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 Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (7939)	12/26/2006 9:39:56 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15990

Just War theory Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy plato.stanford.edu To start a war 1. Just Cause 2. Right Intention 3. Proper authority and public declaration 4. Last Resort 5. Probability of Success 6. Proportionality Justice during war 1. Obey all international laws on weapons prohibition 2. Discrimination and Non-Combatant Immunity 3. Proportionality 4. Benevolent quarantine for prisoners of war 5. No (evil) Means 6. No reprisals Just termination of war 1. Proportionality and Publicity 2. Rights Vindication 3. Discrimination 4. Punishmen t#1: Leaders of defeated side (war crimes) fair and public trial 5. Punishment #2: Soldiers (war crimes) from all sides subject to trial. 6. Compensation: Financial restitution short of that needed for reconstruction. 7. Rehabilitation

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (7939)	12/26/2006 10:01:16 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15990

Sacrates... Apology... "...I should much rather choose to die, after having made this apology, than to live after that manner. For neither in a judicial process, nor in battle, is it proper that I or any other should devise how he may by any means avoid death; since in battle it is frequently evident that a man might easily avoid death by throwing away his arms, and suppliantly converting himself to his pursuers. There are also many other devices in other dangers, by which he who dares to do and say any thing may escape death. To fly from death however, O Athenians, is not difficult, but it is much more difficult to fly from depravity; for it runs swifter than death. And now I indeed, as being slow and old, am caught by the slower; but my accusers, as being skilful and swift, are caught by the swifter of these two, improbity. Now too, I indeed depart, condemned by you to death; but they being condemned by truth, depart to depravity and injustice. And I acquiesce in this decision, and they also. Perhaps, therefore, it is necessary that these things should subsist in this manner, and I think they subsist properly." prometheustrust.co.uk

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (7939)	12/26/2006 10:02:48 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15990

killing ... euthenasia Advocates of voluntary euthanasia contend that if a person (a) is suffering from a terminal illness; (b) is unlikely to benefit from the discovery of a cure for that illness during what remains of her life expectancy; (c) is, as a direct result of the illness, either suffering intolerable pain, or only has available a life that is unacceptably burdensome (because the illness has to be treated in ways that lead to her being unacceptably dependent on others or on technological means of life support); (d) has an enduring, voluntary and competent wish to die (or has, prior to losing the competence to do so, expressed a wish to die in the event that conditions (a)-(c) are satisfied); and (e) is unable without assistance to commit suicide, then there should be legal and medical provision to enable her to be allowed to die or assisted to die plato.stanford.edu

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (7939)	12/26/2006 10:38:40 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 15990

"...the killing of a human being by another human being for any reason." We can not even agree on a standard distinction between what is a human lump of organized flesh verses a person with negotiable rights who has full consciousness, a personally distinct identity, a memory, purpose and function, a viable brain, a soul. Is there no difference between defending oneself while under attack and decapitating a subdued hostage? Is there no difference between an act of euthanasia and killing those who fail to produce at supportive levels? Is there a difference between a fight to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide vs a terrorist attack. Is it wrong to use deadly force to stop greed driven heinous crimes of rape and slaughter. Each situation bares its own unique struggle and tests our resolve to stand on principle. Certainly there is a known wrongness in any lust for blood, written across our hearts. Yet justice and mercy in our dealings with circumstance call upon us to consider what may be lost by simply condemning with one broad stroke all killings.

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (7939)	12/27/2006 10:17:56 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 15990

Give me the name of any philosopher or philosophy that advocates and or teaches the killing of a human being by another human being for any reason. There are quite a few, but first I'd ask, why? If there was zero or a million why would it matter?

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (7939)	12/29/2006 2:29:56 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 15990

Today or tomorrow Saddam Hussein will likely be hung by the neck until dead. It seems we are once again at an opportune point of debate with regards to capital punishment. Putting aside for a moment the fact that hanging is a particularly gruesome form of death by punishment, we should consider the conventions of wisdom that would authorise such a thing. The biggest problem with discussions on this topic come behind that word ‘Penalty’ or 'Punishment'. The fact is ‘death’ is a consequence of life and need not be termed a penalty except when exacted purely as a non-self defense punishment on another person. If I had my druthers, I’d rather we look at the role of the Justice system in dealing with criminal conduct. That is, to find and implement resolute judgments, which is not necessary always a penalty to the perp as much as it is a societal remedy. However, we seem to be stuck with the ‘Penalty’ terminology, so that is where we center our discourse on the topic. Death as a Penalty for one’s conduct carries with it certain connotations: Revenge, Vendetta, pay back, Cruel Unusual, Degrading Punishment, giving up, imperfect trial system carrying the risk of the unjust killing someone wrongfully convicted, lacks the element of mercy that lifts human beings to noble status. Pro: Whether you give someone a long life sentence which extends to decades of prison life followed by death in prison, or set a specific date for their death, you are determining the nature of their death circumstance. So, in that sense death is an element of the punitive consequence handed to all perpetrators of heinous crime. There is no way to reconcile heinous criminality for the victims or with society at large. Forgiveness and mercy is a resolute determination that is so entangled with the personal elements of heinous crime that no management of the perpetrator of a heinous crime can satisfy these issues. Therefore, it is no more just to say the death penalty lacks mercy and forgiveness than it is to say that withholding death as a consequence is merciful and forgiving. There are certain crimes that rise to the heinous category for which we have no just and resolute remedy. For example, lifers have been known to continue heinous conduct even while incarcerated, or to establish some alternative form of unwholesome deviancy within the culture of incarceration. I am left very uncomfortable with the fact that the urgency of carrying out his sentence, by some, is promulgated by a lust for vengeance. That doesn't have to be the case for this event to be justified. The questions I leave you with are: 1) Is killing Saddam a resolution to the societal crimes and crimes against humanity he has committed, and to his continued problematic presence? 2) Are there any alternatives that could offer an equally resolute and just determination?