13214: stanley honorat re: freedom of expression etc... (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: stanley honorat honorat <shonorat@hotmail.com>

To answer dorce's questions about lindor: by all accounts he was merely a
sympathizer.  in their radio interview, members of "domi nan bwa" stated
that he was killed 1-in retaliation for what was done to one of their
members in a seperate incident, 2-because he was a SYMPATHIZER of opposition
views, and 3-because of directives given by government officials.  If we are
discussing the rule of law, all of these reason are inexcusable.  the rule
of law establishes freedom of expression.
now to answer the question of "cutting off a leg", the answer is, in some
cases, yes.  i am glad this analogy was brought up cause it helps illustrate
my point.  there r some infections (ie- gangrene) that can be so serious
that amputation of a limb is the only way to preserve the life....
when you speak of elections and campaigning, i agree with you in principle,
but the current government has lost the credibility needed to provide a
safe, secure environment for campaigning and just elections.
when we speak of "allowing a government to complete its term", there are
times when this is not possible.  richard nixon was forced to resign
(effective aug 9, 1974) when he lost the credibility needed to lead his
nation.  s. milosevic was forced to leave power in serbia when he lost his
credibility.  there are many other examples of this in political history.
on the flip-side, adolf hitler had a "mandate of his people" but this does
not justify the acts nor vindicate the man.  we can speak of lofty ideas,
but, IF the body is dying, then we must amputate the limb.




_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com