Tom Gal wrote:
If we adopt that line of reasoning, let's just say I don't
believe anything anyone says, and you can't actually prove you exist
for that matter. Existensial like that *SEEM* to be covering for lack
of facts.....but I can't PROVE it......
Specious argument.
Innocent until *proven* guilty. If you want to hold them for an extended
period, either you have *proof* of their guilt and can prove it at
trial, or
you let them go.
Again there's that proof thing....let's say the Geneva Convetion
doesn't apply unless they can prove it in a court of law. Shoulda told
president Bush that one. If I can use your line of reasoning to come
up with the opposite answer, than by that good ol' proof some of us
may have learned in college, you've started with a false premise and
come up with nothing. Or more simply the one we may have learned in
high school....Garbage in Garbae out.
Maybe it's just me, but that made no sense at all. And who /does/ Bush
listen to anyway? I know he claimed some god talks to him.
Isn't the point of a trial (not tribunal, not kangaroo court) to
establish truth?
>Most, if not all, were captured in combat. The Geneva Convention (to
>which Al Quaeda is not a signatory) protects uniformed combatants
>engaged in lawfully declared war.
AH yes, because everyone we're at war with is a member of a terrorist
organization. Now back in reality, we're at war with a number of
nationalist armies, no different than our own militia in the
Revolutionary
war.
Well you can't have it both ways. It's either the government or it's
not. Where's your PROOF for that statment....I see no supporting
facts. You seem a little viscious here, solely based on
opinions....like a gambler who'd rather say the game was fixed then
admit they were wrong.
tit for tat Ad hominem?
How does whether or not a person is "the government" or not "the
government" bear on how fairly they are treated by a civilized nation?
Remember the revolutionary war? Back in those days despite everything
else, Eurpoeans had fighting convetions in war too.....the colonies
didn't abide by them, whupped up on the brits, and won. If we had
attacked britain on their soil, I don't think the conventions would
have been held up. There's rules for a reason, and the Geneva
convention applies to just that. We fought the dirty war too once, but
the fact that these people wear no uniform, listen to no goverment,
and see fit to impose their will on others arbitrarily isn't just true
in my opinion, it's a fact. Got any of those?
Again, note that "our" revolutionary army never attacked anyone else.
"Someone did it that way once or twice a long time ago and it worked out
okay then, so it's okay now". Situation ethics is always a good fall
back policy. The end justifies the means and all that. Again, you seem a
bit ambiguous here. Am I mischaracterizing your argument?
...
Can you give me an example of a civilization before 1900 that had a
problem with torture? Correct me if I'm wrong but that was a common
place and accepted way to not only interrogate people, but to just
plain make them suffer. Seems like a little hard work and suffering
might put things in perspective, but I don't see anyone volunterring
to leave the land of the free for somewhere "better."
It's not clear so far where you stand. Are you saying that was a good
thing then? Are you suggesting that a little of that now might be
justified somehow?
Are American troops fighting for the right of their (and _only_ their)
government to violate basic Human rights whenever it's convenient to
their government's cause?
This is what Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment has to say:
[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
It makes no distinction in the clause between citizen and non-citizen.
In fact the phrase "within its jurisdiction" is pretty clear. If we've
captured someone, they're obviously under our jurisdiction. Some would
also say that a pre-emptive attack on another nation implies
jurisdiction over its citizens.
I could hang out and argue why subjectively things aren't perfect
based on existensial facts all day without getting anywhere......but I
won't. I'll probably leave my dirty personal opinion out of it as
well. What happened to the pirate bay I was so interested in, which
seems to have devolved into petty quibbling?
-T
If you expected simplistic responses a complex topic, you came to the
wrong forum. The Pirate Bay issue is merely a small case study of much
larger problems in the world. As I suggested early in this thread's
ancestor, Human nature tends to prefer situational ethics. Which leads
to regenerative behavior, which leads to laws.
I think any discussion of ethics and Human rights, whether it's about
copyright fair use, software freedom, or the treatment of foreign
combatants, would benefit from at least a reference to this:
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created
equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
"That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that
whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is
the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new
Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its
Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their
Safety and Happiness.
"Prudence indeed, will dictate, that Governments long established,
should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly
all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer,
while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the
Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and
Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to
reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their
Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their
future Security."
It seems a shame that we don't show either understanding or respect for
those words when we attempt to pummel others into submitting to imposing
our superior form of government on themselves.
Of course if we really do want to become a bunch of bastards who rule
only because we're the strongest, then democracy is certainly a good way
to get there /legally/. At which point we merely rename it Mob Rule.
--
Best Regards,
~DJA.
"Sorry if I seem cynical, but democracy only works if more than half the
population makes intelligent decisions." --Shamashmuddamiq
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
