----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2001 6:47 PM Subject: Re: Secret Military Tribunals
> On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 05:06:39PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: > > > 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. > > Then you agree that we shouldn't hold non-Americans without just cause > and should not try them in secret military tribunals? We shouldn't deny > human rights to non-Americans simply because they aren't American? I think that we should be contrained by the Geneva convention with regard to people with whom we are fighting a war. I think that we should follow our own laws with respect to people on trial in the United States. Everything I have read indicates that there is a wealth of precident for military trials for combatants who violate the Geneva convention. I can understand why the US government would not feel the need to bring violators that they find in Afganistan to the United States for trial. War is different from So, I will not be upset if we hold less than a score of military trials for AQ members we capture in Afganistan. I would be upset if the trials were secret, but I would not be upset if we used information that we did not make public. I'd be a lot more leary about trials in the US. I certainly don't think they should be secret. I do accept that we may not wish to compromise intelligence sources. Particularly, if the sources are human and may be killed if revealed. Do you agree that there is a difference between handling agents of a foreign power send to attack the United States without openly bearing their arms and handling a crime committed for individual reasons? Now, there is a risk of a witch hunt for foreigners, I realize that. That's why numbers are important. If a handful of foreigners in the US were tried openly in military courts, then I wouldn't be too worried about that. If all those still detained on visa violations are tried that way, I'd be worried. I realize when I visit a country, that I do not have the same rights as citizens. A citizen cannot be thrown out of the country for failing classes. An alien on a student visa can. Aliens who violate the terms of their visa can be legally held. I agree that holding aliens for long periods of time for simply not being in school, as opposed to simply kicking them out, is wrong. > > I'm having a hard time following your arguments. Of course I noted > that he said that. I quoted him saying that and replied to it. I don't > understand your sentence "For example, ..." > Its where you answered: " > Are you suggesting that the Constitution should guarantee rights to > people who don't even live in the United States? Yes." The constitution is a document the defines the relationship of the government of the United States to the citizens of the United States. It is not a declaration of ethical principals. The US Constitution guarantees legal rights to citizens and residents of the United States. It is not a binding universal declaration of human rights. Dan M.
