It's not easy, running a gulag

[ajaxfetish]

No country in the world has ever ratified the UN declaration on human rights, as it doesn't need that. It is universal, and not only applies to every single state in the world, it also, and even more so, applies to EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING ON THE FACE OF THE PLANET. You may argue that US law says otherwise, however, those in gitmo will still have the protection of the human rights. It's quite simply untouchable. It cannot be altered, it cannot be broken. Not in any case whatsoever.

That is a very, very strong claim. Are you willing to stand behind it? Every single state, every single human being, untouchable, unalterable, period. Where does this declaration get such immense weight behind it that it can never be changed by any body ever, including the body that penned it? Is it a perfect document? What is its claim to universal authority through not only space, but also time? This sounds like the kind of faith placed in religious convictions, not those of secular humanism and law.

Also, you seem to only argue on the legal issue,

That's because he is a lawyer. He asked you specifically if you were making a legal argument to determine whether he should argue with you on legal grounds. You refused to answer the question but continued to argue in a legal fashion, so he responded in kind. If you change your argument from a legal one to something else, such as DC's moral argument, then you may be able to make some headway, but arguing Law with Pindar is like arguing astrophysics with Hawking. You're going to have a hard time coming out on top.

Ajax

[Pindar]

That's because he is a lawyer. He asked you specifically if you were making a legal argument to determine whether he should argue with you on legal grounds. You refused to answer the question but continued to argue in a legal fashion, so he responded in kind.

Quite so.

[Don Corleone]

I think HoreTore is right, a human right should just be 'declared'. I would like to officially go on record as declaring my universal human right to replace our current office administrator with Liv Tyler.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I guess the self-evident truth that all men are endowed with certain unalienable rights is lost on teh Americans.


@Pindar and Soulforged. You two are responding with legal arguments to HoreTore. Or dare I say, legalistic. He initially did present his case as a legal argument, while failing to come up with a legal argument. But he changed to the sphere of legal philosophy in his last post. If you two tireless legal positivists are Hart, he is now Dworkin, if I remember them right.
HT's latest position can not be dismissed anymore by your repeating that the UDoHR carries no direct legal status. That would suffice in a court of law, but he is now arguing from a natural law position that no legal position that goes against the UDoHR carries, or rather, should carry, legal status.
I for one wouldn't mind hearing a legal philosophical rebuttal from either of you two (former) law students that says he's wrong in this.
It has no direct bearing on the current topic. Gitmo is tiresome and I don't feel like getting into it.

[HoreTore]

I guess the self-evident truth that all men are endowed with certain unalienable rights is lost on teh Americans.

Quite so.... Along with world governments and such things...

[Soulforged]

If you two tireless legal positivists are Hart, he is now Dworkin, if I remember them right.

Both are philosophers of Law. But if he were indeed a Dworkin he still has no need of the international law.

HT's latest position can not be dismissed anymore by your repeating that the UDoHR carries no direct legal status. That would suffice in a court of law, but he is now arguing from a natural law position that no legal position that goes against the UDoHR carries, or rather, should carry, legal status.

But this is incorrect Louis. It's not because of the UDoHR that we can argue about contradictions, it's because we've certain moral principles, with or without such Declaration. However Hore clearly wants the Declaration to create a legal obligation. And even if all were right, I don't know why you don't consider it to be an attempt of legal arguement.

I for one wouldn't mind hearing a legal philosophical rebuttal from either of you two (former) law students that says he's wrong in this.

EDIT: Philosophically speaking it's incorrect to confuse moral with Law. While there's such a thing as objective Law there's only an objective morality in form of hipotesys and it's not appiable to every time and space on the same form. Both have different origins and don't necessarily affect each other. This doesn't make any moral critique implausible, but it certainly does when the question is: "Wich precepts have been violated?", for this we have to return to the definition of Law. The philosophy of Natural Law tries to apply a moral requirement to law, wich has nothing to do with its definition, and confuses things even more. If we have the Law defined then we can make a plausible arguement against or in favor of the subject at hand, and we can answer that question easily. Anyway if we really don't want to return to the principle of all this discussion and you're looking only for an answer to that question, first I'll say that HoreTore is indeed attempting a legal arguement, second the only coherent answer to Pindar question is a legal arguement, and third even if I failed on both previous accounts HoreTore fails to see the difference between moral and Law for the reasons exposed.

I guess the self-evident truth that all men are endowed with certain unalienable rights is lost on teh Americans.

I disagree there's no such self-evident truth, and the americans are one of the best protecting this human rights. It will be nice if they did ratified some convention on human rights to have an insurance above their Constitution and a resource above their national organs, but it seems that they don't really need that.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The Declaration of Human Rights (DHR) out of the U.N. is a piece of rhetoric. It cannot be taken for more given the legal standing of the U.N. and the moral absurdity that confronts the U.N.

a natural law position that no legal position that goes against the DHR carries, or rather, should carry, legal status.

But this is incorrect Louis. It's not because of the UDoHR that we can argue about contradictions, it's because we've certain moral principles, with or without such Declaration. However Hore clearly wants the Declaration to create a legal obligation. And even if all were right, I don't know why you don't consider it to be an attempt of legal arguement.

I did consider it an attempt at a legal argument, but I wasn't interested in that argument itself, nor Gitmo or anything.

No, what struck me was the ease with which you and Pindar brushed aside the universality of certain human rights, the very concept of it, and your legalistic view of the law. Within the scope of the current argument that the DHR carries no legal status, I can see what you are arguing, and why.

But in general, would you not accept that positive law is not, nor should be, the final word in legality? (Christ, I really need to brush up on my legal jargon)
It is my understanding that law students here, judges in particular, get taught that morality must override the law in cases of gross immorality. For example, the next time somebody issues immoral racial or genocidal laws again, judges are expected not to sanction them in court again.

Sorry for lumping the two of you together btw.

[Husar]

But in general, would you not accept that positive law is not, nor should be, the final word in legality? (Christ, I really need to brush up on my legal jargon)
It is my understanding that law students here, judges in particular, get taught that morality must override the law in cases of gross immorality. For example, the next time somebody issues immoral racial or genocidal laws again, judges are expected not to sanction them in court again.

That sounds very healthy to me.

Isn't that the reason why many countries have something like SCOTUS (Bundesverfassungsgericht/Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, I think is the equivalent here) to see whether a new law is constitutional and possibly moral?
I'm really just asking, my legal jargon, unlike yours, is almost nonexistant so please bear with me.

The way I see it, since these judges decide about laws, they cannot always apply laws, but have to use morals and what I'd call wisdom for their decisions. Whether they succeed in that or not is another matter, however.

[Soulforged]

No, what struck me was the ease with which you and Pindar brushed aside the universality of certain human rights, the very concept of it, and your legalistic view of the law. Within the scope of the current argument that the DHR carries no legal status, I can see what you are arguing, and why.

I've to leave something very clear, I'm all about human rights. Between those human rights (politic rights) there's one called the right to self-determination, this is at the center of the UN spirit, and it doesn't matter how contrived it might seem, the americans have decided that none of the Conventions should be ratified, and on this situation I cannot argue more than from a moral point of view, from that moral point of view I see this detention centers as aberrations, but it's an american aberration only...

But in general, would you not accept that positive law is not, nor should be, the final word in legality? (Christ, I really need to brush up on my legal jargon)
It is my understanding that law students here, judges in particular, get taught that morality must override the law in cases of gross immorality. For example, the next time somebody issues immoral racial or genocidal laws again, judges are expected not to sanction them in court again.

Judges must return, at least in my legal system, to moral principles only as ultima ratio, there's a lot that they've to observe first in order to reach that point. This is simply because every case has to reach a resolution. My opinion is that that shouldn't change, processes and forms should be respected in principle everytime because outside them there's chaos, and this rule should be observed with more care as we escalate on the importance of the position and the decision. There's a process that we can access in my country outside our legal limits, wich is the international process for human rights. As I said this has to be put on context as the US has not accepted such process before the corresponding organs, though I'm of the opinion that they should have done it. What you said is very important Louis, and if now we have certain moral rules introduced in the rigid and sometimes injust structure of law is because of the estimuli of the philosophy of Natural Law. But this same philosophy confuses doctrine with identification too much for the good of its own coherence. There's no need to accept the premises of Natural Law to gain its advantages.

[HoreTore]

Well, I didn't get the lawyer-thingy, I'm not making a legal argument, I couldn't care less about that. You are not technically bound to follow it, but if you intend to make the world livable, you are bound to follow it. And isn't that what the bush administration is claiming to do? Civilized countries have chosen to put the human rights court above their own laws, and I hope the US will follow our example. The HR were created to avoid the atrocities of ww2 to happen again. For that to happen, it will first need recognition, which it has. Second, it will need authority, which it only has in a few places in the world.

And no, a charge doesn't have to mean criminal charge. Take a look at the cases in the human rights court, and you'll see that the definitions of that document are extremely broad catch-all phrases. Also, listen to what human rights organizations are saying about guantanamo. Not a single one of them claim that the prisoners aren't protected by the human rights, or that their rights are not broken.

The HR were created by basically the entire world. It's not like a few people sat down and decided something. And it's special in the case of the US, since they figured heavily in the making of them. If what you claim is correct, then the document is basically completely worthless. Why then do we have a human rights court, and trials where states are punished and they follow the verdict to the letter? So I'll ask you, do you think the document is a waste of paperwork, or is it a good foundation for a civilized society?

As for Ajaxfetish' comment, I fully stand by that claim, except that a new one can replace it, though that should happen in the same context that it was created.

[Pindar]

I think HoreTore is right, a human right should just be 'declared'. I would like to officially go on record as declaring my universal human right to replace our current office administrator with Liv Tyler.

This will tie in to the other human right to have all governments run by young nubile women under 25.

[Pindar]

I guess the self-evident truth that all men are endowed with certain unalienable rights is lost on teh Americans.

No, it's just some of us understand the theoretical underpinnings of unalienable rights claims.

@Pindar and Soulforged. You two are responding with legal arguments to HoreTore. Or dare I say, legalistic. He initially did present his case as a legal argument, while failing to come up with a legal argument. But he changed to the sphere of legal philosophy in his last post. If you two tireless legal positivists are Hart, he is now Dworkin, if I remember them right.
HT's latest position can not be dismissed anymore by your repeating that the UDoHR carries no direct legal status. That would suffice in a court of law, but he is now arguing from a natural law position that no legal position that goes against the UDoHR carries, or rather, should carry, legal status.

Our good HoreTore has not made any appeal to natural law. He has simply made assertions. This will not do. I will not do the thinking for my interlocutor.

Note: Dworkin is far far away from any natural law posture.

I for one wouldn't mind hearing a legal philosophical rebuttal from either of you two (former) law students that says he's wrong in this.

I'm always happy to respond to arguments when they are presented. I can't give rebuttal to an argument that doesn't exist.

[Pindar]

Well, I didn't get the lawyer-thingy, I'm not making a legal argument, I couldn't care less about that. You are not technically bound to follow it, but if you intend to make the world livable, you are bound to follow it. And isn't that what the bush administration is claiming to do? Civilized countries have chosen to put the human rights court above their own laws, and I hope the US will follow our example. The HR were created to avoid the atrocities of ww2 to happen again. For that to happen, it will first need recognition, which it has. Second, it will need authority, which it only has in a few places in the world.

I assume HR is Human Rights. HR predates WWII.

And no, a charge doesn't have to mean criminal charge.

If charge has any referent to legal discourse then yes, it does. If charge has no tie to legal discourse then I assume there isn't meant to be any attending procedure to what you cited. If that is the case then the phraseology is vacuous.

The HR were created by basically the entire world. It's not like a few people sat down and decided something. And it's special in the case of the US, since they figured heavily in the making of them. If what you claim is correct, then the document is basically completely worthless. Why then do we have a human rights court, and trials where states are punished and they follow the verdict to the letter? So I'll ask you, do you think the document is a waste of paperwork, or is it a good foundation for a civilized society?

The Declaration of Human Rights (DHR) out of the U.N. is a piece of rhetoric. It cannot be taken for more given the legal standing of the U.N. and the moral absurdity that confronts the U.N.

As to the content of the DHR: by and large I think its good stuff. I'm not sure how you'll tie that to the larger argument about habeas corpus which is the focus.

[Boyar Son]

Dude, in brazil one of my cousins got a hold of a video showing a terrorist beheading someone then putting his head on his corpse.

I guess someone shouldve told that terrorist that guy had uneliable (sp?) rights...

[HoreTore]

Of all things I never expected to hear in life, hearing somebody say they don't think the UN human rights charter is important/matters is probably the top one. In europe, it is above the national law, in the US, people don't even think it's important...

Slowly, I'm beginning to see why Bush got elected.