In a message dated 99-09-26 01:24:09 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Dion, I wish you would refrain from equating the Indo racist butchers > with 'wild beasts'. The latter are incapable of the conscious depravity > which seems unique to the human species or, at most, to species under > human influence. Wild beasts are worthy of preservation - Indo-goons are > 100% disposible. > > The creatures who carry out the orders of the Indonesian military rather > appear to be a misbegotten monster species, reminiscent of the 'orcs' of > Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. They have rather similar names, too, eg, > 'The Fighting Aitarak'. > > Regards > Brian Jenkins > Dion Giles wrote on Sunday, 26 September 1999 12:54 > > > | <snip> > |� Distinction between human beings and wild beasts: > |Human beings possess a conscience: something biologically human but > without > |a conscience is subhuman. How far does this go? If a biological human is, in fact, subhuman, does he lack human rights? If so, it would certainly make a prosecutor's job easier. He wouldn't have to worry about defendant's rights, since the objects of prosecution would not have any. It's easy to say that a subhuman deserves whatever he gets, but do we want things to be that way? In Nuremberg, Goehring et al. got theirs at trials that were not up to today's standards, but they also had some of the rights of a fair trial. We need to decide how conscience-less we want to be ourselves. Otherwise we risk becoming the thing we abhor. Ewen Allison, Esq. Genocide Remembrance and Prevention Network http://www.gen-net.org ---------------------------------------------------------------- This is the Neither public email list, open for the public and general discussion. To unsubscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=unsubscribe To subscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=subscribe For information on [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm For archives http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
