Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (134589)	5/28/2004 2:22:24 AM
From: boris_a	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

There are times when the rule of law presents dilemmas of its own, The classic (Greek) dilemma is the conflict between law of state versus the law of nature. Example: Your son is a murder and you know it. Are you going to the police? In your concentration camp example, I can't see this kind of dilemma. Another dilemma might be: A crime can prevent a big crime. In you concentration camp example, there's no such dilemma to be seen. The big crime already happened. In Abu-Grahib we learned that torture didn't produce real results (as usual). So there's also no dilemma to be seen why MPs could have been motivated to torture a lot of innocent people. Back to you concentration camp example: Where's the dilemma? What would have been the problem if the GIs hadn't "lost it"? Can "lose it" be the source of a dilemma? "Losing it" doesn't seem to be a choice between two things like Scilla and Charybdis, as far as I understand it. There are times when the rule of law presents dilemmas of its own, and those in a position to act may have to resort to conscience. Again: where's the dilemma? Where's the line to cross? If it's up to every single individual to define where "the rule of law presents a dilemma for him" and when "to resort to conscience", you have in fact no rule of law.