[QUOTE=Jacob Visser;90151]This is an unsustainable position. I will give you an example: in Germany the Baader-Meinhoff group did not recognise the state law, what did the German state do to address the problem? They changed their laws, made them retroactive (which is an aberration in any legal system), denied the right to legal counselling, "suicided" one of the prisoners... By doing this the German state recognised their law system did not work. If Human Rights are only for people respecting the laws they have no meaning, Human Rights are above the law, just as a constitution is above the law. The law is there to try to implement Human Rights and the Constitution.

Another example: in NAZI ruled Germany Jews had no rights by law; did they forfeit their Human Rights?

A last example: in Cambodia, under Pol Pots rule, people had no rights by law; did the people from Cambodia lose their Human rights?[/QUOTE]In the first example, not recognizing the law is an example of basically constituting criminals in most cases. I would disagree with your idea that human rights are meaningless if they're only for the law abiding. That's simply because a criminal doesn't deserve the same treatment as a good and moral person, which the severity of their punishment still depends on their crimes. It's like this, you don't let a teenager leave the house when you ground them just because their siblings are going out. Second, the Nazi's were evil, so I can't really accept that example because it would appear to make certain conclusions and add certain connotations that I think don't apply when it comes from a proper place. As to your third example, this is also an invalid example to me because Pol Pot was/is evil and does the same thing as your second example.

[QUOTE=brunoparga;90201]I'd propose something else: once some rights have been agreed upon (e.g. those generally conferred by liberal democracy), the the whole world should do policy to enforce those rights. I intend no pun here, but this is what's right, and I think the opposite (letting each country doing what they wish) is wrong. When a US citizen says "foreigners shouldn't criticize our death penalty policy" and a Chinese says "foreigners shouldn't criticize our information censorship policy", I don't see these statements as qualitatively different. I mean, either we're right to criticize both things, to put them both under our consideration whether they're right or not, whether they're progressive or backwards, or we're wrong doing it. I prefer to think we're right.

Bruno[/QUOTE]I guess only someone who is not an American could think like this, at least, I hoe so. I find it insulting to equate those two things, not to mention that a host of other things you would not like about the US if you don't like that.

[QUOTE=Jwb52z;90363]In the first example, not recognizing the law is an example of basically constituting criminals in most cases. I would disagree with your idea that human rights are meaningless if they're only for the law abiding. That's simply because a criminal doesn't deserve the same treatment as a good and moral person, which the severity of their punishment still depends on their crimes. It's like this, you don't let a teenager leave the house when you ground them just because their siblings are going out. Second, the Nazi's were evil, so I can't really accept that example because it would appear to make certain conclusions and add certain connotations that I think don't apply when it comes from a proper place. As to your third example, this is also an invalid example to me because Pol Pot was/is evil and does the same thing as your second example.[/QUOTE]
What you are saying is equivalent to "human rights are only for the people abiding the laws and also for the people transgressing laws I find evil." This is why I say your position is unsustainable.

[QUOTE=Jwb52z;90363]In the first example, not recognizing the law is an example of basically constituting criminals in most cases.[/QUOTE]

Would you please clarify the meaning of that?

[QUOTE=Jwb52z;90364]I guess only someone who is not an American could think like this, at least, I hoe so. I find it insulting to equate those two things, not to mention that a host of other things you would not like about the US if you don't like that.[/QUOTE]

Would you please qualify those statements? To be precise: why is it do you think only someone who's not from the US "could think like this"? What exactly is "like this"? If by that you mean that specific expression of a thought, then it surely can only be thought by someone not from the US because any particular arrangement of words and thoughts belongs to its author and to him alone, and I'm not from the US; if, however, you mean some broader categorization my expression falls under, please qualify that categorization and explain why someone from the US [B]couldn't[/B] think "like that" [B]at all[/B].

Then, why is it insulting to you that I equate those two things (the US saying others shouldn't criticize their death penalty policy and China saying others shouldn't criticize their information censorship policy)?

Finally, I don't think this is exactly about [I]like[/I]. If I'm not confused about the meaning of this English word, I can say I like chocolate, or that I like the Beatles. Taking a stance in a political affair is [I]very[/I] different, involves a degree of careful thought and responsibility incomparably larger.

[QUOTE=Jacob Visser;90369]What you are saying is equivalent to "human rights are only for the people abiding the laws and also for the people transgressing laws I find evil." This is why I say your position is unsustainable.[/QUOTE]

I think this question might perhaps make Jacob Visser's objection to you (with which I agree completely), Jwb52z, more straightforward: what's your position about the US holding hundreds of people in its base at Guantánamo bay for the last four or five years?

Bruno

[QUOTE=brunoparga;90384]Finally, I don't think this is exactly about [I]like[/I]. If I'm not confused about the meaning of this English word, I can say I like chocolate, or that I like the Beatles. Taking a stance in a political affair is [I]very[/I] different, involves a degree of careful thought and responsibility incomparably larger.[/QUOTE]
[I]Like dude[/I], I looked up "like" in the [URL="http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/like"]Wiktionary[/URL] like and I found, like a whole bunch of stuff, like, wow!

[B]Adjective[/B]
like (comparative more like, superlative most like)
1. similar

[B]Preposition[/B]
like
1. Somewhat similar to, reminiscent of.

[B]Particle[/B]
like
1. (slang, somewhat dated) A mild intensifier.
[I]Like, why did you do that? [/I]
2. (slang) When preceded by any form of the verb to be, used to mean "to say".
[I]I was like, "Why did you do that?" and he's like, "I don't know[/I]

[B]Noun[/B]
like (plural likes)
1. (also [I]the likes of[/I]) Someone similar to a given person, or something similar to a given object; a comparative; a type; a sort.
[I]We shall never see his like again[/I]. — Winston Churchill on T.E. Lawrence
[I]bowls full of sweets, chocolates and the like
something the likes of which I had never seen before [/I]

[QUOTE=Jacob Visser;90369]What you are saying is equivalent to "human rights are only for the people abiding the laws and also for the people transgressing laws I find evil." This is why I say your position is unsustainable.[/QUOTE]I don't know how you got the "and also for the people transgressing laws that I find evil" part. I didn't mean to have you get that from it.

[QUOTE=brunoparga;90384]Would you please clarify the meaning of that?[/QUOTE]Well, if you don't recognize the law, I think that is not obeying the law because you have invalidated it in your opinion. If you don't follow the law, even if you don't like the law in question, you are a criminal because you have done things against the law.

[QUOTE]Would you please qualify those statements? To be precise: why is it do you think only someone who's not from the US "could think like this"? What exactly is "like this"? If by that you mean that specific expression of a thought, then it surely can only be thought by someone not from the US because any particular arrangement of words and thoughts belongs to its author and to him alone, and I'm not from the US; if, however, you mean some broader categorization my expression falls under, please qualify that categorization and explain why someone from the US [B]couldn't[/B] think "like that" [B]at all[/B].[/QUOTE]It was simply the whole "qualitative difference" idea that I found to be something that I hope an American would not think. Bruno wanted a sort of "all or nothing" approach to his remarks about questioning laws and I think that's not right in the specific ideas he mentioned. At least, that's the way I read it.

[QUOTE]Then, why is it insulting to you that I equate those two things (the US saying others shouldn't criticize their death penalty policy and China saying others shouldn't criticize their information censorship policy)?[/QUOTE]I find it insulting, and I have a feeling you'll hate me for saying this, because i think it is a wrong comparison to make. The death penalty is something I find to be a type of justice and the example of the Chinese government's actions I do not like.

[QUOTE]Finally, I don't think this is exactly about [I]like[/I]. If I'm not confused about the meaning of this English word, I can say I like chocolate, or that I like the Beatles. Taking a stance in a political affair is [I]very[/I] different, involves a degree of careful thought and responsibility incomparably larger.[/QUOTE]Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree here in a way because I don't think that its importance, although it is important, makes it a hugely difficult decision in terms of true right and wrong.



[QUOTE]I think this question might perhaps make Jacob Visser's objection to you (with which I agree completely), Jwb52z, more straightforward: what's your position about the US holding hundreds of people in its base at Guantánamo bay for the last four or five years?

Bruno[/QUOTE]Well, it's very simple. I believe that anyone who is likely to harm my country should be treated as a terrorist and I believe that people who do such evil things fall under my "they're criminals so they have no human rights" opinion. I don't think someone should scrape and bow and apologize for doing something they thought was the right thing to do in protecting a loved one or their country. If you haven't noticed, I'm not intending to be unbiased about such things as crime and punishment. I believe what I believe to be right and that's it.

[QUOTE=Jwb52z;90506]I don't know how you got the "and also for the people transgressing laws that I find evil" part. I didn't mean to have you get that from it.[/QUOTE]
It is just that you say people transgressing the law don not have human rights. I give three examples of situations where there are law transgressions and ask you if those people have forfeited their rights. You answer no because the examples of the Nazis and of Pol Pot are bad examples.

This is why I concluded that in your opinion people have human rights but forfeit those rights if they transgress laws you chose, not if they transgress the law of their country.

In your answer to Brunoparga you use the same point of view. The laws of your country are good and the laws of other countries (China for instance) are bad. I must recognise though, that China is the state that applies the death penalty most (even on a per capita base.)
[QUOTE=Jwb52z;90507]The death penalty is something I find to be a type of justice and the example of the Chinese government's actions I do not like.[/QUOTE]

Concerning Guantanamo prison:
[QUOTE=Jwb52z;90507]Well, it's very simple. I believe that anyone who is likely to harm my country should be treated as a terrorist and I believe that people who do such evil things fall under my "they're criminals so they have no human rights" opinion. I don't think someone should scrape and bow and apologize for doing something they thought was the right thing to do in protecting a loved one or their country.[/QUOTE]
One of the problems in Guantanmo is that the USA did not apply their own laws by keeping people prisonner whithout charge. But this could be justified as an internal USA affair. The biggest problem from a legal point of view is that the USA abducted people in other countries against the law of those countries. A lot of those people had to be freed after years of imprisonment because they where innocent. Another big problem: torture is illegal in the USA, so the CIA (or another government agency) transported some prisonners in countries where they can be tortured because it is legal there. Isn't that breaking USA law?

Human rights are above the particular laws of any country and we can strive to have the different countries adapt their laws to respect the Human Rights.

And as you say:
[QUOTE=Jwb52z;90507]I believe what I believe to be right and that's it.[/QUOTE]
So to summarise your position: you are the only one in the world having Human Rights and should be the one granting them to others?

[QUOTE=Jacob Visser;90513]Another big problem: torture is illegal in the USA, so the CIA (or another government agency) transported some prisonners in countries where they can be tortured because it is legal there. Isn't that breaking USA law?[/QUOTE]Well, That's why they did it so they wouldn't be breaking a law. This is not the same as other times where a country's authorities will stop a person going to another country to commit a crime like child molestation such as the group called NAMBLA. This is terrorism. When you're dealing with uncivilized people, for the most part I think a terrorist would not be civilized, you have to do alot to get through to them for the proper information retrieval when people are actively trying and planning to hurt my country. BTW, yes, there are times I think that my decision is the only right one on some things. I know that bothers people, but there are times when I simply don't care.

[QUOTE=Jwb52z;90691]This is terrorism. When you're dealing with uncivilized people, for the most part I think a terrorist would not be civilized, you have to do alot to get through to them for the proper information retrieval when people are actively trying and planning to hurt my country.[/QUOTE]

I think you are ignoring the distinction between a terrorist, and a suspected terrorist. You seem to be forgetting the principle of innocent until proven guilty, which is supposed to apply to all crimes, regardless of their magnitude.

[QUOTE=Jwb52z;90691]Well, That's why they did it so they wouldn't be breaking a law.[/QUOTE]

So was the treatment of Maher Arar legal then? He was the Canadian citizen, a Syrian emigrant and a computer programmer who was detained at JFK airport en route to Montreal from Zurich in September 2002. Refused access to a lawyer because he was not an American citizen, he was deported to Syria, even though he had evaded military service there and had family who had been imprisoned in Syria for political activity. He was tortured in Syria for 10 months and forced to sign false statements saying that he had been to Afghanistan, before the Syrians eventually decided that he had no information of any value and returned to Canada. Now U.S. law says that Arar, being a Canadian citizen, should have been deported to Canada. So why did the INS send him to Syria?

Incidentally, Maher has recently been cleared of having any connection to terrorism, and his only apparent transgression was that he had an acquaintance whose brother was suspected of having terrorist connections.

[QUOTE=Jwb52z;90691]I believe that anyone who is likely to harm my country should be treated as a terrorist and I believe that people who do such evil things fall under my "they're criminals so they have no human rights" opinion.[/QUOTE]

So how do you define "likely"? Obviously, the INS considered Arar a likely terrorist, so by your argument, Arar should have had "no human rights". Do you not see the contradiction in your own argument, that without human rights, at the bare minimum, the right to confer with an attorney and to confront evidence in a court of law, that it is impossible to even say with any certainly who is even a criminal?