Bush administration arrests former human shields. - Page 5

MrFun · September 22, 2003, 18:23

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker

You are not breaking a law by protesting against it! Where'd you get that idea?

You break a law by doing whatever it is the law says you can't do. For example, if abortions were illegal, and I got an abortion (unlikely, as I'm a guy, but you never know...

), that would be illegal. However, if I and a bunch of other people all held signs protesting for our right to an abortion, that would not be illegal, as I did not perform the prohibited action.

Sigh -- this would not be the first time miscommunication occured between two Apolytoners.

When MLK and his buddies protested against segregation laws by sitting in white sections, guess what laws they violated

.

.

.

.

.

segregation laws.

Kuciwalker · September 22, 2003, 18:26

That's different. They didn't have freedom of expression (and freedom to vote). Look at the Declaration of Independence. When you are denied freedom of expression and freedom of self-government (the right to vote), you have the inherent right to rebel.

Japher · September 22, 2003, 18:31

These people comitted Treason by aiding Saddam and should be made to become shields for the wall in front of a firing squad...

MrFun · September 22, 2003, 18:35

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
That's different. They didn't have freedom of expression (and freedom to vote). Look at the Declaration of Independence. When you are denied freedom of expression and freedom of self-government (the right to vote), you have the inherent right to rebel.

Damn it -- where is Imran when ya need help with legalese nonsense?

Segregation laws -- while repugnant to democracy and equality, were perfectly legal laws in the Southern and Northern states until after the Civil Rights movement abated.

So I don't see why it would be different -- even if those laws were unjust they were still laws.

Kuciwalker · September 22, 2003, 18:39

They are different because they violated fundamental human rights, which is above and beyond the Constitution.

MrFun · September 22, 2003, 18:41

But my point is that regardless of whether or not they violate human rights, the law IS the law in the technical, legal sense.

But yes -- those unjust laws certainly call for protest.

Kuciwalker · September 22, 2003, 18:48

You can protest. You cannot violate the law.

However, I think it is right to violate a law that violates your right to expression or self-government.

Japher · September 22, 2003, 18:50

Knowing violating a law because you disagree with it does not put you above it.

Protesting is not impeding an action. When that happens the law always steps in.

Verto · September 22, 2003, 18:55

Consulting with the Iraqi government to see where they should go to best hinder the progress of the US isn't a crime? Please.

MrFun · September 22, 2003, 18:58

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
You can protest. You cannot violate the law.

However, I think it is right to violate a law that violates your right to expression or self-government.

Yes -- can't you see that I'm agreeing with you that protesting unjust laws is justified?

Where we disagree it seems, is that I still say it is violating the law, even if that violation is justified.

Kuciwalker · September 22, 2003, 19:01

Protesting ANY law is justified.

However, violating the law is only justified if the law violates one of the two freedoms I mentioned.

oedo · September 22, 2003, 19:02

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
They are different because they violated fundamental human rights, which is above and beyond the Constitution.

a blacklist of countries, you´re not allowed to travel to actually violates fundamental human rights.
denying the right to get food and drink in order to survive in an indexed foreign country actually violates fundamental human rights.

and I still don´t know why exactly they will be accused for now. unauthorized traveling? buying food in Iraq in order to survive? or illegal commercial trades and investments? anyone who knows?

Kuciwalker · September 22, 2003, 19:10

Quote:

a blacklist of countries, you´re not allowed to travel to actually violates fundamental human rights.
denying the right to get food and drink in order to survive in an indexed foreign country actually violates fundamental human rights.

How? How does it violate your freedom of expression or right to self-government?

oedo · September 22, 2003, 19:32

Quote:

How? How does it violate your freedom of expression or right to self-government?

in this case it would violate my freedom to travel to Iraq anytime I like or need.
can you describe a more evident violation of freedom than a law that prohibits me from going or being somewhere and penalizing tresspassers with jailtime?

Kuciwalker · September 22, 2003, 19:41

Quote:

freedom to travel to Iraq anytime I like or need

Quote:

How does it violate your freedom of expression or right to self-government?

oedo · September 22, 2003, 19:48

is it my fault when my goverment defines natural acting like traveling as self-govenment? I just travel. there´s nothing wrong with it.

Ramo · September 22, 2003, 19:52

Your definition of "fundamental human right" seems awfully narrow and arbitrary. Would you mind pointing out why exactly freedoms of expression and self-government cover it completely?

Most people would regard the freedom of movement to be a fundamental human right. For instance, it's enshrined in the UN charter of human rights.

Kuciwalker · September 22, 2003, 19:53

Huh? What are you saying?

Some "right to travel to another country" is not part of your freedom of expression or self-government. Where'd you get that idea?

Kuciwalker · September 22, 2003, 19:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Ramo
Your definition of "fundamental human right" seems awfully narrow and arbitrary. Would you mind pointing out why exactly freedoms of expression and self-government cover it completely?

Most people would regard the freedom of movement to be a fundamental human right. For instance, it's enshrined in the UN charter of human rights.

I'm saying these are the ones that, if violated, you are justified in breaking the law. The reason is because they are the ones that ensure that you have a say in the law. For any other "right" that gets restricted, it is the will of the majority and democratic.

Ramo · September 22, 2003, 19:58

When MLK protested segregation, did he deserve to be locked up as equal protection under the law is covered under neither freedom of expression or self-government? What about when Gandhi made salt in defiance of British trade restrictions?

Kuciwalker · September 22, 2003, 19:59

Yes it is. Without equal protection, you don't have self-government. Plus, the law itself was unconstitutional

Ramo · September 22, 2003, 20:01

Quote:

I'm saying these are the ones that, if violated, you are justified in breaking the law. The reason is because they are the ones that ensure that you have a say in the law. For any other "right" that gets restricted, it is the will of the majority and democratic.

That doesn't make any sense. If a law restricts freedom of movement, it's the will of the majority and if it restricts freedom of speech it isn't? How does that work?

Kuciwalker · September 22, 2003, 20:02

If it restricts freedom of speech, then it makes the state undemocratic. And as you have every right to revolt in an undemocratic society...

Ramo · September 22, 2003, 20:04

Quote:

Yes it is. Without equal protection, you don't have self-government.

Yes you do. They aren't mutually exlusive.

Quote:

Plus, the law itself was unconstitutional

Not according to the courts (i.e. the entities that determine constitutionality) at the time. And the point is, it isn't covered under your "fundamental human rights."

Kuciwalker · September 22, 2003, 20:05

Quote:

Yes you do. They aren't mutually exlusive.

No they aren't. If you have self-government, you have as much say in the government as anyone else.

Quote:

Not according to the courts (i.e. the entities that determine constitutionality) at the time. And the point is, it isn't covered under your "fundamental human rights."

Quote:

I wasn't using that to support my side, I was just pointing out something.

Ramo · September 22, 2003, 20:06

Quote:

If it restricts freedom of speech, then it makes the state undemocratic. And as you have every right to revolt in an undemocratic society...

Why is freedom of speech a requirement of democracy, while freedom of movement is not? The freedom of movment is fundamental in democracy, as it guarantees the ability to escape from an oppressive state.

Kuciwalker · September 22, 2003, 20:07

If it is an oppressive state, then you have every right to revolt, as it is undemocratic.

oedo · September 22, 2003, 20:08

Ramo · September 22, 2003, 20:09

Quote:

No they aren't. If you have self-government, you have as much say in the government as anyone else.

Yes, but that doesn't mean you get the same benefits as everyone else. If I go to a segregated public university, that doesn't impair my right to vote.

Quote:

I wasn't using that to support my side, I was just pointing out something.

When you quote something, you are supposed to respond to it, not add an incorrect statement.

Kuciwalker · September 22, 2003, 20:11

Quote:

Yes, but that doesn't mean you get the same benefits as everyone else. If I go to a segregated public university, that doesn't impair my right to vote.

Ok then. So? Vote to make segregation illegal.