I do not believe that there is ever a time when it is acceptable to toss out the principles on which our country is based; in wartime, in fact, I believe that such principles are even more important to hold on to.
I don't believe in treating members of Al Quaeda inhumanely; but I don't have a problem with treating them harshly, within limits. They are intent on the destruction of the United States, after all. What bothers me the most is really Secretary Runsfeld's comments on how the prisoners will be treated. They won't be treated as POW's, he says, because they aren't *technically* prisoners of war; they weren't part of military units, they weren't wearing uniforms, etc. My question is: are we at war with Al-Quaeda or not? Ashcroft has shown himself to be more than willing to treat Americans as though they were living in wartime, but can we really toss that out when it becomes inconvenient? That's the sort of hypocrisy that I really have trouble with. At 02:04 PM 1/11/2002, you wrote: >If we treat them inhumanely, then I will have qualms. But at this point >Amnesty International is wringing its hands in advance of events. I agree >with Dan that these individuals cannot be expected to behave like normal >prisoners of war, who would be interested in escape and/or sabotage, but >must be treated like a gang of psychotics (my word) who are perfectly >happy to kill themselves and everyone around them just to make a point if >given the least chance. Their willingness to behave in such a way is not >a matter of conjecture but is their well-established (by word and deed) >ethos of behavior. Sliante, Richard S. Crawford http://www.mossroot.com AIM: Buffalo2K ICQ: 11646404 Y!: rscrawford MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] "It is only with the heart that we see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye." --Antoine de Saint Exup�ry "Push the button, Max!"
