It's thinking like that which empowers the BNP and radical militia groups.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
Printable View
It's thinking like that which empowers the BNP and radical militia groups.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
thinking like what? that fundamental human rights and morals are important?
and i choose 3 hours as that is about the maximum the ira left a bomb for. except in two specific cases. the brighton bomb and the attempt to kill diana and prince charles in a theatre. planted bombs were mostly drop and run.
You must remember cloud he isn't just talking about droped bombs but planned attacks. Which could somtimes be months away. Sometimes you know you will be attacked within a certian timeframe, but don't know exactly when, how, or where. Torture may pull these answers out(though I am not a fan of those extremes).
As for the law issue. No MERE law laid down by a bunch of politicians is more important to me then my morality. I may believe something to be true that they didn't. I may feel with all my heart that I am right. And for me I may be so. And I will be damned if I let another person override what I feel/know is right.
International law is moot for the most part. The only way it works is if EVERYONE aggrees to abide by it. Or at least that anyone who breaks it is punished. Now for a second here you may think I am aggree with you. But have no doubt that I am not. You see, they don't follow it. Thus they have voided the document. This means we don't have to follow it unless we feel that it is the right thing to do. And for those of us who realize that the world is a skew of greys, know that absolutes tend to fail. Thus, while torture may be wrong and immoral, there are cases where it is neccesary and justifiable.
Wow.... I must be in a bad mood today. That appears overly harsh now that I reread it. Hmm... I dont' think I can rewrite it in a good way so I'll just leave it as this with a disclaimer saying not to take to badly, just a bad mood.
by dropped bombs i didn't mean from planes i meant of the type where a guy walks along a street and leaves his briefcase. or parks his car next to a shop. those are the kinds of attacks as well as suicide bombers were are seeing in iraq.
and international isn't void if people refuse to abide by it in the same way domestic law isn't void if a few people commit rape and murder.
My bad... by dropped I was refering to set in place. I should have been more clear(how did I miss that when I revised my post?!).
Ah but you see, if someone attempts to rape or kill your girlfreind and you kill or critically wound the guy. You know what? You just broke the law. But you'll(most likley) be let off. Why? You were defending an innocent human life. The same goes for these laws. 'Cept they didn't take in mind the afforementioned situation. Protecting innocent Human life is more important then protecting a criminal or someone who is trying to kill said innocent life or yourself and comrades(I say this cause some would say soldiers aren't innocent).
And if torture can do that(which I could see in some situations it possibly working) then that is what is neccesary.
As for more on the break the law issue. Once a criminal has broken the law. He/She is no longer protected by the law to the same extent they were. Hence you can kill a criminal who is attempting to kill you or a loved one. They have voided thier rights(to an extent) by being criminal. Now if the other side won't follow the rules in international law, they have voided their rights under international law. if they want to be protected by international law. They should follow international law. This is why I don't expect to see trials held against torturers of americans that take part in the torture and the like. Why? They have broken the law and voided some of thier rights under said law. However, that doesn't mean they can't kill the guy in an attempt escape or during a rescue or some such.
Let me put it this way. In most circumstances, I'm an idealist. I support international law, the Geneva Conventions, and human rights. That said, if torture could prevent the next 9-11, I say go for it. Not nice, not pretty, but life seldom is.
Thinking that a nation's actions are subject to any external body.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
then yes they are. that is the way the world is governed. it's the same laws which allowed us to try in nuremburg. at the end of the day there needs to be some higher power able to say "now mr sadamma/north korea/lybia that isn't jolly nice and if you don't stop it we will kick you in the head"
law and order on an international scale.
"Ah but you see, if someone attempts to rape or kill your girlfreind and you kill or critically wound the guy. You know what? You just broke the law." actually you didn't. the law allows for this, reasonable defence of you and others. reasonable force for defence has alays been allowed.
torture on the other hand is absolutely ruled against. in possible situation is it to be allowed. upon punishment of death.
certain human rights are voided upon criminality. the right to freedom being one of them. but most still apply and how this all works is found in the declaration.
"Now if the other side won't follow the rules in international law, they have voided their rights under international law." no it's exactly the opposite certainly for morality. do you want to drop to the level of our enemies? do we want to start beheading people. at that point what do we fight for? freedom and justice? if we're fallen so far that we are no longer within our own morals then we have no justifiable reason to fight. we are no better than the enemies we are trying to fight.
an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
would we be okay if we had seen lindy england tortured? would it be anymore shocking if it was her in those pictures being abused? or would we shrug it off as we are now saying it is necessary?
at the end of the day the law is there. and so is punishment the nazi leaders had it, milosevic and sadamme will have it. it's just a shame lindy england and the rest of her ilk won't.
So you proposal a world government that the whole world has the right to vote in? If not then how to you suppose we enforce international law? What about those who don't want to join in on the thing? The questions go on and on with this on what you mean and how you would do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
I for one think the way the EU is headed is on the right track in bringing everyone together under one government. Start off economically and then expand from there. If it will ever truely come to be the country of Europe is yet to be seen and who knows when down the path it will be stopped entirely.
The UN operates in a represented fashion. the people we vote for are the people in the UN for our countries.
and there is option to join in such treaties as the human rights act, anti-torture legislation and geneva convention. they are accepted as international law and so everyone must abide. in the same way you didn't sign for your own countries rules. you accept them and abide by them or face the concequences.
What concequences does dis-obeying the UN have? The US invaded Iraq and that is against 'International Law'. What happened? Nothing. The UN has no way to enforce their 'Laws' thus it is on the honor system and if someone doesn't feel like sticking to it the only way to get it enforced is to have someone who opposes the country step up and have the power to do so.
That is a prettyty system of law and does not work. Also, I don't vote who goes to the UN as my representative.
The US invasion was entirely legal from a UN standpoint; resolutions passed in the wake of the First Gulf War ensured that and Saddam had violated Cloud's lauded international laws countless times. The fact that neither the real violations of Saddam (Not to mention other regimes such as Zimbabwe and North Korea) are not strongly punished by the UN, and neither are the attacks popularly percevied as illegal by the coalition, plainly shows that the UN enjoys pretty much no power whatsoever.Quote:
Originally Posted by edczxcvbnm
Point is that there's pretty much nothing to fear from the UN for any parties. Only nations which actually take action (Legal or otherwise) are the ones who are getting things done.
(edited for clarity)
The UN didn't have a leg to stand on where the Iraq invasion was concerned. The countries that protested the most were ones who had allegedly been participating in illegal arms trading. Iraq broke a ton of UN resolutions, and the UN did nothing.
The UN has become pathetic. It does nothing to prevent such travesties as the genocide in Rwanda in the mid-90s, but gets outraged over not signing ecological treaties and resolutions. Give me a break.
So then. Self defense is a human right? Oh good. But the question is how are the words defined.
Now lets see. Threat of violence. Check. Force or means. Check. Reasonable force? shall we see what defines reasonable?Quote:
Originally Posted by selfdefense
Reasonable? Check.Quote:
Originally Posted by reasonable
Torture makes all the neccesities of self-defense. So if self-defense is a human right... then torture can indeed be used. Remember torture is only a tool. And like any other it can be used for multiple purposes. If you use torture in how most of those arguing on its side say it is/should be used then it is indeed a form of selfdefense. Just like in the threatened rape murder scenario. I kill the fella before he can kill me, thus preventing his attack. Which from what I have gathered is exactly what torture is being argued to be used for.
So which is it? does selfdefense break the law? or is selfdefense legal, and thus torture in selfdefense also legal?
Torture doesn't constitute self-defense as it isn't against the person initiating the force/threat of force. In fact, there's not even a specific, proven threat of force - only a generalized fear.
Self-defense is purely legal and rational. Torture is irrational and should definitely be illegal. I do not have the right to hurt SOMEONE ELSE to try and stop an action. If someone threatens to beat me up, I don't have the right to beat his friend up to get him to stop.