Reply With Quote
Roosevelt knowing about the Japanese attack on pearl harbor days in advance.. Is the plot not an act of aggression by which a country could decide to launch a strike ?
Do you think self defense is only limited to retalliating after the fact?
I'm saying that until it's overturned, it's the jurisprudence that rules. You're secured in your property, period. Illegal trespassing doesn't extend to terrorist acts. If you think it does, I want to see the legal precedence there.
Roosevelt knowing about the Japanese attack on pearl harbor days in advance.. Is the plot not an act of aggression by which a country could decide to launch a strike ?
Do you think self defense is only limited to retalliating after the fact?
Plus, again, poor example. A person showing up with a crowbar and threatening you is providing all the information you need to know.
There's no use for torture there.
I'm not arguing law. I'm arguing morality. Law is not always moral. The law does not apply.
If we're arguing about the morality of gay marriage, law is not important in proving for it or against it.
No, the plot is a plot. The aggression happens when the aggressor actually commits the crime.
What are you suggesting? That we criminalize thoughts now?
How silly is this going to get?
Defense implies an attack. One doesn't exist without the other.
But there would be for a gun, I wasn't implying torture.
So you located Aq do ents revealing a terrorist cell plotting an act of terrorism, you capture one of the members.
That's all they information you need to know.
Maybe torture is not necessary and he will give up info, but if he doesn't, are you not part of National "Defense", and wouldn't it be right to torture for info?
How would you retalliate after you're dead?
Moral relativism varies depending on the individual. That's why we don't legislate morals and why we have a set of laws.
A society running on morals alone is a cluster .
Under El Nono's rules..
A naval blockade is not an act of aggression.
You'd have to starve first before you could retalliate since the intended consequence has yet to happen.
I'm not a moral relativist. I believe morality is based on the highest value which man's right to life, if i were to take another man's life senselessly i've contradicted my own claim to life.
In this case, terrorist caught in act of aggression, they are scheming against you and your loved one's life, you have the right to defend your right to life.
Whatever it is, you don't need to torture him to know anything about why he's there or what's he gonna do. The moment he set foot there he knew the consequences, and you were informed.
That's not true. You know there's a plot. Now you can use legal means of intelligence gathering to learn more about the plot.
You can keep on dismissing the legal side, but the reality is that we live in a society bound to the laws. It's not optional.
The guy you picked up might or might not know about the plot. He might even give you info so you stop torturing. Did torture work? No.
Did it advance or stop the plot? Not really. So, what did you exactly gain by torturing?
You don't have to die. You can defend yourself.
Not really. Another poor example.
It takes an action to form a naval blockade. You can act on that.
Under gtown's rules, alleged information that X country is plotting to deploy a naval blockade is grounds to attack that country.
Very similar to the failed intelligence about WMD in Iraq and the very poor "preemptive attack" doctrine.
That's fine, we also can overturn said laws if they're immoral. We're doing that for DADT.
You're evidence may not be complete enough to prevent it. If it was, I wouldn't advocate torture ofcourse, spare the argument.
The guy involved in the plot would know about details because he's involved in the plot. Are you just going to ask him politely?
Plotting is an action.
it involves resources and gathering of financing, men, and info.
It's not as if we read the perp's mind.
So you want to legislate morality and criminalize thoughts?
You don't think that's a slippery slope?
Why is preemption not self defense?
The israelis preemptively attacked arab nations in the six day war. Why would you condemn someone's right to self preservation.
Overturning DADT has grounds in the law, not morals.
You don't know that he knows. If you would, then you wouldn't need to torture him. You actually know jack other than whatever you found on these alleged papers in your scenario.
You can ask politely. You can try to bribe him. You can investigate his ties and connections. Heck, you might set him free so you can track him.
There's more to intelligence gathering than what you see on TV.
Legislate morality? What do you think laws against murder, rape, and assault are? Aren't those moral themes.
We've only been talking about morality that violates another being's rights. We're not talking about legislating personal risks.
And a plot is no longer a thought, it is an idea being put into action.
Because preemption is not found in fact, and it's a huge slippery slope.
Under the guise of preemption anybody can attack anybody over some alleged information. Case in point, Iraq and the alleged WMD.
What self-preservation was saved by invading Iraq under false pretenses?
This is an utterly ignorant argument. The bill of rights, was written under James Madison who wanted to protect Natural rights. Natural rights is a moral concept that says that man has rights which are inalienable and are based on his nature.
The intent of the law is to be grounded in moral principles for the benefit of a civil society.
Murder, Theft, etc are all moral themes. Law is not made in a vacuum.
Those are legal themes too. Courts don't rule on morality, they rule on law.
Same laws that criminalize torture.
Unless you actually start putting the idea into action, it's still a thought.
If you know for a fact any of these people went out there and bought materials to carry the plot, then you can charge them with that.
In your example, you described finding some papers. That's just a thought. Could be true, could be bull . Warrants an investigation, nothing more.
You're assuming that all preemptive attacks were not grounded in fact. History has proven you wrong. We knew about the attacks on pearl harbor. We could have launched a preventative strike and we would have been justified.
And what is the basis for law? is it not ethics and morality?
No, it's not. DADT goes against the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions