posted
So do we only have to obey laws if there is force behind them? Or, to reverse it, we have a moral obligation to obey laws made by the physically powerful, regardless of content?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I realize it looks like I'm engaging in some kind of sneaky socraticism here, but I really don't have an answer I'm trying to lead everyone towards. Admittedly, I happen to think, personally, that obeying whomever owns the biggest gun is not adequate, but my discomfort with the idea doesn't make it wrong.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
quote:Or, to reverse it, we have a moral obligation to obey laws made by the physically powerful, regardless of content?
No, absolutely not. Such morals would be meaningless and of very little value.
Reminds me of a playground bully who is sheepishly followed *only* if nobody dares to stand up to him...
[ June 21, 2002, 04:41: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
EdipisReks
Ex-Member
posted
i believe that, by definition, only military personnel can commit "war" crimes. however, that does not stop a "non-combatant" who commits atrocities from being declared an "enemy of the state". i imagine that if osama is ever captured (and assuming that whoever captures him doesn't take justice into their own hands)he will be declared an enemy of the state. i don't know *exactly* what this would mean, but i'm sure that anyone declared an enemy of the state would not be accorded standard human rights.
in the case of the "dirty bomb" dirty bastard, i think that he should have been declared an enemy of the state instead of an enemy combatant, being that he is a US citizen and all. terrorism makes the blood boil, and in my heart i want to see osama punished in a visceral manner, but we can't allow the government to run all over the constitution in order to protect the nation. we should save the country, but we shouldn't destroy it in the process. if we break the morality and idealism that this country was built on we become no better than those we oppose.
I should also point out that the article Grocka linked to also had absolutely no bearing on the part of my post he quoted.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
FOT you really should learn to read a whole article not just the headlines.
"HELD AS �ENEMY COMBATANT� Padilla is being held in the Charleston Naval Weapons Station brig in Hanahan, S.C., as an �enemy combatant,� an unorthodox legal maneuver that allows U.S. officials to hold him indefinitely."
By your president declaring him an enemy combatant , he was in fact denied due process, so if the president can just say that this person cannot have due process then anyone can be denied these rights. Therefore you only have the illusion of due process.
-------------------- "and none of your usual boobery." M. Burns
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
A speedy trial has little to do with due process, which is defined as "a course of proceedings at law or carried out through agency rules or other devices that is in accordance with the law of the land." It means "fair" not "fast."
Which it IS, whether you're happy about it or not.
And I was talking about day-to-day activity, not during wartime. I don't believe there's whole lot of precedent supporting your assertion that the same rules of "speedy trial for prisoners" apply during wartime.
He's being CHARGED as an enemy combatant... whether he IS or not will, we assume, come out at his eventual trial.
I believe that once charged with a crime, unless it's something really minor, you stay in jail until trial. They may then sentence you to 'time served' and release you, assuming you're found guilty of something the penalty for which you would have served while waiting for trial.
[ June 22, 2002, 13:17: Message edited by: First of Two ]
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
EdipisReks
Ex-Member
posted
quote:Amendment VI: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial
seems to me that james madison and entourage did indeed think that fast was good . of couse, the whole purpose of the speedy trial is to prevent the government from simply holding people indefinitely, but generally the prosecution is given time to complete their case, unless a judge orders them to hurry it up.
IP: Logged
posted
Yes, yes, but it's also generally understood that speedy trials for enemy troops during wartime aren't a priority.
If you can show me a country wherein they ARE a priority (other than the drumhead "shoot 'em now, prisoners are inconvenient" variety of wartime trial), I'll take it back.
Otherwise the assertion stands.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
EdipisReks
Ex-Member
posted
quote:but it's also generally understood that speedy trials for enemy troops during wartime aren't a priority.
that may very well be true, but when we are dealing with a US civilian citizen, the right to a speedy and public trial must always be a priority.
IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
i gotta wait til frickin august for my court date! id love to get whacked on the wrists, pay a fine and start some community service now, but i gotta wait two months of worrying and swallowing bile that is going to make my ulcer have a new little brother to keep him company. speedy trial my ass!
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I think we can with only a moderate degree of flameboardishness say that, with the era of the New War, the concept of a "civilian" is dead, dead, dead.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
. of couse, the whole purpose of the speedy trial is to prevent the government from simply holding people indefinitely, but generally the prosecution is given time to complete their case, unless a judge orders them to hurry it up.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
