impact.
Here's the quotes from Mike:
Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Jul 29 2003 - 21:07:44 MDT
No, you are conflating two separate issues.
When an individual violates the Geneva Conventions by
acting as an illegal combatant, ALL of their rights
are automatically forfeit BECAUSE of their crime of
acting as an illegal combatant. They can be legally
executed summarily without trial. These are not
innocent men in Gitmo's prison. They are killers who
refuse to wear a uniform, who attack civilians and
torture innocents. They refuse to operate by the
Geneva Conventions, and since they choose to operate
in violation of the laws of war, they will be tried
outside the civilian court system, for their crime is
not a civil crime, it is a military one.
I have several times asked people to read the Geneva
Conventions, please do not make any more unsupported
claims about such things until you do so.
**************
Me: and you know, without any due process, trial,
etc., that these people are guilty as charged, because
you just trust the U.S. military, or whoever is making
that claim? Great. We can save a whole passel of
money here. Just put those people in place of our
juries in general.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 30 2003 - 19:26:16 MDT