India to terrorists: Resistance is futile

[Jolt]

So do you think everybody has rights or do you exclude people like Hitler did?

I exclude people who have a gigantic responsability (Such as is leading a country with millions of living souls) and willingly (And pre-emptively, meaning without prior "provocation") deny such vital human rights (such as the right to live) to entire people's.

Few people would fall under such category, but yes, those people lost their rights in my eyes.

[Tribesman]

Ah but Jolt , how would you reach that judgement that people fall into that category ?
Would they perhaps have a right of a hearing and an appeal process or would it just be arbitary and on a whim ?

[Jolt]

Ah but Jolt , how would you reach that judgement that people fall into that category ?
Would they perhaps have a right of a hearing and an appeal process or would it just be arbitary and on a whim ?

My judgement? It's called facts. And there is a saying that goes something like this: "There are no arguments against facts."
6 years of premeditated constant assassination of innocent children and harmless people, and tons of documents with the official seal of the Reich, construction of gigantic grounds with the sole purpose of murdering people, with the obvious approval of the highest dignities of that country is more than enough for me to constitute as a fact, and not to be on a whim.

So it's ok, if that other people are threatening the very foundation that your nation is built on?

No, it's not ok. But 99% of the people (If not really more), were murdered without a just cause according to any sane person's standards.

[Ironside]

My judgement? It's called facts. And there is a saying that goes something like this: "There are no arguments against facts."
6 years of premeditated constant assassination of innocent children and harmless people, and tons of documents with the official seal of the Reich, construction of gigantic grounds with the sole purpose of murdering people, with the obvious approval of the highest dignities of that country is more than enough for me to constitute as a fact, and not to be on a whim.

So you determine that these are the facts through a fair trial or simular to determine that these facts aren't falsified, and then if the crimes, that this person is guilty of is too severe, you trow out his human rights and put him in a cell (or execute him), instead of convicting him and put him in a cell (or execute) him?

Facts have one big flaw. The people's perceptive of it is based on information. Information can be controlled. How do you determine that the information is free from manipulation?

No, it's not ok. But 99% of the people (If not really more), were murdered without a just cause according to any sane person's standards.

I was consider it as a more general case (although admittably formed to link with the holocaust), but to reformulate, at which point are the prior provocation enough?

[LittleGrizzly]

Yeah, ironside mostly got it down...

But i think what tribesman was originally saying was, even if these facts are well known and not disputed, lets use hitler as an example, who then is the person that decides if the crimes are too terrible to deserve a trial and the like... which is why he mentioned you, as there is no such abritrator and i don't think we should have one...

You have to trails and laws which give guidelines to punishment, not even this person is the worst in the world and the entire country hates him should you abondon law, what about the next person who is hated almost as universally ?

I hate to use the slippery slope but we should not abandon law/trail's/judges for anyone, because once you make one exception there will be others that people think deserve the same treatment, there can be no exceptions, no matter your crime you deserve a fair hearing!

[Jolt]

So you determine that these are the facts through a fair trial or simular to determine that these facts aren't falsified, and then if the crimes, that this person is guilty of is too severe, you trow out his human rights and put him in a cell (or execute him), instead of convicting him and put him in a cell (or execute) him?

Facts have one big flaw. The people's perceptive of it is based on information. Information can be controlled. How do you determine that the information is free from manipulation?

That's exactly why I told that only rare people get to go in the list where the facts alone can't really be manipulated. I'm not speaking about a murderer whose fact is that he killed some people but where his intentions are dubious (He could be from the Mafia, or the said people might have insulted his familly or whatever). I'm speaking about people whose actions are known to have been done with intention and the facts are that they murdered (Or ordered to murder) large numbers of people. Where is information control? Information control is impossible when you talk about an incident which killed so many people, and to which there are (still) a large number of witnesses. Noone can hide which were the intentions of the said people. Noone can manipulate that information (The same goes for Stalin's 30 year spree, and Mao's 50 year spree). People like those, who would think little of your very rights if you would so slightly importunate their ambitions, are people don't deserve rights in my opinion. Even a dog has more dignity than those people and if you put a dog down for attacking a person, they who murdered millions, are still defended as having to have rights. I respect that, but I don't agree with it, since the facts show that they murdered millions of ordinary, hard-working people, who had the simple fact of not agreeing with how things were done, were put to death, I believe that those people don't even deserve to be defended.

I was consider it as a more general case (although admittably formed to link with the holocaust), but to reformulate, at which point are the prior provocation enough?

That would depend per case, but attempts to subvert the state would be the most common case I would find where it is time to get hard on people perpreting the said act. Jews (For the German case) weren't trying to subvert the state, or anything similar to that.

But i think what tribesman was originally saying was, even if these facts are well known and not disputed, lets use hitler as an example, who then is the person that decides if the crimes are too terrible to deserve a trial and the like... which is why he mentioned you, as there is no such abritrator and i don't think we should have one...

You have to trails and laws which give guidelines to punishment, not even this person is the worst in the world and the entire country hates him should you abondon law, what about the next person who is hated almost as universally ?

I hate to use the slippery slope but we should not abandon law/trail's/judges for anyone, because once you make one exception there will be others that people think deserve the same treatment, there can be no exceptions, no matter your crime you deserve a fair hearing!

You would certainly be right were this normal cases and indeed in the overwhelming majority of the cases they need a fair trial. But to reply to you on about the guidelines to punishment, I would tell you it would be "Universal Common Sense and Human Rationale". If you would do a global referendum on what punishment should be given to Hitler, have you any doubt as to what the result would be?

Well you missed that entirely , in fact you undermine the entire arguement you put forward .
You see because having a trial is a right , having a chance to defend yourself at a trial is a right , being judged impartially on evidence presented and contested is a right , being punished in accordance with the law is a right ...but your arguement seems to skip all that with just a whimsical .....They have no rights .
You havn't really thought your position through have you

Eh? No, apparently you fail badly at understanding my point of view. You asked how would I reach that judgement, and I just said it. Before what those people do, to me, there is no defence. It's not "They have no rights", it's, putting it into a good Chinese phrase regarding the tyrant Dong Zhuo who also murdered anyone in his way like Mao and Stalin I read:

"His crimes fill the heavens and upset the Earth. Mankind would devour him had they the chance." Other than that, I've already replied to your question.

[Tribesman]

Eh? No, apparently you fail badly at understanding my point of view.

I understand your point of view perfectly , but you don't understand that it is nonsense .
It is the same view as those you condemn in case you hadn't noticed

That's exactly why I told that only rare people get to go in the list where the facts alone can't really be manipulated.

Facts can always be manipulated , that is why the world gives us the Maos and Stalins of history

[Jolt]

I understand your point of view perfectly , but you don't understand that it is nonsense.

Unfortunatly, if you think it's nonsense either lack understanding or you just don't want to understand.

It is the same view as those you condemn in case you hadn't noticed

Yes, you are absolutely correct. I too make purges left and right, start wars, build concentration camps, massacre thousands of civilians. Indeed it is.

Facts can always be manipulated , that is why the world gives us the Maos and Stalins of history

...? The world gives us Maos and Stalins because they are born, and they raise through power, and while they control the media, most of their own people knew they weren't exactly rulers who gave to teir own citizens. No matter how manipulated the facts are.

[Ironside]

That would depend per case, but attempts to subvert the state would be the most common case I would find where it is time to get hard on people perpreting the said act. Jews (For the German case) weren't trying to subvert the state, or anything similar to that.

So you prove your innocence thanks to help from another country post-mortem? I mean I've got this 200-pages file that you're a terrorist that have been working for years to bring in a nuke and kill millions of people. So why exactly would a scum like you get the right to defend yourself?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Because the facts that you would prove your innocence, is the same that would prove who is the ones that are guilty. But by denying the right of defence, you're giving more control of the information to the prosecutor. Sure, most of the truth might leak out, eventually...

You would certainly be right were this normal cases and indeed in the overwhelming majority of the cases they need a fair trial. But to reply to you on about the guidelines to punishment, I would tell you it would be "Universal Common Sense and Human Rationale". If you would do a global referendum on what punishment should be given to Hitler, have you any doubt as to what the result would be?

Ever heard of Alfred Dreyfus? A nice example of how "Universal Common Sense and Human Rationale" works.

Eh? No, apparently you fail badly at understanding my point of view. You asked how would I reach that judgement, and I just said it. Before what those people do, to me, there is no defence. It's not "They have no rights", it's, putting it into a good Chinese phrase regarding the tyrant Dong Zhuo who also murdered anyone in his way like Mao and Stalin I read:

"His crimes fill the heavens and upset the Earth. Mankind would devour him had they the chance." Other than that, I've already replied to your question.

And after a proper prosecution, he will.
It is not his right to defense that is needed to be protected, it's his right to be properly prosecuted (and a proper prosecution requires by definition a defense).

[Tribesman]

So you prove your innocence thanks to help from another country post-mortem?

Would that be like the post mortem on the Thai fishermen the Indian navy killed claiming they were Somali pirates ?

[Tribesman]

My judgement? It's called facts. And there is a saying that goes something like this: "There are no arguments against facts."

Well you missed that entirely , in fact you undermine the entire arguement you put forward .
You see because having a trial is a right , having a chance to defend yourself at a trial is a right , being judged impartially on evidence presented and contested is a right , being punished in accordance with the law is a right ...but your arguement seems to skip all that with just a whimsical .....They have no rights .
You havn't really thought your position through have you