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.
"We should not talk about human rights violation of terrorists because terrorists are the people who kill innocent people with AK-47 and AK-56," he said, adding that "those who killed innocent people by no stretch of imagination are human beings. They are worth not more than animals."
Pasayat stressed the need for effective implementation of the new terror law and said that "investigators and prosecutors should be trained properly in this regard".
He said cases relating to terror attacks should be taken on priority basis as "it is the object of the Act".
Solicitor General G E Vahanvati while referring to the November 26 terror attacks in Mumbai said as a lawyer it would have been difficult for him to defend lone surviving terrorist Amir Ajmal Kasab.
"If I would have been asked to defend Kasab, probably I would have refused," Vahanvati, who hails from Mumbai, said.
The solicitor general said he could not defend a person against his conviction.
"If I go and defend a person against my conviction it would be unfair," he said.
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.
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.
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: 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.
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.
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
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.
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Laws should apply - society laws should not be used by those that refute society
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.
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: 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: JS80
But what if that's exactly what they want, for us to "act better than them"? And what if acting "better than them" will ultimately lead to our destruction? What if the only way to mitigate the threat is to "stoop down to their level"?
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.
"We should not talk about human rights violation of terrorists because terrorists are the people who kill innocent people with AK-47 and AK-56," he said, adding that "those who killed innocent people by no stretch of imagination are human beings. They are worth not more than animals."
Pasayat stressed the need for effective implementation of the new terror law and said that "investigators and prosecutors should be trained properly in this regard".
He said cases relating to terror attacks should be taken on priority basis as "it is the object of the Act".
Solicitor General G E Vahanvati while referring to the November 26 terror attacks in Mumbai said as a lawyer it would have been difficult for him to defend lone surviving terrorist Amir Ajmal Kasab.
"If I would have been asked to defend Kasab, probably I would have refused," Vahanvati, who hails from Mumbai, said.
The solicitor general said he could not defend a person against his conviction.
"If I go and defend a person against my conviction it would be unfair," he said.
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Originally posted by: JS80
But what if that's exactly what they want, for us to "act better than them"? And what if acting "better than them" will ultimately lead to our destruction? What if the only way to mitigate the threat is to "stoop down to their level"?
By "stooping down to their level", you've effectively been defeated already. If you need to give up your core values to protect your core values, then you've already lost. You can win and be effective while maintaining your core values, it's just more difficult.
Just because criminals don't act according to the law doesn't mean I want cops ignoring the law saying "I need to break the law to catch the bad guys since they don't follow the law". Working within the confines of the law is more difficult, but still has to be done for everyone's good.