From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts
Subject: Re: SEALs
Date: 26 Jan 93 23:15:28 GMT
Organization: Twilight Zone

In article <2820@eagle.ukc.ac.uk> kwp@ukc.ac.uk (K.W.Pang) writes:
>In article <24673@alice.att.com> garry@alice.UUCP () writes:
>
>>Bullshit.  State terrorism is never justified.

	Agreed.
>>
>>No.  The preservation of liberty is of utmost importance.

	Also agreed.

>>Long after these victims or criminals are gone, your kids and
>>grandkids will be dealing with the results of what we do to our
>>constitution (what's left of it).

	Probably true :(
>
>I think you don't realise the gravity of the situation in HK.

	Are you  saying the situation is anarchic?  Is HK on the brink of
	civil war?
>
>When you are doing a raid, you will surely be highly strung; your life and
>your friend's lives are at stake. 

	I do not think anyone is debating this.  The relevant question is
	are the "authorities" doing the job properly, as in proper preparation?
	
	To go in and, say, raid a whole neighborhood because you "think"
	someon MIGHT be doing something wrong there and you want to make sure
	no on that is "guilty" gets away, is obscene.  This is the classical
	"Better to imprison 99 innocent people than to allow one criminal to
	escape".  Stalin (or perhaps more likely his hacks) were quite good
	at this, to the tune of perhaps 60 MILLION executions over the course
	of about 40 years.  Does this sound pleasing to you?

	Please put yourself in the situation (in your mind, that is) where
	a gang of masked men barge into your home, kill you children in front
	of your face and beat the fucking daylights out of you and your wife.
	Later you find that these were cops on a raid and they tell you, "oops,
	sorry, but we had to be certain that you were not the bad guys".  Do
	you really think you would feel the same way, i.e. that the potential
	danger justified the actions?  I certainly trust you're smarter than
	that.
>
>You can't have this nagging thought in your mind when you are on a raid...
>" Should I apprehend this guy with force or ask him if he is a criminal first?"

	You don't HAVE to do this.  It is not terribly difficult, on these types
	of operations, to determine this well ahead of time, in most cases.
	This is called planning and DOING THE JOB RIGHT.  Otherwise, they should
	go and get jobs scratching their asses or something else that will not
	be too likely to harm innocent people.
>
>If you aren't 100% committed in what you are doing, it may cost you your life.
>This kind of statement about liberty ... isn't reflected in the criminals.
>Criminals don't play by the rules, if they did then catching them would be much
>easier and no one will be hurt.

	Irrelevant.  The law enforcement agencies MUST play by the rules or
	they are no different from the people they move against with the
	mere exception that they do so with the blessing of the "authorities".
	What a horrible thought.  At that point, there is no longer any reason
	to even have law beyond that of the jungle.  Is this what you would like
	to see?  Are people becomming such extreme cowards that they would
	sacrifice their freedom that they might have some vague illusion of
	safety, supplied TO them by third party agents?  I strongly suspect that
	death would be a far more appetizing alternative.
>
>
>I am not saying that we should act like the criminals to catch them, but we
>must take a much more stronger stance in apprehending them. 

	

>     Life is like a massive program with millions of bugs... once you fixed
>     one, another ten appears!

	That's what makes it worth living!

	
	-Andy V.
Xref: sparky rec.martial-arts:17441 rec.arts.movies:38455 alt.cult-movies:12124