hahaha... you really do live in a dream world don't you?
Irrelevant. If it was relevant, it could only mean that it would be legitimate to violate the principle of innocence until proven guilty against foreigners.
Even in a state of emergency, there are reasonable periods of detention. Just look at how thoroughly habeas corpus has been protected within South Africa even during a state of emergency. During a state of emergency, anyone detained must be brought before a judge to determine the legality/justification of the detention within 10 days.
Irrelevant. Even if we suffered a nuclear attack, there is no justification for the state to behave in an illegal manner which denies human beings their basic human rights. We've ratified the UN Charter and several other international documents, all which repeat ad nauseam the inadmissability of any actions which would unduly harm anyone's basic human rights.
And the US can make a law saying that people are presumed guilty until they are proven innocent, however, that does not make the law just. Forcing people to undergo military detentions and face military tribunals, with little to no access to the charges or the evidence brought against them, is not justice. The United States has no more authority than any other organ of any state to violate basic human rights merely on the suspicion of guilt. Prisoners of all kinds must have the right to challenge the charges against them. Any other option is a violation of basic human rights.
Legality does not equate to justice. If legality is the only standard by which we judge actions, then the actions of China, Russia, North Korea, and any other nationstate with atrocious human rights records are beyond reproach, because they were legal acts.
Irrelevant. Detainess are only suspects and are not guilty of anything until their guilt has been proven in a fair trial. Just because the US govt. claims that a particular person is a member of any particular group does not make the claim true, and the US has no jurisdiction to violate basic human rights to such a grotesque degree based on accusations alone.
It is not stupid at all. Technicalities exist to constrain the state from abusing its power. It is the reasonable application of power, with a view to making sure that administrative and judicial actions are just, which seperates the state and the nation as a whole from those who would arbitrarily rape and murder. If we do not respect those principles, then it simply becomes a conflict between two groups with similar moral standing, with no group being able to accuse the other group of anything without resorting to hypocrisy.
False dilemma. Constitutions do not all grant their rights to citizens alone. Non-citizens do not have the right to vote, for example, but that does not mean that a constitution cannot protect the right of everyone, citizen and non-citizen alike, to something like habeas corpus. By your line of reasoning, if constitutional rights should only apply to citizens, then citizens could arbitrarily violate the rights of non-citizens, and the state would be powerless to protect the rights of a group which is often vulnerable enough already.
That "innocent until proven guilty" isn't a universal thing..you do know that, right? Many countries do not practice that. And foreigners can be deported without proof of any crime. It is used instead of detention in many cases worldwide.
Yes, look at how thoroughly it was protected.
UN treaties and charters are worth nothing, and shouldn't be either. Basic human rights (pleasant as they may sound) mean nothing at all, anywhere. Blue helmet brigade has high aspirations and low morals. Flexible ethics and low success rates. In wartime, they usually get their asses kicked, and in countries where they are really needed, they are conspicuous by their absence.
Who defines JUST?
Once again with the justice. It's a moral and esoteric thing that isn't definable. Not allowing women to vote or work..is that justice? In many countries yes. In others, no. Eating pets? Shooting protesters? Banning the media? Are you trying to say that you will volunteer to be the grand one to finally draw up a final and conclusive memorandum on what is free, fair, just and rightful?
Who defines fair trial, civilian and suspects? What you are blaming the USA of doing is done by pretty much all countries. Not on paper,no. But reality is a different thing.
Yep, that's pretty much it.
Based on whose opinion? I'd rather the rapist goes to jail thanks.
Where have you been the past year? You think the state protects the rights of foreigners?
It is in every country with a reasonable justice system. Any other approach leads to the defendent being required to prove a negative, which is a logical fallacy.
I think you will find worldwide that countries do not extradite suspects without there being enough evidence presented to them to form a prima facie case.
You are referring to a time before the existence of the Constitution of South Africa, and arbitrary detention for more than 10 days (90 and 180 comes to mind) was a legal power granted to the state. The clauses in the current constitution serve to prevent exactly such abuses from occuring again. The law compels the government to observe a set steps of behaviour to ensure that no-one could abuse a state of emergency and deprive anyone of their rights arbitrarily.Yes, look at how thoroughly it was protected.
The ILLUSION of hebeus corpus was protected. In reality, things get done when and how they need to get done. Often the person falls out of a window or down the stairs long before their 10 days is up.
If you want to take that tack, sure, but then don't sully the concepts of morality and justice while you do so. And by this standard it also means that you may not criticise nation-states or even organisations for acting in whatever way promotes their own self-interest.
Yes, me and about 10 000 other scholars over the last 5 000 years.
Hey, you're the one rooting for the country which claims to uphold Freedom(tm), Justice(tm) and Democracy(tm).
Stop confusing legality with justice.
Some things are pretty self-evident. People have a right to life. People have a right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. People have a right not to be subjected to arbitrary detention.
The USA is the one claiming to uphold these ideals.
OK. But then you should seriously stop mouthing off in other threads about how people are "evil" and should be "wiped out". Because otherwise you're just being a hypocrite.
Objective opinion. Either a state behaves within the confines of the law, and governs to promote the wellbeing of the people, or the state is merely an organism that does whatever it can/wants in order to promote its own wellbeing. By disregarding these ideals, you have just voiced support for Zuma and the other ANCs corrupt behaviour while in government.
I'm sure you'll still be saying that when you get imprisoned indefinitely without the right to a trial just because you happened to do something that the state didn't like, right?
No one said that any particular organisation or state-based organ was perfect. There is a reason why the constitutional court is allowed to rule on the behaviour of government, and this tacit approval would almost certainly be ruled as illegal by the concourt. Furthermore, it is likely that the concourt would demand that the victims of such behaviour be suitably compensated for their loss.
Now you are arguing that because something exists, I should accept it. By that standard, one has no cause to criticise genocide, no cause to criticise terrorism, no cause to criticise anything, because they exist.haha... you like that word don't you?
Welcome to the real world... right now... somewhere in Africa... your SANDF soldiers are performing "peace-keeping" duties in specific countries.
Guess what? You have no idea what they are doing there or not doing there. You know diddly squat about what they are getting up to there. They might be getting up to all kinds of shananeegans and your "constitutional guarantees" and "rule of law" can do shirt about it.
Still doesn't make it right.
Um. That's vastly different from imprisoning someone far away from the conflict zone and denying them the right to a trial for months on end.
Well, if we take your flawed logic to its natural conclusion, you just justified terrorism. Things like the "right to life" and "innocent until proven guilty" don't mean a rats tooshie, so I guess that means that when people die in bomb blasts, they weren't murdered and they weren't really innocent, either.so much for habeas corpus
Now you are arguing that because something exists, I should accept it. By that standard, one has no cause to criticise genocide, no cause to criticise terrorism, no cause to criticise anything, because they exist.
Just because something can happen doesn't make it right.
Still doesn't make it right.
Um. That's vastly different from imprisoning someone far away from the conflict zone and denying them the right to a trial for months on end.
Well, if we take your flawed logic to its natural conclusion, you just justified terrorism. Things like the "right to life" and "innocent until proven guilty" don't mean a rats tooshie, so I guess that means that when people die in bomb blasts, they weren't murdered and they weren't really innocent, either.
I never asked anyone to treat their enemies as citizens. I merely asked that basic human rights be observed. It is a reasonable request.
Irrelevant. People are making concious acts here, and they are bad choices, and I am justified in criticising those choices.
I want nothing of any protection that requires that the state subjugate people. It is a price too high; and in any case, it is possible for a state to protect its citizenry without resorting to inhuman and unjust means to do so.
I never defended Hamas' right to kill. No one has a right to kill. My arguments in that thread support only one premise : The fighting will go on until the basic human rights of the Palestinians are recognised and protected. Anything else is an incorrect inference on your part.
What *I* find ironic is that you argue that the state will inevitably abuse people, and that this is "acceptable", yet abuses that you find inconvenient, you will denounce - and if you see anyone whom you think even vaguely may be supporting those abuses, you will insult them verbally.
"He swings and.... Oooo, missed." Strike three.
Sign up with Google