[ExI] QRE: barack W. obama

Lee Corbin lcorbin at rawbw.com
Tue Sep 29 04:44:09 UTC 2009

Emlyn wrote:

> 2009/9/29 spike <spike66 at att.net>:
>> So now I suppose we can semi-legitimately hold as POWs, all known aQs and
>> Taliban, but I can easily imagine independent terrorists acting on foreign
>> soil against western interests but not associated with aQ or Taliban.  Then
>> what?  Can we assume them criminals, like the Somali pirates?  What if you
>> do?  How do you work the whole 8th amendment rights notion with foreign
>> non-aQ non-state actors?
> If they are on US soil, and they commit criminal acts (including
> "intent"), then they are criminals.


> A non-aQ, non-state actor against whom you have no evidence of wrong
> doing and who is on foreign soil, well, that could be describe me! I'd
> say you could also call that person an innocent foreigner who you
> could leave well enough alone.

"No *evidence* of wrong doing"??

It would not be a good idea in my opinion to try to use
courtroom standards in judging "evidence" in a war zone.

All innocent foreigners, even in countries where western
soldiers are being shot at, should be left alone, yes I
totally agree. Who wouldn't? But under those conditions,
suspected enemies should be harshly dealt with. Errors
will be made, but more harm than good would follow by
treating each such suspect according to the legal rights
western nations concede their own citizens.

Anyway, errors of commission like these are ubiquitous,
from the courtrooms of Stockholm to the streets of any
Brazilian slum. Yes, we ought to always do the best we
can to avoid them, but not beyond what is practicable
when people are liable to be shooting at you.


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list