[QUOTE=BotXXX;90054]Well i don't believe in the death penalty (also not in having guns at home, but different discussion). In the above situation i would shoot him in the leg/arms (provided that i would be able to handle a gun, and would not accidently shoot my wife between the eyes). Just to disable his actions, not to kill him. Killing him would not solve anything, would only bring sadness to lots of lifes. His family, but also my own family that i just can rob people of their lives (no matter what the reason for it is).

But that is just my view of the situation. Everyone is entitled to his/her own view ;)[/QUOTE]As sad as it would be for his family, I think most people would logically be not too upset if such a monster of a being were dead after they discovered the evil things that the person is capable of now. As a famous forensic anthropologist once said, "There are some people who just don't belong in this world".

[QUOTE=Jacob Visser;90104][QUOTE=Prime95;90071]Except when you or some school kids use those weapons. Carrying a weapon without ever using it would indeed never interfere with anyone esle's right to live.

So just sitting on someone’s law justifies a death-sentence? One can even be trespassing without knowing it, it happened to me quite often while walking in the countryside: some paths are private without any sign saying so.[/QUOTE]Ok, as to your first paragraph here, using a weapon to protect yourself is not the same as committing a violent crime as it would be in a school shooting where some teenager goes nuts or a violent person just enters a school and holds it hostage. As to your second paragraph, if a person on your property has no business being there and refuses to leave after being told they shouldn't be there, you have a right to try to make them leave, and if they won't leave by manual force or verbal request, yes, I say get rid of them the sure way. Any person who won't leave by a peaceful or manual manner is surely not the kind of person who is "innocently" there.

[QUOTE=Jwb52z;90131]"There are some people who just don't belong in this world".[/QUOTE]

..and that is defined by whom?

[QUOTE=Jwb52z;90130]we have to never have on-hand protection and allow strangers on our property without having the right and ability to make them leave? How does that even begin to be ok?[/QUOTE]

Speaking generally, that's why the State exists.
Btw, believe it or not, anyone "trespassing on your property" is a human being, just like you.

[QUOTE=Jwb52z;90128]Personally, I think, as one person mentioned about having the same jail sentence for every crime, I find that idiotic, honestly.[/QUOTE]

I don't think anyone here has even suggested the idea of "having the same jail sentence for every crime". What exists in Brazil is a maximum limit to the amount of time someone can actually serve in a prison, and that is 30 years. If you're sentenced less time (which will happen with almost every offender) then you serve less time, obviously. Now, since the range of atrocities humans can commit is unfortunately very wide, I wonder where does "punishment fitting the crime" go when you sentence someone who murdered one person to death, and then the next trial you have to proceed to is of someone who murdered hundreds, or thousands, of people.

[QUOTE=Prime95;90125]I've no problem with EU countries and Brazil electing not to implement the death penalty. Countries have the right to choose the penal code they are most comfortable with. I'm only ask for the same consideration without being condescendingly called backwards.[/QUOTE]

People's Republic of China and North Korea agree wholeheartedly with you. So would Stalin. [SIZE="1"]And GW Bush's Torture Law... (hope he doesn't listen to me)[/SIZE]

I thought criticism helped mature people and societies progress. George, since you've read that paper, which describes my country in so thorough a way, I know you'd have a lot to say about it, and I probably wouldn't like to hear most of it. But I honestly think I'm not defending (most of) Brazil's wrong laws.

[QUOTE=Prime95;90125](Quote:
Concepts like inherent, inalienable human rights?)
As defined by Europe? Amnesty International?[/QUOTE]

Perhaps the ones the US uses to accuse other countries...
Now, to be a bit less cynical, that's indeed a point. Perhaps, if someone legally has a given right or protection (e.g. not being executed) somewhere in the world then everyone else everywhere else should have that protection, too. The similarity of rights inherent to the human condition is the basic principle underlying the idea of human rights, and that idea is essential to avoid things like Nazi Germany, PR China or US planned execution of proven innocent Mumia Abu-Jamal.

[QUOTE=Prime95;90125]Consensus is that right-to-life is an inalienable human right. There is no consensus on whether this is one of the rights you can lose after committing a crime. After all, by my count, there are 17 countries on the U.N Human Rights Council that still permit the death penalty.[/QUOTE]

:cynical: So what, there are 5 countries in the UN Security council which are the largest collective threat to security in the world! :cynical:

I'm too lazy to check that now. But what is evident is that human rights have to stop to be used as a mere rhetorical device by some certain nations...

With regards to punishment, why not restricting every authority to using the only right which is consensually viewed as being "loseable" by commiting a crime, that is, freedom of movement?

Bruno

[QUOTE=brunoparga;90138]So would Stalin.[/quote]

Stalin, Hitler, and GW Bush probably all loved their mothers. That doesn't make it wrong for me to love my mother too.

[quote]I thought criticism helped mature people and societies progress.[/quote]

Debate, yes. Criticism, much less so.

[quote]George, since you've read that paper, which describes my country in so thorough a way, I know you'd have a lot to say about it[/quote]

In the same way I don't want government meddling in my personal business, I don't feel it is my place to comment on your country's internal policies. There are political, economic and historical forces in play that I cannot begin to comprehend.

[quote]Perhaps, if someone legally has a given right or protection (e.g. not being executed) somewhere in the world then everyone else everywhere else should have that protection, too.[/quote]

That doesn't seem like a very workable solution. After all, in the U.S. a citizen has a right to own a gun.

[QUOTE=Jwb52z;90128]Human rights are for the law abiding, if you ask me.[/QUOTE]
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=Prime95;90142]Stalin, Hitler, and GW Bush probably all loved their mothers. That doesn't make it wrong for me to love my mother too.[/QUOTE]

Agreeing with their (real or, as in this case, likely but supposed) political views is an entirely different issue.

[QUOTE=Prime95;90142]Debate, yes. Criticism, much less so. [/QUOTE]

Criticism is often the very beginning of a debate, and it is almost always an inherent part of it.

[QUOTE=Prime95;90142]In the same way I don't want government meddling in my personal business, I don't feel it is my place to comment on your country's internal policies. There are political, economic and historical forces in play that I cannot begin to comprehend.[/QUOTE]

Even if individually you choose not to comment on my country's or any other's policies, that doesn't make the idea of doing it wrong. Take, for instance, that very paper - it is a comment on our policies and politics. And, since regimes like that in North Korea ban internal debate - and criticism - it's up to us, who are outside, to do that.

[QUOTE=Prime95;90142]That doesn't seem like a very workable solution. After all, in the U.S. a citizen has a right to own a gun.[/QUOTE]

Sometimes rights conflict with one another, and views on these issues have to be [I]criticised[/I] and debated until a more rational solution, one which is for the greater good, can be reached. There are often pairs of opposing rights: the right to smoke vs. the right not to inhale smoke from someone else; an industry's right to throw up in the air any of its polluents vs. everyone's right to a clean environment; each one's right of having a gun vs. the right of living in a gun-free society.

As for human rights, I subscribe entirely to Jacob Visser's post.

Bruno

[QUOTE=brunoparga;90172]Even if individually you choose not to comment on my country's or any other's policies, that doesn't make the idea of doing it wrong. Take, for instance, that very paper - it is a comment on our policies and politics.[/quote]

Thanks for the correction, again I chose my words too hastily. I should have said I won't criticize your country's internal policies. I am willing to comment on and debate them. Criticizing is much more judgmental.

[quote]Sometimes rights conflict with one another, and views on these issues have to be [I]criticised[/I] and debated until a more rational solution, one which is for the greater good, can be reached. [/QUOTE]

The term "greater good" immediately raises my suspicions. This is often a euphemism for taking rights and/or property from the individual. That said, all I ask is you respect our country's right to weigh these conflicts and come up with our own answers. I'll respect your country's right to do the same.

[QUOTE=Prime95;90188]That said, all I ask is you respect our country's right to weigh these conflicts and come up with our own answers. I'll respect your country's right to do the same.[/QUOTE]

Sorry for insisting on much of the same point again and again (I'm a very boring person), but:

If I'm right to generalize what you're saying, then it means everyone should respect everyone else's country's answers to those questions, right?

If I understand it correctly, then you think "yes, everyone should... those questions". I should then ask you: do we have to respect Myanmar and Swaziland or (to take better-known examples of dictatorships) N. Korea or Cuba's answers, too?

What does exactly that mean? If that, in the end, means we cannot [I]criticize[/I] their dictatorial policies, then I should reject the original premise.

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=brunoparga;90201]do we have to respect N. Korea or Cuba's answers, too?[/quote]

Yes, but we don't have to agree with them. If the U.S. finds a country's policies too "backward" it can elect to have nothing to do with that country. The end result is the same. You boycott North Korea because you righteously believe you are morally superior and they must be punished until they change, I boycott North Korea because their value system is so fundamentally different than mine that I prefer not to have anything to do with them. Admittedly, a subtle distinction.

[quote]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 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.[/QUOTE]

What bothers me most about your reasoning is the underlying air of superiority. [I]You've[/I] thought about some issue therefore the rest of the world must conform to your conclusion. This is the [I]exact[/I] same logic the religious right uses in the U.S. to try to ram anti-abortion, anti-gambling, anti-drug legislation through Congress. And to some degree, this is the same motivation that allows radical muslims to use violence in Allah's name.

In many respects you seem to be a religious zealot. Human rights, as defined by you, is your religion. All non-believers are to be scorned and must be converted at any cost.

Even if I agree with 90% or more of your human rights beliefs, I humbly suggest that you are human and may not be right on every issue. Or that on some issues there may be more than one right answer. Or that sometimes there are grey areas with no right or wrong answer.

[QUOTE=Prime95;90225]Yes, but we don't have to agree with them. If the U.S. finds a country's policies too "backward" it can elect to have nothing to do with that country. The end result is the same. You boycott North Korea because you righteously believe you are morally superior and they must be punished until they change, I boycott North Korea because their value system is so fundamentally different than mine that I prefer not to have anything to do with them. Admittedly, a subtle distinction.[/QUOTE]

Sounds nice. But you seem to have ignored the distinction between pure isolationism ("I don't want to have anything to do with them"), coordinated international efforts (e.g. UN sanctions) and unilateral use of force ("we're taking democracy to Iraq").
Also, there's a double standard in US foreign policy, since the N. Korean and Chinese regimes are essentially the same but are treated very differently.

[QUOTE=Prime95;90225]What bothers me most about your reasoning is the underlying air of superiority. [I]You've[/I] thought about some issue therefore the rest of the world must conform to your conclusion. This is the [I]exact[/I] same logic the religious right uses in the U.S. to try to ram anti-abortion, anti-gambling, anti-drug legislation through Congress. And to some degree, this is the same motivation that allows radical muslims to use violence in Allah's name.[/QUOTE]

I have to disagree. If you read my post again, you'll see the only things I propose should be adopted by the whole world are the ones upon which democracies, i.e. regimes where everyone has the right to think and express themselves, have reached a degree of consensus. These are things upon which people under dictatorships [I]would[/I] agree if they had the right to free information, free reasoning and free expression. This isn't some conclusion to which [I]I[/I] have come.

OTOH, you and I don't agree with the worldview fundamentalist Muslims want to impose. To see the difference, just ask yourself if you agree with the following two statements:
1. The media should be free to provide information from any viewpoint, about any subject, and, provided it doesn't incite the disrespect of other individuals' rights, it should be free to express any opinion, including criticizing the government.
2. God has said women should wear a black bed linen from the top of their heads to the tip of their toes, with only a few small holes in front of the eyes and nose, so they should.

[QUOTE=Prime95;90225]In many respects you seem to be a religious zealot. Human rights, as defined by you, is your religion. All non-believers are to be scorned and must be converted at any cost.

Even if I agree with 90% or more of your human rights beliefs, I humbly suggest that you are human and may not be right on every issue. Or that on some issues there may be more than one right answer. Or that sometimes there are grey areas with no right or wrong answer.[/QUOTE]

Taken by itself, I don't dislike the idea of human rights being my kind of "religion". Since you've come from that to those conclusions, then I'm probably expressing my views in too harsh a way. I'd just point out, with regards to the second paragraph, that I don't believe to be personally right on everything; as I said above, I think the right options and ways to take come not from an individual's beliefs, but from the [I]criticism[/I] and debate of ideas.

Finally: the reason why I think your division between "criticism" and "debate" is so subtle it ends up having no practical value, is that [I]you've just criticized my views[/I], in much the same way you said you didn't like yours to be criticized.

Heartfully,
Bruno

Can i make a susgestion....
This thread be locked...
this is a hot topic in the world and if say google comes trawling along and posts this wont this attract more pro choiceers and pro lifers

and Carlsagan43
if you join a forum just to post about a pro life or pro choice you mine as well go join the forums that are actually devoted to it and not some math forum that you found had a lot of people watching it.

Our little discussion has probably about run its course.

[QUOTE=brunoparga;90240]But you seem to have ignored the distinction between pure isolationism ("I don't want to have anything to do with them"), coordinated international efforts (e.g. UN sanctions) and unilateral use of force ("we're taking democracy to Iraq").[/quote]

Not at all. In my NK example, I may very well talk to my like-minded friendly countries and tell them what we are doing and ask them to consider joining in.

Actually, for the gross offenders I think we are mostly in agreement. The only difference I see is in tone. Both methods end up with sanctions against the target country which offers economic incentives to change.

For the minor differences we are in disagreement. You seem to be appalled over the U.S. death penalty law as a violation of human rights. Holocaust denial laws in many European countries are a violation free speech rights, yet I'm not upset in the least. I prefer to see EU countries and Brazil as basically "good guys" and to not sweat the small differences.

[quote]Also, there's a double standard in US foreign policy, since the N. Korean and Chinese regimes are essentially the same but are treated very differently.[/quote]

I've not been speaking for the U.S. government, only expressing my "live and let live" philosophy.

NK and China are quite different in that China is making extraordinary economic progress and it is hoped this will lead to social progress. I think of it as a foreign policy experiment.

[quote]...propose should be adopted by the whole world are the ones upon which democracies, i.e. regimes where everyone has the right to think and express themselves, have reached a degree of consensus. These are things upon which people under dictatorships [I]would[/I] agree if they had the right to free information, free reasoning and free expression. This isn't some conclusion to which [I]I[/I] have come.[/quote]

I just don't think you (by you I mean your consortium of like minded countries) have the right to impose your beliefs on the other countries of the world.

[quote]you and I don't agree with the worldview fundamentalist Muslims want to impose[/quote]

Yet you seem to want to impose your worldview on them.

[quote]God has said women should wear a black bed linen from the top of their heads to the tip of their toes, with only a few small holes in front of the eyes and nose, so they should.[/quote]

If that's the rule certain muslim countries wish to live under, that is fine by me.

[quote]Taken by itself, I don't dislike the idea of human rights being my kind of "religion".[/quote]

I thought you wouldn't mind. :wink:

[quote]the reason why I think your division between "criticism" and "debate" is so subtle it ends up having no practical value[/quote]

Perhaps so. This thread is likely to come back to haunt me at a later date :)

[quote]is that [I]you've just criticized my views[/I][/quote]

No criticism intended. A friendly debate on theories for how countries should interact.

[QUOTE=Prime95;90260]This thread is likely to come back to haunt me at a later date :)[/QUOTE]

Possibly (though I can't see why, unless you wind up running for office in Liberalleftissville, PA), but thinks of it this way:

At the moment you feel you can no longer speak your beliefs on matters not related to primes and coding because of your status as a famous prime discoverer and programmer, the algo-rists will have won, or something.

[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?

Well, philmoore, President Bush says that Arab guy you spoke of is an evil criminal terrorist. He wouldn't *lie* to his country. Would he?

Now, Jwb52z, I'd love to hear your opinion about Mumia Abu-Jamal.

Bruno

[QUOTE=philmoore;90738]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?[/QUOTE]I personally think they should have called the Canadian government and had them in to talk to him as well because he's one of their citizens just to see what would happen, not to mention the US doesn't need to tick off Canada as long as we can possibly avoid it with being diplomatic and polite toward the Canadian government. Technically, as far as I know, if you're not a US citizen, you don't have to be given the same consideration, such as a lawyer. I would certainly disagree with Syria making him sign false statements, but I can't really find fault with detaining suspected terrorists or criminals very much.

[QUOTE]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.

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?[/QUOTE]Well, it's always been true that you have to be careful who your friends are because it can come back to bite you in the ass, even without you knowing there's a possible problem. Likely, to me, is anything and anyone that gives the people who are in charge and in power positions to decide such things a strong indication that something will happen against the US. It's that simple. Even if they are wrong in the end, I think it's worth it to save the US against terrorism and anything or anyone else who would harm the US.

[QUOTE=Jwb52z;90866]I personally think they should have called the Canadian government and had them in to talk to him as well because he's one of their citizens just to see what would happen, not to mention the US doesn't need to tick off Canada as long as we can possibly avoid it with being diplomatic and polite toward the Canadian government. Technically, as far as I know, if you're not a US citizen, you don't have to be given the same consideration, such as a lawyer. I would certainly disagree with Syria making him sign false statements, but I can't really find fault with detaining suspected terrorists or criminals very much.[/QUOTE]

You didn't understand the question posed. If someone from Canada commits a crime, say, he robs a bank, and escapes to the US, he's deported (which means, expelled from the country he's in, in this case, the US). One gets deported to the country one is a citizen of; since that guy is a Canadian citizen, he gets sent to Canada. It's that simple. The only exception is if that person would be at risk back home; have you seen that movie, "The Terminal"? The main character cannot leave JFK airport in New York City because while he was flying to the US there was a coup in his country and there's no government there recongnized by the US. He cannot be deported (legally there's no-one to whom he can be sent) nor allowed to enter the US (he has no passport issued by any recognized country). An officer says him he could solve his problem by saying he was afraid of returning to his country; in that case, the US couldn't deport him so it'll have to allow him to enter the country. This is the same reason why, even if Maher Arar had only the Syrian citizen (which is not true), he shouldn't have been deported there. Do you understand now?

[QUOTE=Jwb52z;90866]Likely, to me, is anything and anyone that gives the people who are in charge and in power positions to decide such things a strong indication that something will happen against the US. It's that simple. Even if they are wrong in the end, I think it's worth it to save the US against terrorism and anything or anyone else who would harm the US.[/QUOTE]

Does that "anything and anyone" include US citizens? That is either [U]yes[/U] or [U]no[/U]. If it's [U]no[/U], then do those "who are in charge and in power positions to decide such things", in order to "save the US against terrorism and anything or anyone else who would harm the US", have to follow those silly laws and regulations? It seems that that would make it impossible for them to accomplish their protective task.

Then it must be [U]yes[/U]. Then, if the aforementioned people decided to say *you* had given a "strong indication that something would happen against the US", even if you're innocent, what could stop them? You're completely, absolutely, helpless. You have clearly stated you wouldn't have the right to a lawyer, a fair trial or even to a formal charge; you'd just be detained, transferred to somewhere you'd never heard of before, far from your loved ones, and relentlessly tortured until you confessed you're guilty - *even if you aren't*.

Apparently, the possibility of that happening doesn't bother you.

Bruno

PS: I still would like very much to know your opinion, Jwb52z, about the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal (google or wikipedia it if you've never heard of him).

Response to a view expressed in the following quotes, not to the poster of these particular words:

[quote]Likely, to me, is anything and anyone that gives the people who are in charge and in power positions to decide such things a strong indication that something will happen against the US.[/quote]
Folks,

Note the example (not only by this particular poster) of the authoritarian view, or what George Lakoff called Strict Father morality in his book [U]Moral Politics[/U] explaining the bases of conservative versus liberal worldviews. (I'm making it a high priority to write up a summary of Lakoff's analysis for posting.)

To paraphrase (my words): "Trust the authorities to do the right thing (without safeguards, penalties, or recourse in case they don't do the right thing)."

[quote]It's that simple. Even if they are wrong in the end, I think it's worth it to save the US against terrorism and anything or anyone else who would harm the US.[/quote]
... where "harm the US" apparently does not include either harming our longstanding worldwide reputation for fairness and freedom, or persuading tens of thousands of Islamic youth to turn to anti-US terrorism instead of turning to pro-US democratic ideals (or else conservatives would've called for G.W. Bush's impeachment by now).

Again, directed not at a particular poster, but at all who share that view.

Well, I got carried-away and attributed ideas to the views represented by the quotes that aren't actually expressed there. :blush: My hour for editing or deleting my preceding posting has expired, so...

[quote=cheesehead;91051]To paraphrase (my words): "Trust the authorities to do the right thing (without safeguards, penalties, or recourse in case they don't do the right thing)."[/quote]Of course, the quoted words from earlier in this thread nowhere mention either existence or nonexistence of any safeguards, penalties, or recourse in case the authorities don't do the right thing, so to attribute lack of "safeguards, penalties, or recourse ..." is unfair here. :blush:

IMHO many who elsewhere advocate authoritarian approaches to the terrorist problem seem to neglect to consider adequate "safeguards, penalties, or recourse ...", but it was a mistake for me to have thrown that into my paraphrase. :blush: I sorta forgot what a paraphrase is supposed to be. :blush:

[quote]... where "harm the US" apparently does not include either harming our longstanding worldwide reputation for fairness and freedom, or persuading tens of thousands of Islamic youth to turn to anti-US terrorism instead of turning to pro-US democratic ideals (or else conservatives would've called for G.W. Bush's impeachment by now).[/quote]... and here my "does not include ..." is entirely my extrapolation from elsewhere, not ideas which are expressed or implied in the quotations from earlier in this thread. :blush: I should have omitted that extrapolation. :blush:

Okay, the problem was that I telescoped my logical path between quotes and comments, and without the connection made explicit, I wrongly gave the impression that my own thinking was that of the poster.

So, second draft:

[quote]Likely, to me, is anything and anyone that gives the people who are in charge and in power positions to decide such things a strong indication that something will happen against the US.[/quote]Note the example (not only by this particular poster) of the authoritarian view, or what George Lakoff called Strict Father morality in his book [U]Moral Politics[/U] explaining the bases of conservative versus liberal worldviews. (I'm making it a high priority to write up a summary of Lakoff's analysis for posting.)

A major problem with authoritarians is that they too often omit or underestimate the value of a balancing clause: that history shows that authorities often make mistakes or let power "go to their heads" in the absence of safeguards, penalties for misconduct, or recourse in case they don't do the right thing. Failure to include those checks and balances could lead to totalitarian catastrophe in extreme cases.

(Shucks, just look what happened in this thread, on a comparatively trivial scale of course, when my own internal checks and balances malfunctioned and allowed my sarcastic impulses too much leeway in that previous posting!)

[quote]It's that simple. Even if they are wrong in the end, I think it's worth it to save the US against terrorism and anything or anyone else who would harm the US.[/quote]Let's consider the types of harm that can be done to the U.S. The quoted statement gives me the impression it refers only, or at least primarily, to harm in the form of violence against people (and certain symbolic properties) in the U.S., such as occurred in the 9/11 attacks. But there are other kinds of harm which can result, and have resulted, from imprudent reactions by U.S. authorities who overly lean toward the authoritarian end of the spectrum of worldviews.

The authoritarian reaction of the Bush the Second adminiustration has itself done great harm to the United States! It has damaged our longstanding worldwide reputation for fairness and freedom. Its simplistic military policy has persuaded tens of thousands of Islamic youth to turn to anti-US terrorism instead of turning to pro-US democratic ideals. Those are not trivial matters -- they are the sorts of things that might be cited by historians of the future as turning-point factors.

If these forms of harm were considered important by conservatives, surely by now they'd have called for G.W. Bush's impeachment, since his transgressions have been incomparably more detrimental to the United States than were Bill Clinton's affairs and fibs. But, instead we see no such action, even though conservatives were in full impeachment cry by the corresponding time of the Clinton administration.

- - -

So I seem to have gone OT, but this is actually connected to the abortion/right-to-life/death penalty issues, as will be shown by my yet-to-be-posted summary of George Lakoff's analysis.

can we bring this thread to an end and lock is... admins...

Awww, Moo, it's just starting to get interesting.

Wouldn't locking the thread go against the whole idea of the Soap Box, which allows discussions on just about anything?

[QUOTE=moo;91282]can we bring this thread to an end[/QUOTE]

If it bugs you, don't read it. Or are you requesting this by way of "please save me from myself - I hate this thread but I can't stop clicking on it"?