manowar821
Diamond Member
- Mar 1, 2007
- 6,063
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Interesting point to discuss. I'm not saying this because I hate India or anything but I think it's a ridiculous ruling. A judge has no right to declare anyone less human than him.
NEW DELHI: A senior judge of the Supreme Court on Tuesday likened terrorists killing innocent people to "animals" and said they cannot be allowed
to take benefit of human rights.
"Those who violate the rights of society and have no respect for human rights cannot be a human," Justice Arijit Pasayat said at a seminar on terrorism here.
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
The judge is stating that people should be judged based on their actions.
If the terrorist does not respect human society, therefore why should they have the privileges/rights of such.
Perhaps you should take a look at the declaration of independence. As Thomas Jefferson so eloquently wrote, human rights are inalienable. They are inherent rights bestowed by our creator that cannot be given or taken away, under any circumstances.
That doesn't mean these criminal sickos should not be punished (including capital punishment if appropriate), just that a civilized society should recognize the human rights of every person, not just those that abide by the laws.
Laws should apply - society laws should not be used by those that refute society
IMO if we want to consider ourselves better than them we need to act better than them - whether they deserve it or not we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard.
But what if that's exactly what they want, for us to "act better than them"?
Who cares what they want?
And what if acting "better than them" will ultimately lead to our destruction?
It Won't.
What if the only way to mitigate the threat is to "stoop down to their level"?
It Isn't.
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
The judge is stating that people should be judged based on their actions.
If the terrorist does not respect human society, therefore why should they have the privileges/rights of such.
Originally posted by: Kadarin
My opinion is that everyone is entitled to due process, and everyone is entitled to basic human rights. If a sentence of death is handed down as a result of that due process, then it should be carried out in an appropriate manner as defined by the laws of the society in which the crime took place and the judicial process had been undertaken.
Originally posted by: nixium
Bad ruling. By declaring that terrorists have no human rights, an elected government is basically stooping to their levels.
What if the definition of terrorism is made flexible enough so that it can include anyone the government considers an enemy?
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Laws should apply - society laws should not be used by those that refute society
Society's laws should not be "used"? Society's laws apply to everyone, not just those that abide by them. So you're saying that a murderer is not entitled to a proper defense, that his attorney should not "use" the laws to try and get the best result of his client?
Equal treatment under the law for all is what separates civilized societies from other less evolved ones. You can't have one set of laws for some people, then another set of rules for those who you somehow categorize as "refuting society".
You are guilty and don't have the chance to proven your innocent.Originally posted by: Jiggz
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Laws should apply - society laws should not be used by those that refute society
Society's laws should not be "used"? Society's laws apply to everyone, not just those that abide by them. So you're saying that a murderer is not entitled to a proper defense, that his attorney should not "use" the laws to try and get the best result of his client?
Equal treatment under the law for all is what separates civilized societies from other less evolved ones. You can't have one set of laws for some people, then another set of rules for those who you somehow categorize as "refuting society".
I agree. However, there is a point when acting in "civility" has to give way to sensible and pragmatic solutions.
Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
Yep. For one, I'd like to see Muslim terrorists judged and punished by the rules of Sharia, Iran-style. No human rights groups, no appeals, no mercy. Just good old Islamic justice.
And that makes you better than them.... how exactly? In other words, you want to act just like they do, so you are in fact no better than that which you despise.
Green Bean, for once we agree.
I don't despise Muslims more than I despise a snake for biting me when I step on his territory. I only said I'd like to see them treated by their values, not ours. That's much more appropriate.
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Interesting point to discuss. I'm not saying this because I hate India or anything but I think it's a ridiculous ruling. A judge has no right to declare anyone less human than him.
NEW DELHI: A senior judge of the Supreme Court on Tuesday likened terrorists killing innocent people to "animals" and said they cannot be allowed
to take benefit of human rights.
"Those who violate the rights of society and have no respect for human rights cannot be a human," Justice Arijit Pasayat said at a seminar on terrorism here.
Of course they are human, but any human who is a danger to the innocent has forfeited their right to live.
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Interesting point to discuss. I'm not saying this because I hate India or anything but I think it's a ridiculous ruling. A judge has no right to declare anyone less human than him.
NEW DELHI: A senior judge of the Supreme Court on Tuesday likened terrorists killing innocent people to "animals" and said they cannot be allowed
to take benefit of human rights.
"Those who violate the rights of society and have no respect for human rights cannot be a human," Justice Arijit Pasayat said at a seminar on terrorism here.
Of course they are human, but any human who is a danger to the innocent has forfeited their right to live.
Yes I agree. But a human has certain rights and deserves to die with some dignity if capital punishment is given. All those that say they are like animals mean that they should be stripped naked, castrated, kept in a cage, fed animal fodder, raped, killed like animals... Anybody who says this is no better than terrorists.
Originally posted by: Jiggz
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Laws should apply - society laws should not be used by those that refute society
Society's laws should not be "used"? Society's laws apply to everyone, not just those that abide by them. So you're saying that a murderer is not entitled to a proper defense, that his attorney should not "use" the laws to try and get the best result of his client?
Equal treatment under the law for all is what separates civilized societies from other less evolved ones. You can't have one set of laws for some people, then another set of rules for those who you somehow categorize as "refuting society".
I agree. However, there is a point when acting in "civility" has to give way to sensible and pragmatic solutions.
Originally posted by: Xellos2099
Ok, here is something to consider. You are in a life or death situration, the only way for you to "live" is to get hand dirty and use underhand tactic, if not, you die for certain. Would you still choose to be "rightous to the end" but die or get dirty and survive.
The reason I ask this is that human nowsday have forgotten something VERY important. It is the survival instinct.
Originally posted by: Skoorb
It is a stupid ruling.
Originally posted by: Drift3r
That ruling and logic used by the Indian judge is beyond stupid because you'd have to define who is a terrorist and who is not a terrorist. Of course selecting terrorists from non-terrorists is a subjective and opinionated act. So I take it those who reject the rule of an oppressive government and fight back by picking up arms and attacking said government and its governmental insinuations are terrorists and thus deserve no human rights? I can pick out more then a few examples in history were terrorist then are considered heroes or funding fathers today.
Originally posted by: nixium
Bad ruling. By declaring that terrorists have no human rights, an elected government is basically stooping to their levels.
What if the definition of terrorism is made flexible enough so that it can include anyone the government considers an enemy?