US Opts Out of World Court

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

If you had no idea of the future at that time and all you knew was Hitler was just a hotheaded jerk who hadn't yet done anything wrong, the justification evaporates, doesn't it?

Well, he did state that the killing is always unjustified.

And after Mein Kampf and the Nazi party taking power... well, you know.

And others that you could be sure of would amount to evil... OBL after the embassy bombings, for example.

So why aren't you out now looking for authors of right-wing propoganda to shoot?

[Imran Siddiqui]

But it would also be the only way to remove the state of international anarchy that he seems to abhor.

International anarchy has been much lessened since World War 2. It is very interesting. Now to finish it off.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So why aren't you out now looking for authors of right-wing propoganda to shoot?

If they could take power (as in the Presidency), I wouldn't blame anyone for killing them.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
International anarchy has been much lessened ... It is very interesting. Now to finish it off.

Which would be more easily accomplished with an army than a judicial body without any enforcement mechanism, would it not?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Which would be more easily accomplished with an army than a judicial body without any enforcement mechanism, would it not?

Both would be preferble.

[TCO]

My gut feel is that we are better off without this. Ther have been a lot of internationalist treaties which were feel good exercises for the little nationas but which would seriously hamper us. (Law of the Sea, Kyoto, etc.) We don't have anything to be ashamed of in terms of all the haevy lifiting we've done compared to Eurocoms in last 50 years of Cold War. In terms of standing up for freedom. no way we should let a bunch law professors and second rate aparatchiks make us feel bad about not playing along with their little schemes...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

So why aren't you out now looking for authors of right-wing propoganda to shoot?

If they could take power (as in the Presidency), I wouldn't blame anyone for killing them.

An appalling sentiment, IMO. I'm pretty darn liberal, but to justify the murder of someone based on their political views, no matter how repugnant, is a little frightening. That means you would have no problem with the guy shooting the Dutch politician today, right?

[Imran Siddiqui]

That means you would have no problem with the guy shooting the Dutch politician today, right?

He doesn't qualify as a someone who would get into power (ie, polls show 15% would be high).

However, a future Hitler, that gained the Chancellory and made no uncertain terms that he would abolish democracy and make Jews 2nd class? Why not kill him?

If Fortuyn became PM, I wouldn't blame some Muslim immigrant for killing him. I really wouldn't. Just like I wouldn't blame a black person for killing a member of the Klan who became governor of a state today.

Ther have been a lot of internationalist treaties which were feel good exercises for the little nationas but which would seriously hamper us. (Law of the Sea, Kyoto, etc.)

What's wrong with 'Law of the Sea'?

[KrazyHorse]

GP

a) Why should the rest of the world believe that you'll adequately police your own soldiers?

b) If we don't believe that you will, why shouldn't we be pissed that you're too high an mighty to ever contemplate letting someone else do it for you?

c) Obviously there's no question of forcing the US to do anything it doesn't want to, but at some point annoying the rest of the world has negative impact on the US...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

That means you would have no problem with the guy shooting the Dutch politician today, right?

He doesn't qualify as a someone who would get into power (ie, polls show 15% would be high).

However, a future Hitler, that gained the Chancellory and made no uncertain terms that he would abolish democracy and make Jews 2nd class? Why not kill him?

If Fortuyn became PM, I wouldn't blame some Muslim immigrant for killing him. I really wouldn't. Just like I wouldn't blame a black person for killing a member of the Klan who became governor of a state today.

What you're saying is that it is justifyable to kill someone because you disagree with their political views, not because they've actually done anything. How can you say that? What then makes it wrong for a right-winger to assassinate a leftist, since he disagrees with the idealogy?

Come on, you can't be serious in saying this stuff. That is absolutely anathema to the very notion of freedom of thought. You're saying it's ok to kill people for how they think.

[Imran Siddiqui]

What you're saying is that it is justifyable to kill someone because you disagree with their political views, not because they've actually done anything. How can you say that? What then makes it wrong for a right-winger to assassinate a leftist, since he disagrees with the idealogy?

It depends... to certain people it is justifiable to kill people who say they should be killed AND are in position of power. I said, I can sympathize.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

What's wrong with 'Law of the Sea'?

He is from Texas. The state where a legitimate defense is 'He needed killing'. The Law of the Sea is the only efective international law there is.

[David Floyd]

Imran, killing someone for their thoughts is truly wrong - that is one thing I would define as unjustified killing.

You are assuming that they would do things like kill Jews - so much for presumption of innocence.

And where do you draw the line? Is it permissable to shoot someone for wanting to deport all foreign nationals, or only wanting to kill them?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

It depends... to certain people it is justifiable to kill people who say they should be killed AND are in position of power. I said, I can sympathize.

And some people think it is justifiable to rape women who dress in skimpy outfits, so what? What does that person's sense of personal justice have going for it that trumps law?

And you said 1922 Hitler, remember. We're talking about a Hitler who had yet to do anything but write rotten things.

Oh, and Fortyun could have feasible been PM, if not this year, in the future. His party had just won the largest portion of the vote in Rotterdam, and they say his star was rising steadily. He certainly had more potential than Hitler could be seen to have in 1922.

[David Floyd]

I assume you wouldn't mind killing Reagan, then, by the way, based upon his "joke" that we'd be bombing the Soviets in "15 minutes", eh? Not only did he threaten to commit mass murder, but he also had the clear power to do it.

Yes, of course he would not really have done it - but how can you make the judgment that someone you don't like will?