On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Phillip H. Zakas wrote:
> hmm. since i made the original statement which seems to have aroused the
> beast, let me clarify some important points, the subtlety of which has
> completely flown over the heads of many reading this now irrelevant thread:
>
> 1. I believe firmly in individual rights and in the right to due process
> and equal protection under the law. i also believe these rights apply
> to -anyone- outside of the united states, even if that person is not a us
> citizen, when being investigated by us leas.
DoI says 'rights' are a function of being born, not being born an
American. It's a pity that most people don't understand that American
Democarcy as originaly formulated was a very 'expansive' view since it
applied to all mankind (not just Americans). It was one of the aspects
which, to this day, scare the hell out of the rest of the planet. When I
think about this I get flashes of Islamic Cavalry running down Christian
Knights.
A clear example of how far we've come from this original view was
President Clintons comments about one of the small countries in the
Balkans (I don't remember which, sorry). They were undergoing a civil war
and Clinton made the comment that the way to liberty was to not seperate
the country. In effect saying that a people who believe themselves to be
oppressed and unfairly represented should simply accept the situation.
I've come to believe that were Jefferson alive today, he would be
sitting in a cell...
> 2. I pointed out the irony that bell himself, in his AP, offered no such
> rights at all.
I think blanc answered this in another email. AP was meant to be pointed
at individuals who through their ACTS (not speech) had already abrogated
through unjust use of force their belief in 'rights'. It was meant as a
form of distributed, anonymous, self-defence. The fact that it can be
abused for other reasons with careful manipulation was a draw-back.
> 3. I disagree with bell's AP and his personal indiscretions for which he
> has been tried to the very core of my soul...but i personally would never
> resort to an AP-style system of justice as bell advocated...i prefer point
> #1 above.
I've always felt it was koo-koo for the simple reason that the vast
majority of people out there don't think of dealing with those abuses in
that manner. It's abhorent to their fundamental beliefs. It's one reason
people institute governments, it gives them a mechanism to seperate
themselves emotionaly and blame-wise from the 'nasty acts called for by
reality'. AP also has the problem of being arbitrary since there's no
mechanism to verify the supposed 'acts'.
____________________________________________________________________
The solution lies in the heart of humankind.
Chris Lawson
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate
Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087
-====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
--------------------------------------------------------------------
