Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)

[Freematt357 at aol.com]

In a message dated 12/19/2003 8:33:48 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
jdd at dixons.org writes:

> On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, J.A. Terranson wrote:
> 
> >>Why does the US military have
> >>to treat them as though they had US constitutional rights?  They are not
> >>citizens or physically present in the United States.
> >
> >In a nutshell, our Constitution *recognizes* universal human rights.  It 
> does
> >not *establish* these rights.  If we are going to be faithful to this
> >premise, physical location is a non-sequitor.
> 
> This is a valid and probably commendable political position.  I do not
> believe, however, that it reflects current practice in the USA or
> elsewhere.
> 
> I say "probably" because it seems likely that adopting this as a practice
> would have very high costs.

You deserve a Tim response, but that ain't my style- 

Of course the USA doesn't currently practice upholding the universal rights 
that our constitution recognizes, this is why Tim suggests that people need to 
be shot, or be fucked till dead.

And why would you think that American judicial morality and justice should be 
dependent on cost? After all it would be cheaper for the cops on a traffic 
stop to administratively just shoot you in the head for an offense then go 
through the costs and rigors of a trial.

Regards,  Matt-