Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Trump's snuff movie
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
Wyot |
Rich wrote:
Wyot, you either hold the principle that ALL people should face due process if they committed a crime or not. The size of that crime should be completely irrelevant to that base principle, otherwise you are in Groucho Marx one liner quote territory of - "Those are my principles and if you don't like them, well I have others", and in this case you are now admitting that due process does not have to apply to all crimes and some people can just be killed on the spot when found because that crime was on a vast scale.
The question is are your principles absolute or not? In your case they are not then. What about you Hedda?
(good discussion point this - don't take it too personally!)
Not taken personally at all Rich; and I too find it an interesting subject. However, I insist we slow down sir.
You make a bold opening statement:
"Wyot, you either hold the principle that ALL people should face due process if they committed a crime or not".
Do I? On what basis do you establish that a principle I hold must lead to the same outcome (due process) in ALL situations?
First, what is a principle?
"A Principle may relate to a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of beliefs or behavior or a chain of reasoning.[2] They provide a guide for behavior or evaluation.[2] (Wikipedia)
A guide is not objective. It requires evaluation. Principles arise from values and lead to behaviour arrived at through a process of evaluation.
My value is that human beings are entitled to due process and respect for the sanctity of their life. This leads to the principle that extra judicial killings of alleged drug runners - or other alleged criminals - is wrong.
But as my principle provides a guide to reasoning it does not lead - or have to lead - to uniformity of outcome when applied to varying situations.
I have given my reasoning for departure in Bin Laden's case already above, so won't repeat it again here.
At the outset of this discussion point, so far as I am concerned and respectfully intended, you have some work to do Rich.
Specifically, why in all circumstances you believe principles must lead to exactly the same outcome in the one applying the principle to varying situations?
Another value of mine is that it is wrong to use violence and hurt people. However, were I to have an opportunity to use violence against a man on the tube who has started stabbing people, I like to think that my principle of non-violence leading mostly to non violent behaviours, would here lead to a different outcome.
|
|
Rich |
Wyot, you either hold the principle that ALL people should face due process if they committed a crime or not. The size of that crime should be completely irrelevant to that base principle, otherwise you are in Groucho Marx one liner quote territory of - "Those are my principles and if you don't like them, well I have others", and in this case you are now admitting that due process does not have to apply to all crimes and some people can just be killed on the spot when found because that crime was on a vast scale.
The question is are your principles absolute or not? In your case they are not then. What about you Hedda?
(good discussion point this - don't take it too personally!) |
|
Wyot |
Rich wrote:
So not quite as principled as you first suggested are you.
You admit a crime can be bad enough to justify no legal process but just instant summary execution even if the culprit could have been apprehended and brought into custody alive to face charges, trial, conviction and prison/death sentence.
I wonder if Hedda or DSC agree? If you are highly principled on this issue you cannot have it both ways.
I can't have what both ways?
I disagree on principle that alleged drug runners can be justifiably murdered extra judicially. I would apply the same principal to shoplifters, jay walkers or alleged murders.
I said to compare a drug runner to Bin Laden is absurd because of the scale of harm difference, which may justify a different response.
I agree I can't have it both ways if I categorise Bin Laden and the alleged drug runner together, and thenapply different principals to them.
But it is you who categorise them together not me; and then apply the same principal to them: that they can be legitimately killed extra judicially.
I don't accept that Bin Laden adds anything either way to the debate on Trump's actions.
Sorry but I think bringing him into it is just disingenuous sophistry. |
|
hedda |
Very serious claims that this boat was not drug smugglers but just chosen at random.
It seems very odd a small motor launch would have 11 people on it with drugs attempting to make an almost impossible 1500 mile (not 1000 as I previously said) trip to the US.
This was in Venezuelan waters and is a war crime but the public is being softened up here...the USA fully intends to begin attacks in Venezuela on the pretext they are attacking an alleged Venezuelan drug trade.
They intend to take down the popularly elected Maduro (in elections Jimmy Carter said were fair) and install their own chosen "president".
Of course the oil wealth has nothing to do with it.
Odd that the US does not attack the Mexican or Colombian cartels. |
|
Green Man |
You are really going to open a can of worms by mentioning Bin Laden, Woyt. |
|
|
|
