Interesting Article

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

when it comes down to:

1 - the terrorist killing his victims with indiscriminate shooting and bombing.

2 - the potential to save lives in the usa

3 - someone screaming about the terrorists so called rights.

i have no qualms about some terrorist being squashed like a bug. if you're not man enough to do such, then step aside and let your betters handle the task.

Again without falling back on insults, point to anywhere in this thread where I have specifically advocated that terrorists should be defended from the due process of law?

This issue has two levels - philosophical and legislative.

Philosophically torture is immoral - as it is enshrined in the Universal Declaration.

Legislatively, the way in which the declaration is enshrined into law in most countries it is almost always illegal.

These are facts, quite apart from your personal opinions on what what "should" be done.

Edited May 3, 2006 by Fishdude

[Ban Hammer 13,332]

Unlawful combatants ? Are they no human ? Because if they are, they share the same basic rights:

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

typical liberal hogwash of thinking it's a perfect world.

the law of land warfare dates back hundreds of years. read about it. as they violate such and refuse to follow even one word of it, i say put them to the sword. being nice to them and surrounding them with protections like you speak of is a sign of weakness in their eyes. and they use such against us. answer this - if you were in their position, would you respect and fear us, or laugh at us? i know which one i'd be doing if i was them.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

BTW - Anyone who engages in acts of terrorism are, IMHO, not human!! So.. no human rights applies to them!

But your subjective, emotionally based opinion is not what is stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights!

[Ban Hammer 13,332]

when it comes down to:

1 - the terrorist killing his victims with indiscriminate shooting and bombing.

2 - the potential to save lives in the usa

3 - someone screaming about the terrorists so called rights.

i have no qualms about some terrorist being squashed like a bug. if you're not man enough to do such, then step aside and let your betters handle the task.

Again without falling back on insults, point to anywhere in this thread where I have specifically advocated that terrorists should be defended from the due process of law?

This issue has two levels - philosophical and legislative.

Philosophically torture is immoral - as it is enshrined in the Universal Declaration.

Legislatively, the way in which the declaration is enshrined into law in most countries it is almost always illegal.

These are facts, quite apart from your personal opinions on what what "should" be done.

you continue to live in ideals then. i'll continue to live in the real world

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

typical liberal hogwash of thinking it's a perfect world. the law of land warfare dates back hundreds of years. read about it. as they violate such and refuse to follow even one word of it, i say put them to the sword. being nice to them and surrounding them with protections like you speak of is a sign of weakness in their eyes. and they use such against us. answer this - if you were in their position, would you respect and fear us, or laugh at us? i know which one i'd be doing if i was them.

Hmmm... perhaps you would say the same if I took a big piss on the US Constitution... If human rights mean nothing, then clearly neither does the constitution.

you continue to live in ideals then. i'll continue to live in the real world

Again with the insults. How are you "living in the real world" by supporting a practice that is not only immoral but illegal?

Edited May 3, 2006 by Fishdude

[Ban Hammer 13,332]

Unlawful combatants ? Are they no human ? Because if they are, they share the same basic rights:

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

typical liberal hogwash of thinking it's a perfect world.

the law of land warfare dates back hundreds of years. read about it. as they violate such and refuse to follow even one word of it, i say put them to the sword. being nice to them and surrounding them with protections like you speak of is a sign of weakness in their eyes. and they use such against us. answer this - if you were in their position, would you respect and fear us, or laugh at us? i know which one i'd be doing if i was them.

Hmmm... perhaps you would say the same if I took a big piss on the US Constitution... If human rights mean nothing, then clearly neither does the constitution.

while you're busy ranting about this universal rights #######, i looked it up. here's part 1:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

yup, roadside bombings fit that i bet

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

while you're busy ranting about this universal rights #######, i looked it up. here's part 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

yup, roadside bombings fit that i bet

You didn't answer the question. How is supporting an immoral, more specifically ILLEGAL practice "living in the real world"

By the way, as I explained before - the Declaration is a philosophical statement, the practical applications of which come into play in how various countries have interpreted it and enshrined it into law. That's somewhat more relevant to your example, because in most cases road-side bombs and targetting civilian populations are illegal. As is the use of torture.

Edited May 3, 2006 by Fishdude

[Ban Hammer 13,332]

while you're busy ranting about this universal rights #######, i looked it up. here's part 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

yup, roadside bombings fit that i bet

You didn't answer the question. How is supporting an immoral, more specifically ILLEGAL practice "living in the real world"

you can continue to live in your fantasy world of rights and such all you want. i prefer to stay alive and if such means "violating the supposed rights of terrorists" so be it.

and btw..........

Q: Who are the signatories of the Declaration?

A: Since the Declaration is not legally binding technically, there are no signatories to the Declaration.

have a nice day

[tom&tata 2]

BTW - Anyone who engages in acts of terrorism are, IMHO, not human!! So.. no human rights applies to them!

But your subjective, emotionally based opinion is not what is stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights!

Agree.

Long time ago, people of coloured skin were denied their basic human rights - in US. Why ? Because some people had opinion that that they were not human. Is it the right thing ? BIG NO

[Ban Hammer 13,332]

BTW - Anyone who engages in acts of terrorism are, IMHO, not human!! So.. no human rights applies to them!

But your subjective, emotionally based opinion is not what is stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights!

Agree.

Long time ago, people of coloured skin were denied their basic human rights - in US. Why ? Because some people had opinion that that they were not human. Is it the right thing ? BIG NO

yes, such was wrong - as they were not out shooting and roadside bombing people. but apparently such is ok with you

[GaryC 7]

Hey Icyspots! I did warn you about the flame war! But it was a fun way to spend the night.

Fishdude, thank you for an engaging nights debate. You kept me awake on my midnight shift.

I have nothing aginsed your moral/legal stance on things, if we were dealing with people that could be reasoned with then you are absolutely right. But we are dealing with mad dogs that cannot be reasoned with. It is regrettable that we must sink to their level but that is the reality of things. I am going to bed now. If this thread is still open maybe we can debate some more.

No hard feelings? Just honest debate.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No the declaration in and of itself is not legally binding. BUT... I said quite clearly that the rights laws that are based on the philosophical tenets of the declaration are legally binding.

As I asked the other guy, how does standing up for human rights laws amount to "living in a fantasy world". I'm not the one advocating illegal activities.

Secondly, where is the proof that such torture yields useful results, or that it will help you "stay alive"?

As with the previous thread - when you are unable or unwilling to discuss specifics you prefer to rubbish the topic. Doesn't prove your point.

Hey Icyspots! I did warn you about the flame war! But it was a fun way to spend the night.

Fishdude, thank you for an engaging nights debate. You kept me awake on my midnight shift.

I have nothing aginsed your moral/legal stance on things, if we were dealing with people that could be reasoned with then you are absolutely right. But we are dealing with mad dogs that cannot be reasoned with. It is regrettable that we must sink to their level but that is the reality of things. I am going to bed now. If this thread is still open maybe we can debate some more.

No hard feelings? Just honest debate.

Honest debate, except noone seems prepared to accept the fact that a human rights constitution and the laws that various countries have passed as a result of it have any legal relevance.

Torture is still specifically legislatively illegal - that issue is fairly black and white, regardless of the moral philosophical argument.

[Ban Hammer 13,332]

No the declaration in and of itself is not legally binding. BUT... I said quite clearly that the rights laws that are based on the philosophical tenets of the declaration are legally binding.

As I asked the other guy, how does standing up for human rights laws amount to "living in a fantasy world". I'm not the one advocating illegal activities.

Secondly, where is the proof that such torture yields useful results, or that it will help you "stay alive"?

As with the previous thread - when you are unable or unwilling to discuss specifics you prefer to rubbish the topic. Doesn't prove your point.

proof this, proof that. you came up with this un ####### that has no force of law. go dig thru your archives and come up with something better.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

yes, such was wrong - as they were not out shooting and roadside bombing people. but apparently such is ok with you

Now noone has actually said or implied that...

[Ban Hammer 13,332]

yes, such was wrong - as they were not out shooting and roadside bombing people. but apparently such is ok with you

Now noone has actually said or implied that...

he or she tried to make the inference that terrorists are being denied their rights just as blacks once were. sorry you didn't understand such.