I thought the bill that the senate OKed opened the way for the political process, namely the working out of a compromise that everybody can more or less live with. It will most likely take a while though and the end result willl not look like the first proposal. Lets wait and see what your elected parliament does before bitching and moaning that they never get anything right.
Found that funny, did ya? lol [quote]Germany has been pushed into meekness for it's past sins. [/quote] Germany is watched like the proverbial hawk by its neighbours. Originally, the handbag lady Maggy Thatcher didn't support reunification because she was wary of a strong Germany. A strong Germany with a strong fighting military would send the warning bells blaring really quickly and loudly, especially in France and Poland. Russia - dunno. I hardly think germany would ever attack russ
It sounds like a plot from a thriller or so - negotiating concessions for making that evidence admissable, but I wouldn't really worry. Germany does not want those men to go free. Gun shy, eh.. you make it sound like a collective historic post traumatic stress disorder. Here is some more history for you: the USA has become the single most important ally and friend to Germany after the war. Marshall plan, care packages, raisin bombers over Berlin during the blockade, during he
here is one article about the upcoming trial that adresses an issue which i am not sure would be adressed by US media. Spiegel online international [quote] The Death Penalty Problem 9/11 Trial Puts German-US Relations Under Strain <p id="spIn
I feel compassion for he victims when I hear about a suicide attack or read reports and news about the plight and poverty in some places. But it is far away and it is out of my mind easily enough. It doesn't mean that I don't care, I just can't do anything. My parents organize humanitarian aid to Bosnia and Croatia for around 20 years now. The situation there is still bad for alot of people and they still need aid, but it is already a forgotten problem. Living in provisionary circumstances ha
Your question is a good one and if I was honest I would have to say that it happened far away and that I don't know anybody and can't relate to those victims whereas I personally know people in the US who argue much alont the lines of Taltamir and Nitro. It makes it more tangible for me even though the US is really not the bad guy. It seems to be a sad truth that a persons life seems to matter more to the government and public in the west (EU + US/Canada) than it does in other places in the w
"Die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar". You saw under Hitler what happened if priorities in that respect or rather exemptions from that are made. I am not comparing the US to nazi Germany or Bush to Hitler - that is outrageous. But the core problem is "person A (terrorist or suspected terrorist) has certain constitutional rights that forbid the use of certain methods and/or hinder our investigatiion, so lets just classify him as an enemy combattant to avoid the whole human righ
The whole debate about what torture is or isn't is tideous and ridiculous and just smacks of belated justification for something that was known to be ineffective and illegal to boot from the very start. Here is a great parody of the debate. LINK
[quote]So far the only backing you have made for any of your ludicrous claims is repeating ad nasium the saying "they are still people with inalienable human rights". You have to do better than that.[/quote] Funny - that is the first paragraph of the german constitution: Human dignity is inviolable. You don't want to accept how fundamentally important it is. It is not just some whiney do good we're-all-human-beings-and-love-each-other crap, it is THE principle. It might not be written like th
[quote]Everyone is equally executed if they murder a bunch of people, everyone is equally interrogated if they are a terrorist, everyone is equally incarcerated if the commit a crime.[/quote] A murderer has a trial and if found guilty will recieve a sentence by the judge - death penalty is not the forgone conclusion. How do you know someone is a terrorist in the first place - there is quite a legal grey area there which is part of the general problem If a person commit
pff. You're just stupid if you ignore the basics. I don't care about the terrorists or how they are treated. I care about how making certain things legal would change the legal system, the constitution and thus the state. That is what is at thr heart of the whole matter. To 2) Yes. I assume that forcing your mind to think that you are about to die a horrible and wet death is torture. to 3) Obviously, you are not very well versed in the use of sarcasm and irony. to 4) I
Don't be thick. What I said has nothing to do with conservative or liberal ideology or evil this and that. If you allow it to be legal to disregard human dignity and human rights for whatever reason - however legitimate it might be in that particular case - it sets a precedent. And even murderers and terrorists are persons and have rights as such. Equality encompasses them too - which has nothing to do with sympathizing for them or excusing their behaviour in any way - it is not liberal or un
The general problem is the consequence if you change the rules in regard to a specific group, make an exception for them. You can not justify making exceptions just in regard to Al-Quaida and not to other groups as well that might be deemed a threat. It potentially opens a floodgate - there will be people who will demand exceptions for whomever they deem a threat or morally inconsequential as well (illegal aliens, homosexuals, sex offenders etc.). If the precedent has been set, you can
But those detainees are not recognized as POW's. There is either POW - military - or civilian. Each status comes with rights for the persons so designated. What happened in Gitmo was to circumvent that by saying they are neither and have no rights - which was unconstitutional. I can't actually see a question in that quote. What didn't I answer?
Even if you call them enemy combatants, they are still persons with undeniable rights. They can disregard international rules of engangement, it doesn't change that fact. What international laws of engagement do you mean anyway?
[quote]And that principle never applied to POWs[/quote] Prisoners of war generally weren't locked up because they were suspected of committing a crime, hence there was no reason for a trial. If they committed a crime inside the camp, they had the right to a trial (or so I think). And they were generally released after the war was over. Im referring to those prisoners Nitro mentioned earlier. Nations came up with the Geneva convention because there had to be a common ground on how to t
That's the rub - what do you do in the face of terrorism that disregards the ideals of the constitution? But the answer can't be that you dilute the constitution to match the threat. There has to be another way to counter terrorism and the reasons for its success. I once tried to make an argument using Albert Bandura's social cognitive theory about learned behaviour to promote the idea that the best way to stop terrorism is education. It wasn't a very thought out approach, and I haven
Interesting idea about the german and italian POW's in the US during WW2. But they weren't accused of being terrorists or criminals, they were held in accordance with the Geneva Convention that regulates rules of war. I never really read the Landkriegskonvention so I am not so firm on the details. It is sort of a frightening precedence to limit the application of US law only to a select group, or rather select a group that doesn't qualify. For example, you can't just round up illegal
hahaha - gotta love the onion. "According to sources who have read the nation's charter ... " Thanks for that article, I laughed for about 5 minutes straight. It strangely reminded me of several posts I read here :)
[quote]Utemia, your post betrays your convictions. You are convinced they were innocents and that the horrible USA made them turn terrorist via torture. What does that mean? it means you actually believe terrorism is a justified reasonable response for a person to being abused; and that abuse and suffering are the ONLY thing that can make someone into a terrorist. You couldn't be further from the truth. Nobody turns into a terrorist from being abused. You think to yourse
I want to clarify something. For most of the part I was not accusing the US of torture. That wasn't really the maingist of what I said - it was rather system oriented. All that stuff about principles etc. I was reacting to Tals statements that "under specific circumstances torture would not be immoral" and tried to show that torture is always immoral as it violates human rights and there are no legal circumstances that allow that violation anywhere, and for good reason. That reason is systemi
I was looking for the right terminology concerning your question what my definition of justice would be - it is rooted in jurisprudence. It is also part of a philosophical discipline. The reason I cannot give you an answer is that both are complex. What is law, what is the relationship between law and justice, relationship between justice and other socials norms like morals, the reason laws are valid, how laws developed, what content they should have.. I have not occupied myself with th
Yeah yeah go on and mock me.. You can be sarcastic all you want, the problem is real enough or there wouldn't be detainees still locked up of which no conncetion to any terrorist activity was proven. That makes them innocent of what they were accused of and they were locked up without a trial and they were explicitly NOT pow's and granted any rights besides fresh air and food. I didn't deny genuine captures - don't put words in my mouth. I don't live in a lib fantasy lal
[quote]"while totally justifiable morally under specific circumstances, it is too dangerous a power to grant; therefore they should not be allowed to do so." Entirely consistent.[/quote] You have it backwards. Constitutional state law is ultimately rooted in ethical principles. The whole idea of a constitution is based on the idea that there are certain ethical principles (values and morals) that are so important that they can never be invalid and are in fact the foundation of the state
[quote]The flip side of this statement is true as well. A lot of guilty individuals were captured. A lot of guilty ones were set free and actually returned to attacking the U.S.[/quote] What exactly does "guilty" constitute of? Having been to a terrorist training camp? Being an associate of the Taleban, hating the US, being in the vicinity of terrorist aka guilt by association or what? Even some innocent released ex-detainees turned to fight against the US after being release
JoeUser Forums
Stardock Forums