Hello Tim, > Lowell > > > For all the sturm and drang (or is that > > starm and drung?) about the PATRIOT Act, Gitmo, Jose Padilla, etc. > > Ah, so you defend the use of torture at Gitmo, not giving people > the right to have a lawyer? Is this consistent with being > Libertarian?
I don't defend the use of torture at Gitmo (although I would defend its use in certain circumstances.) Repeat after me. The Geneva Convention, for VERY GOOD REASON, gives illegal combatants the right to a firing squad (or hangman's noose). The "residents" at Gitmo are illegal combatants. That SHOULD be the end of the discussion. > The declaration of independence says "We hold these truths to be > self-evident, that all men are created equal". Which doesn't mean captured illegal combatants can't be held for the duration of the conflict. And if they are going to complain about the length of the conflict, well, they should have considered that BEFORE getting involved. > It does not restrict this depending on whether they are on > a military base in Cuba. Does this mean that the rest of the constitution should also apply? And where else should it apply? Afghanistan? Iran? Britain? > > this President has probably done more and probably will do more > > to increase freedom in this country than anyone since Reagan. > > Freedom is not the same thing as security. Your next words > in support of the above are about the security of the US. My claim isn't that security = freedom. Rather, it is that the American public demanded security. Bush's chose a mix of security options that generally had minimal impacts on security. There was some impact, but not nearly the impact that was possible in that emotional time. > > I think Bush chose, reasonably wisely, to do a combination of the > > two with the emphasis on the former. We aren't out of the > > woods, yet. > > > But we're heading in the right direction and it appears > > that Iraq was the linchpin. > > I am not sure Iraq was the linchpin although the connections > of Iraq with terrorism were there. Good! That means you can still see an alternate course of action that Bush could have followed that would have had similar results. Would you please share it? > We still have North Korea, Syria and Iran on the map. Yup. There's still hope for the Bush-haters and the America-haters. However, my discussion was focused on the Middle East. I figure that Bush is basically keeping NK in a holding pattern. One US diplomat some years back said, "diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggie' while you reach for a big stick." And as for Syria and Iran...let's just say that there are options--which may not even need to be exercised since it's possible that both of them may get tipped over from within. > Syria could well remain relaxed about support coming from there > for terrorism-linked organisations. I'm sure the Syrian government would like to. The question is: what will the Syrian people want and do? (Well, there is another: what will the US do as the Iraqi police and army take up more of the load and free up the US troops to do other things?) > > Others will backslide, but the trajectory is clear and inevitable. > > It is far from being inevitable. Bush talking about freedom is > worrying. Does he appreciate that we have a UN security council > and not a UN freedom council? Bush has explicitly and repeatedly linked freedom and security--in terms of freedom for people around the world begets security for other free peoples. And I think that the UN is proving itself incompetent, corrupt and irrelevant. Lowell C. Savage It's the freedom, stupid! Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly. _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [email protected] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
