The 'slippery slope' argument: One of the practical
problems of letting our government keep a bunch of
aliens, many of whom probably _are_ terrorists, in
unlimited offshores legal limbo is that some in power
will want to extend that 'option' to others, even
American citizens. They want to declare as a
'terrorist enemy combatant' anyone who endangers human
life -- which sounds rather reasonable, until you
realize that operating an automobile could be said to
'endanger human life.'
Numbers: In 2001, 42,116 people died in car accidents,
with an estimated economic impact of over $230.568
billion (that's actually the 2000 figure for the
cost). Alcohol is involved in roughly 40% of crashes
resulting in fatalities ("Alcohol involvement in fatal
crashes is NHTSA’s estimate of fatal crashes involving
either a driver or a non-occupant (pedestrian or
bicyclist) with a positive blood alcohol concentration
(BAC) of .01 g/dl or greater.").
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/STSI/State_Info.cfm?Year=2001&State=CO
[In 1997, "almost 40 percent of all traffic fatalities
were alcohol-related." - I wanted to check my
interpretation of the graphs on the first site.]
http://osdbuweb.dot.gov/translink/may99/index1.htm
My point: If we are not willing to give up our right
to engage in an obviously dangerous activity (two,
actually: driving, and drinking) to protect ourselves,
why should we give up our expectation that our
government treat all persons as having some degree of
'right to due process,' even if there is potential
danger in extending that 'right' to non-citizens? I
am of course not comparing the viciousness of a
terrorist, whose goal is dead bodies, to a party
animal, whose goal is "fun" -- although that may also
lead to dead bodies. Both are problems that must be
addressed, but holding the Gitmo-ees indefinitely,
without some legal proceedings, is like locking up a
swerving driver without getting a blood alcohol level
or looking for a dead animal by the roadside.
Some form of 'streamlined' legal process for the Gitmo
detainees is not unreasonable, but as pointed out in
_The Economist_ editorial re-posted today, "the
planned [military] commissions lack the one element
indispensable to any genuinely fair proceeding -- an
independent judiciary, both for the trial itself and
for any appeal against a conviction. The military
officers sitting as judges belong to a single chain of
command reporting to the secretary of defence and the
president, who will designate any accused for trial
before the commissions and will also hear any final
appeals. For years, America has rightly condemned the
use of similar military courts in other countries for
denying due process."
I'm not willing to stop driving my car, nor do I think
that forbidding alcohol consumption is reasonable,
although both might make my life safer#; leaving
another person in 'permanent limbo' does not seem
resonable to me either, and subjects our country to
justifiable criticism of hypocrisy and 'morals of
convenience.' Examining selected containers arriving
on US shores, keeping up high-tech surveillance,
improving 'intelligence' with more agents on the
ground and coordinating inter-agency communication
(and even intra-agency) -- these seem logical and
likely to yield good results. Allowing the
'Gitmo-ees' to become 'limbo martyrs' seems
counter-productive.
#But certainly more restricted; in addition, we know
what happened with Prohibition re: gangsters etc..
Torture: This is tough, because while I think that
torture *must be* kept illegal, if confronted with
someone [with a _very_ high degree of _proof_ of
actual involvement] who'd abducted my nieces or a
friend's children, and refused to tell their
whereabouts, I might well resort to physical violence
if threats didn't yield results. <grimace> But even
under torture some will not break, or will tell false
information. If I had to choose between living a
lifetime knowing that I'd 'devolved' to medieval
mentality and practices to try to save someone [I'm
supposing nightmares, guilt, self-loathing], or a
lifetime of remorse at not trying -- I'm guessing the
former. May such a thing not come to pass. <*avert*>
On a lighter note:
--- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snippage>
> "...We should all then, like the Quakers, live
> without an order of
> priests, moralize for ourselves, follow the oracle
> of conscience, and say
> nothing about what no man can understand, nor
> therefore believe."
> Jefferson letter to John Adams, 1813
Hmm, so I should change my sometime sig to "Heretic
Lutheran Deist With Overtones Of Quakerism Maru"? :)
That's a little too long, I fear...
Debbi
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety." -Ben Franklin
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
