Hi Roger, Lawry and group,
sorry, it was not my intention to trigger the nth political debate.
Anyway, as my previous post could give a wrong interpretation of my position, let me just clarify that:
a) I think that the treatment reserved to the terrorists in Guantanamo is adequate. If it is adherent to the Geneva convention or not I don't know exactly, but It is probably better than the treatment many countries would reserve to eventual foreign terrorists in analogue situations.
b) I'm perfectly sure that O'Reilly doesn't kill tourists. But saying that "We People of the USA…" means that the constitution is not valid for foreigners is -to say the least- a bizarre interpretation. Then, I don't know much more about your constitution, so I can't say if there is written somewhere else that it is valid for you and not for me, once I go visit America. For what I know, laws should be equally valid for everyone within a territory. And, please, don’t say Guantanamo is not USA…. Or accordingly you will be in perfect agreement with Castro!
c) Therefore…. the different treatment reserved to the "American Taleban" is wrong according to every possible angle I can look at it from. I think it would be better that even that man had been enclosed in Guantanamo Bay with his companions.
d) Anyway… let me add that the worst possible thing America could do is execute them and create new "heroes", or "martyrs".
This is what I think, according to my history, my ideals, my knowledge of the events. No more, no less.
Said that, here is what I was really pointing at, with this thread.
==> The Centre
I have the impression that the concept of a *centre* (3wDave said it is the *right place*) is not very stable. What is the *centre* for me is probably a bit *left* for you ... and could even be very extremist in... North Korea, Guatemala or Sierra Leone…. so to say. And probably the centre of today will not be anymore the centre in 10 years. Lawry asks me about European/Italian news. About the rest of Europe I have little to say, it seems to me you are more informed than me. About Italy, we have many diverse voices on newspapers, and some have great value, in my opinion. About TV, you probably know that our premier is a media tycoon and this is IMO a potential disaster. He laments the TV networks are all against him (!) but this is risible. We will see.
==> Laws
Every law, even the most possible fair and clear and accepted, will be interpreted and stretched according to the needs of the moment and the personal sentiments and interests. I think that O’Reilly himself will not offer the same thesis for “friends” like … for example, the Cuban anti-Castro fighters (or terrorists?) who disembarked in Cuba in the 60’s. In that case, I’m sure he will say that your constitution will grant them the right to live freely in the USA and even organize new attacks.
That happens on the right wing as well as on the left wing (and the centre, of course!) and it is probably inevitable. Partly it is matter of intellctual honesty (something more deep than objective truth), but there’s more. Laws themselves are necessarily static and therefore imperfect. The founding fathers of the USA could not imagine an American Taleban and Guantanamo Bay. And the Geneva Convention could not imagine this strange war between the USA and a gang of international terrorists.
Writs are not enough. They can be good maps, but they can’t give you a valid answer for every situation. We need also experience and *human*common sense. Man, not Law, is the measure… (of course, this can't be an excuse to be dishonest!)
Thanks,
Marco
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:52 BST