Ahh, that's your word, not mine. I assume you mean and meant balance as a product of function.Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
Ahh, that's your word, not mine. I assume you mean and meant balance as a product of function.Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
"We are lovers of beauty without extravagance and of learning without loss of vigor." -Thucydides
"The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." -Thucydides
Why does unelected status warrant equal standing with an elected branch of government?Originally Posted by Keba
What inalienable right are you referring to?As to the Geneva Convention ... I cannot tell you what to do, but call upon the moral obligations inherent in a free world. You claim moral high ground. What ground is that when you do not even allow the basic inalienable human rights to those taken prisoner in a war without international consent.
A "moral high ground" argument would not require international consent. It would require moral high ground.
"We are lovers of beauty without extravagance and of learning without loss of vigor." -Thucydides
"The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." -Thucydides
I tried my best to explain in my post. In essence, they are above politics, and have the authority to curb the excess of the elected branches, should they act against the constitution or morality (yes, my country's laws allow that category, it's a failsafe in the event of an altered or even abolished consitution). Simply, they are meant to prevent a totalitarian regime.Originally Posted by Pindar
The right to a fair trial, to live, the usual stuff one can find accessable to any person, by the fact of their birth. Please note the use of fair trial, it is the basis of our modern, western society.Originally Posted by Pindar
I agree that 'moral high ground' does not require international consent, it would, however, require the agreement of other nations that a certain action was immoral, and that a move is justified. Please note, however, that I am not talking of invasions or anything else, the arguement is about the status of prisoners. The moral high ground I refer to is the one of the War on Terror, with which I, essentially, agree, but it is my belief that the US went about it the wrong way.
Ugh ... it seems that my brain is not properly working anymore, I'm unable to make a properly coherent post ... I'm off to bed.
I asked because you seemed to implicitely equal balance with stability. Function or stability do not necessarily imply balance. Some things require imbalance to function.Originally Posted by Pindar
Hmm, I don't really want to interfere with that part of the discussion, but you sound like what some people here call a "moral relativist".Regarding questions 2 & 3: law is fluid and subject to the polity that is its source. Some nations are more lawful, others not. To quote Bilbo Baggins: "It's a dangerous business going out your door. You step onto the road and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to" One should avoid lands whose legality they question.
Bookmarks