----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2001 1:00 AM Subject: Re: Secret Military Tribunals
> On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 07:20:47PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: > > > In order to ensure anything, one must have control of the situation. > > The government of the United States has control over the United > > States. It does not have control over China. The only possible way > > the United States could guarantee anything in China would be to take > > over China. > > One has control of one's own actions. One can refrain from denying > someone basic human rights. > The United States can and should act in a manner consistant with promoting human rights around the world. I certainly agree that the government of the United States has a moral obligation to ensure that it does not directly deny human rights through its own actions. Having said that, I also need to point out that the fact that the government of the United States has tradeoffs to consider, since it is not all powerful. As regretable as the fact that bombing accidently denies the right to life for innocent civilians, the alternative of allowing AQ to florish allows an even worse denial of human rights. Further, I don't think that it is wrong for a government to worry first about the safety and rights of its own citizens. Its like taking care of one's own family first. That doesn't mean one has the right to trample over everyone else in the community, it just acknowledges prime responsibility. Finally, I think Gautam made a valid distinction between Constitutional rights and what the goverment ought to do. For example, would have been morally wrong but Constitutional for the US to have A-bombed the world into submission in the early post-WWII years. If you note his posts, he did state that he has strong opinions that the US should foster human rights, its just that it is not required by the Constitution. Dan M.
