Should Hate Be Outlawed?

[JC]

I am not making any judgement about it being okay to kill anyone. You made the judgement that it is worse to murder a person out of hate (presumably racially based hate) than it is to murder based on a different motive.

You are the one willing to make  the moral relativist call.

I am going to quote my position on this because I never said it was worse to kill someone for one reason over the other.  

You know what, I wasn't really going to get involved in this discussion but I just cant pass the bait up.


I can find many more sobering examples of Americas less than stellar record when it comes to the tyranny of the majority terrorizing a minority.  

Of course it changes nothing for the victim to have their killer prosecuted for a hate crime, what it does do though, is make a statement  that we as a society will not tolerate the dragging of an elderly black man behind a pickup truck for the crime of being black.  

Now, where do I make the moral judgment about the different motives regarding murder?

Again, my reason for saying that so-called hate crimes should be held in a worse regard is because of the history of institutionalized legalized abuse and dominance one race exacted over the other.  It is a statement that a group will NOT be terrorized (the same way it was only 40 years ago) for the color of their skin.  Hate crimes laws take into account the historical context of racism and homophobia in the US.  

[JC]

Well, you are entitled to your OPINION.  Crimes which have occurred in Iraq and AQ have been prosecuted by both American and AQ authorities.  The deaths of any human beings is regrettable, but if a nation or organization commits itself to battle, then the results will always be destroyed property and death on one side or the other.  I will always prefer that it be the other side myself.

LOL... Sorry, the "deaths of any human beings is regrettable" line is a little funny.  Tell me, did you express that sentiment after 9/11?

[JC]

Allright, if we agree that those two facts will stand, how do you propose to stop any deaths from occurring?

Well I am one person and I can only control my own actions.  I can tell you that this individual will not be participating in any illegal wars of choice, I would go to jail before I went to Iraq.  I cannot say that if my life or the lives of my family, or even a complete stranger were threatened I would not destroy the person doing the threatening, life is complex...  But I dont see Americans as better or more valuable than anyone else.  We are all here in this world together and we need to figure out how to get along.

[NotNow]

Yes, I regret that that attack happened.  Don't you?  I'm not sure what your point is though, comparing the intentional hijacking of civilian aircraft and suicide bombing two buildings full of civilians to military warfare makes no sense to me.  Perhaps you could explain that line of reasoning?  Are you proposing that this was a "military" strike and that the persons killed were "civilian casualties"?

[JC]

There isnt any point, JC.  The poster literally does not have the ability to separate the propaganda from the truth.

You are right...

[NotNow]

Allright, if we agree that those two facts will stand, how do you propose to stop any deaths from occurring?

Well I am one person and I can only control my own actions.  I can tell you that this individual will not be participating in any illegal wars of choice, I would go to jail before I went to Iraq.  I cannot say that if my life or the lives of my family, or even a complete stranger were threatened I would not destroy the person doing the threatening, life is complex...  But I dont see Americans as better or more valuable than anyone else.  We are all here in this world together and we need to figure out how to get along.

OK, if you have been discharged then you will never have to go anywhere.  If you are still enlisted then you should carry out your oath.  

You certainly have the right to protect yourself or others regardless of your opinions in this debate, and I hope that you never have to.

I also value all human life equally.  But I recognize that war is (at least for now) a reality in our lives, and that those that choose to serve their country and fight in these conflicts must understand that the lives of their comrades are necessary to complete the job and are more important to them than anything else, at least while involved in armed conflict.  In other words if we go in, we go in to win.

I would like to see world peace and sing Kum By Yah with everyone too.  Let me know when you have that scheduled.

[NotNow]

Well StephenDare!, suppose you enlighten me as to what is propaganda and what is truth? 

Wing Marine, I hope you know who you are saddling up to.

[JC]

Allright, if we agree that those two facts will stand, how do you propose to stop any deaths from occurring?

Well I am one person and I can only control my own actions.  I can tell you that this individual will not be participating in any illegal wars of choice, I would go to jail before I went to Iraq.  I cannot say that if my life or the lives of my family, or even a complete stranger were threatened I would not destroy the person doing the threatening, life is complex...  But I dont see Americans as better or more valuable than anyone else.  We are all here in this world together and we need to figure out how to get along.

OK, if you have been discharged then you will never have to go anywhere.  If you are still enlisted then you should carry out your oath.  

You certainly have the right to protect yourself or others regardless of your opinions in this debate, and I hope that you never have to.

I also value all human life equally.  But I recognize that war is (at least for now) a reality in our lives, and that those that choose to serve their country and fight in these conflicts must understand that the lives of their comrades are necessary to complete the job and are more important to them than anything else, at least while involved in armed conflict.  In other words if we go in, we go in to win.

I would like to see world peace and sing Kum By Yah with everyone too.  Let me know when you have that scheduled.

You do understand how ambiguous this oath is right?

I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States  against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States  and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.[1]

[JC]

Well StephenDare!, suppose you enlighten me as to what is propaganda and what is truth? 

Wing Marine, I hope you know who you are saddling up to.

LOL...

I am capable of forming my own opinions and standing by them or admitting when I am wrong.  I dont need to saddle up to anyone, Stephen and I just happen to have some parallel arguments on this and some other topics. 

[NotNow]

Seems pretty staightforward to me.  It means you do as you are ordered by the lawful COC.  If you feel an order is unlawful, take your chances with the courts.  It is the ARMED Services, which kind of infers fighting might come into play.  If you think that fighting is wrong, you can go CO or to the aforementioned courts.

[JC]

Seems pretty staightforward to me.  It means you do as you are ordered by the lawful COC.  If you feel an order is unlawful, take your chances with the courts.  It is the ARMED Services, which kind of infers fighting might come into play.  If you think that fighting is wrong, you can go CO or to the aforementioned courts.

Refer to article 92 of the UCMJ please.  Then if you can also draw a line between conventions signed by the US and tell me how they play into this, that would be great.

[NotNow]

892. ART. 92. FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION
Any person subject to this chapter who--
(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by any member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or
(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;
shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.


Again, if you feel that an order is "unlawful", then try the courts.  What you are lamenting, I suppose, is that our obligations to treaties has been upheld by the courts, and that service in the current theaters of operations has been determined to be legal.

[JC]

892. ART. 92. FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION
Any person subject to this chapter who--
(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by any member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or
(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;
shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.


Again, if you feel that an order is "unlawful", then try the courts.  What you are lamenting, I suppose, is that our obligations to treaties has been upheld by the courts, and that service in the current theaters of operations has been determined to be legal.

War of aggression
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A war of aggression is a military conflict waged without the justification of self-defense. Waging such a war of aggression is a war crime under the customary international law. It is generally agreed by scholars in international law that the military actions of the Nazi regime in World War II in its search for so-called "Lebensraum" are characteristic of a war of aggression.

Wars without international legality (e.g. not out of self-defense nor sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council) can be considered wars of aggression; however, this alone usually does not constitute the definition of a war of aggression[citation needed]; certain wars may be unlawful but not aggressive (a war to settle a boundary dispute where the initiator has a reasonable claim, and limited aims, is one example).

The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II, called the waging of aggressive war "essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."[1] Article 39 of the United Nations Charter provides that the UN Security Council shall determine the existence of any act of aggression and "shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security".

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court refers to the crime of aggression as one of the “most serious crimes of concern to the international community”, and provides that the crime falls within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). However, the Rome Statute stipulates that the ICC may not exercise its jurisdiction over the crime of aggression until such time as the states parties agree on a definition of the crime and set out the conditions under which it may be prosecuted.

[NotNow]

And what authority has callled the Iraq or Afghanistan conflict "illegal"?

[NotNow]

Have a good night JC, we both need some sleep.