From: "Antti Kurenniemi" 

"Geo."  wrote in message news:3eaaf46c{at}w3.nls.net...
> > Did you read what that site says: "The alleged terrorists...". So
> > how do you know they did what they did? I am with you on that
> > they very likely are guilty, but that's not good enough IMO.
>
> The same way I know Saddam used to torture people in Iraq? I mean
> it was never proven in court and I didn't see him myself but I'm still
> convinced he did. It sorta works like that.

So you are willing to allow war and torture based on "I'm convinced -
it sorta works like that"? I'm not. And now if think for a moment,
isn't that probably just how crazy dictators and terrorist rationalize
their actions? Because they're convinced that someone else is bad? Don't
you want to be above that? I know I do.


> When an organization like al Qaeda repeatedly kills Americans in cold
> blood I do consider it defense to stop them from killing more.

You'll never know if they will attack, and if you take them out just in
case you'll never know if they ever even would have attacked. If that's
okay, then hey let's start executing common criminals who have been caught
with, say, boxcutters, because they might eventually do something horrible.

I think it is important that we are better than the terrorists, that we do
not lower ourselves to their standards. Also, I think we really should not
give the idiots any more reason to attack you, me, us, them or anyone, by
giving them martyrs for propaganda material.


> > Tell the Syrian government to surrender him. It's not Syria who did
> > it, so attacking Syria isn't right.
>
> Syria tells you fuck off and makes OBL security minister, next move?

UN. If the US would stand with the UN, it would even have some power. But
this is too silly a scenario, we can go "is too - is not" over
this one forever.


> Antti, I don't know the answers to these quesitons, but I do know
> that I don't have a problem with it under certain circumstances. How
> I can clearly define those is a difficult question that I really can't
> answer except to say none of us really "knows" anything including
> the courts yet you trust them to make decisions in your name. And I
> am very aware that this type of thing could easily be abused so I
> think extreme caution is required.

I am just not willing to accept torture *before* these are defined. I can't
just go "ok, torture is okay as long as it's done only to real bad
guys", because there are just too many ways it can go wrong. And it's
irreversible, you can't untorture a person if it turns out that he was not
the right guy. Same reason why the death penalty is not an easily accepted
punishment - you can't take it back afterwards.


> > Student prank? Maybe the kid (feels strange talking about your
> > son, so I'll just kall him "the kid") is just on crack,
and thinks he's
> > being funny?
>
> I think you could tell the difference between a joke and a real threat.

You think. But these would be real people making that judgement, people who
are quite capable of making mistakes.


> > Exactly. You fight for survival in a war, when someone attacks you.
> > The US is not under any sort of attack, there is just a *possibility*
> > that someone *might* attack at some point - or then again that
> > someone might not. Now how is that fighting for your survival?
>
> I tried to give you examples where you clearly are under a threat of
attack.

I know, but they're not very close to reality.


Antti Kurenniemi

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4