"Terrorists are Animals"

[manowar821]

Humans are animals...

 

[Moonbeam]

Of course they don't deserve to be treated as human. It's not a matter of what they deserve, it's a matter of us being human enough to show them we haven't become animals like they have. There is only one thing in life worth anything and that is personal integrity.

 

[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.

 

[feralkid]

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.

Stop wetting yourself. :disgust:

 

[Stoneburner]

KNowing indian judges, he was probably bribed to say this. I guess we know what Dick Cheney did with all his haliburton money

 

[Atreus21]

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.

Because we're the good guys.

We already have a method of depriving human rights. It's a fair trial.

 

[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.

 

[Deadtrees]

What's up with peole who don't understand humans are, in fact, animals.

 

[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.

 

[kylebisme]

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.

Exactly, doing anything but is letting the terrorists win.

 

[venkman]

When did Dubya become a judge in India? :Q

 

[ZzZGuy]

Does putting them in a small unit room with no windows for the rest of their lives (if guilty) count as torture?

 

[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.

 

[Whitecloak]

lulz. the source is not mentioned.

 

[NoShangriLa]

The judge just reaffirmed their traditional caste system that all. Not thing has change in the modern age, because untouchables are below the caste system but are now fall under the name Dalits.

 

[Jiggz]

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?

Hypothetical BS don't count. Try again!

 

[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.

 

[NoShangriLa]

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.

You are guilty and don't have the chance to proven your innocent.

 

[The Green Bean]

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.

I hope lighting strikes you and you die.

 

[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.

 

[Whitecloak]

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.

your personality is quite fascinating.

 

[0marTheZealot]

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.

No you don't understand, there is never a time to give up on society's laws. It can come to the point where everyone is a terrorist, and thus, guilty without a chance to prove themselves. This is what happened in Nazi Germany. People stood by and let certain segments of the population be treated far differently (eg Jews). However, eventually, anyone deemed an enemy of the state could be shipped off to Auschwitz with no trial. This is analogous to what is happening here.

 

[Double Trouble]

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.

First, you're assuming that in fact the choice we face is: compromise your core values and survive, or don't compromise and don't survive. There are more options.

 

[Caesar]

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?

There is no ruling. The judge said this at a seminar.

 

[QuantumPion]

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the Geneva convention state that, what we consider terrorists (e.g. un-uniformed, no command structure, targets civilians, hides behind civilians, etc) can and should be immediately shot when captured? The reasoning thus to discourage such activity?