Good evening again, Tim!
Tim Bedding wrote to Frank Reichert...
I previously wrote:
Would you really have liked to see John Kerry raising the spectre of human rights given his own historical past, and voting record? Actually, that might have shot him in the foot even
To which, you replied:
I do not know that much about Kerry but I assume you are referring to regulations he has voted in favour of and similar items.
Not necessarily, although that is a point in question too.
I am particularly focusing on human rights, in particular the right to be free of torture.
Well, perhaps so. Now, how do you differentiate really the difference between 'legal', or should I said internationally accepted codified human rights, vis-a-vis, torture? Some have suggested, as far as I know, that unless a nation has 'signed on' to such a charter, they are exempt from following the rules. I think Lowell mentioned that, and perhaps Bill (Anderson) did as well. Such evasions seems to excuse the fact that the US government (perhaps Britain also) seems to endorse the use of torture if it is executed (no pun intended) by a government not signing on to these principles. Obviously in retrospect, Kerry didn't make this a centrepeice during his campaign, and patently avoided it entirely.
Perhaps you could say if Kerry has ever advocated or supported the use of torture in the current context.
My point was, during the 2004 election, he didn't make that a very clear statement ever, did he? I doubt if it ever dawned on him to bring this burning issue to light in the Presidential campaign. Maybe he 'could have' but he didn't. Why not?
Well, since we disagree on so much, it is nice to find an area of agreement.
Perhaps so. For your information, I haven't kept a running chart on the issues in which you and I have disagree upon.
Ron Paul was mentioned on this list previously. I did some research at the time and it seems that he is very anti-regulation.
Well, that's only a very small part of his position on the Iraqi invasion and occupation. Actually, 'regulation' as such, has nothing at all to do with it at all in the present context. There's a lot more to it than that. In fact, I brought that up in the context mostly over his heavy opposition to the Patriot Act which corresponds pretty much with your description of Tony Blair's insistence upon surrendering civil liberties on behalf of public safety.
I am a pragmatist. I am not against all regulation but I feel that we should be clear about what the regulation is intended to achieve and see whether it can be rationally determined that the regulation is achieving the goal.
I will have to respectfully disagree with you, at least upon your terms and definitions. I hope you understand me here. I don't believe in surrendering ANYTHING at all insofar as individual liberty is concerned, nor being pragmatic in that regard at all. When individuals lose their liberty, the tyrants win, regardless of what pretext it seems to be couched it at any given moment, including this sordid mess surrounding the so-called war on terror.
If the goal is not being reached, then one has to ask, why bother rigging the market in this way?
Not so sure I understand you here. A lot of things are being rigged today, including public information. Maybe a better question might be, who's goals are being met?
I guess I have a similar view on torture. If one weighs the benefits and disadvantages of allowing it, then one will come to the conclusion that it is not worth it.
Well that's good, but it doesn't answer the burning question as to the right of individuals NOT TO BE TORTURED, which I suggest is the one you seemed to start out with in the first place. Right? It isn't a question, as I understand your previous commentary, that torture might perceivably have a possible good, but rather I would suggest it never does. It is a fundamental right of mankind that torture for the sake of expediency, should never be allowed in any case.
Tim, you have to know too, I understand that even particularly in Western civilization, torture is a rather common historical practice. As some of the posts here suggests at least, the US government is exporting kidnapped and captured prisoners to nations that allow torture. It's on the nightly news for crying out loud, that this practice is blatantly a common practice.
I suggest rather that this condition shows the true colours of the so-called alliances in this 'war on terror'. I find it very difficult to escape this premise! We are not so civilized after all now really, are we?
Likewise the idea of detaining people on reasonable suspicion is something that, to my mind, needs careful explanation and justification. Tony Blair only seems to say "the security services say they need this power".
Now, you are really getting there. Thank you!
I have not looked at the Patriot Act but I saw a television programme yesterday which seemed to suggest that it permits the US government to detain on secret information. If so, my first thought would be to ask, do we really need the government to have that power?
I agree, honestly I do. This is pretty much, almost exactly to the letter (or so it seems) to what Tony Blair has managed to concoct for his own political survival in Britain. Again, I only mention this because it is such a sordid and stinking mess. Why do you think that the Bush Administration is so against the so-called International Court? Most likely it might be stated that he would likely be called up as a Party to war crimes in places like Guantanmo Bay, Cuba, and spiriting individuals to countries that torture individuals out of mind, out of sight, and out of US legal jurisdiction.
I should also draw a distinction between civil liberties and human rights.
I disagree. In my judgment anyway, there isn't any distinction at all. But I'll listen, anyway.
As you recalled, and as I previously wrote:
But the second front you raised concerning winning hearts and minds is something that I personally believe can never be achieved by resorting to the use of lethal and deadly force by US military action.
To which you replied:
Well, I would draw an analogy between the use of force by the police and the use of force by the US in support of mandatory UN resolutions.
Well Tim, I fail to see how THIS differentiates very much between what you just raised, namely the difference between human rights, and civil rights.
I'm not signing off tonight in this, as opposing your definition, only wanting more clarification from you regarding what the difference might be? What exactly IS the difference between civil, vis-a-vis, human rights? I don't personally see a distinction between the two, not really. Help me out here.
Kindest regards,
Frank
--
_____________________________________________________________________
LIBERTY NORTHWEST CONFERENCE & NEWSGROUP
"The only libertarian-oriented political discussion conference on
the Fidonet Z1 Backbone..." Fidonet SysOps AREAFIX: LIB_NW
To subscribe or unsubscribe: http://www.liberty-northwest.org/Liberty Northwest Home Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org Admin matters: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...Liberty is never an option... only a condition to be lost _____________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [email protected] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
