sebbysteiny Posted July 22, 2006 Report Share Posted July 22, 2006 Your last two posts about statistics and logical postulates were erm, interesting. I can't for the life of me figure out where they contribute to the GB debate. Also, if you get 30% false positives, you only get 30% false positives. No more. If you conclude otherwise perhaps you should recheck your statistics. My point is not a complicated one. 'Beyond reasonable doubt' (about 95%) should not apply to terrorism because the rewards of not imprisoning innocent people do not outway the cost (letting terrorists commit mass murder) as they do in normal criminal cases. Instead 'very likely' should be applied (about 70%). Until this and other laws about evidence changes, there will always be a strong moral case for a place like GB. The postulate is incorrect, or at least incomplete. People do not unequivocally deserve to live.Again not correct. People do not always get what they 'deserve' if others deserve it more. Problems arise when two people deserve conflicting things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michaelangelica Posted July 24, 2006 Report Share Posted July 24, 2006 Thusfar, nobody has disagreed with the points. I have This is an emotional issue. It is not scienceIf you don't like that then you have to simply say you disagree with the point and why and if it amounts to a genunie disagreement then I will ammend the point. I have; and you haven't My first argument that all Michaelangelica said in response to my point no 3 was that she didn't know either way and so couldn't agree. However she also could not disagree. So we moved onto asking her if she genuinely believed dangerous people were not in GB. If there were, then logically people must be safer. I find it very unlikely that anybody will disagree with that, and she hasn't yet.You wear me down like water dripping on a rock. Because I can't know something does not mean by any measure of logic that i agree with it??You can't know the opposite either!What evidence i do have is that one Australian has been banged up illegally. So logically it follows that there may be others too.Amnesty is not impressed with "Extraordinary Rendition" Kidnapping people and flying them to god-knows-where;hardly the actions of a democratic system, sorry liberal democratic system that boasts its Human Rights record.I am not saying the Australian government is a lot better. Here we lock up children who's only crime is to be with their parents when they arrive (unannounced) here. dangerous men are probably in GB but GB may have other influences which could create a greater harm'. Eg It might be worth releasing dangerous men to wing the battle for world opinion. This is what I meant byI believe the most dangerous little men to our way of life live in a big white house in Washington and another little man on the banks of Sydney harbour TheFaithfulStone 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michaelangelica Posted July 24, 2006 Report Share Posted July 24, 2006 Quote:Originally Posted by TheFaithfulStoneWe don't need this "evidence" because we're busy trying to make you safer from terrorism. If we could just kidnap you, take you Afghanistan for a few years and maybe do a little bit of torturing we think that might help us catch a real terrorist! Do you have any family of friends? We might want to talk to them to. And no talking to the press, or to any lawyers, they just complicate matters! What you say is very scary and quite shocking. But surely you must admit that to descibe GB as that is a gross misrepresentation. GB inmates, according to Government officials, must have some real evidence to be held, and there is no evidence the American Government have breached this. I'm sorry This is just not true. Do you beleive everthing the White-House spindoctors produce? Access to lawyers is not denied in GB and friends and relatives of inmates have never been ceased unless there is fresh evidence of direct involvement in terror. I would hope the "relatives of inmates have never been ceased" that would be murder.:) They do have extremely restricted access though So just because one or two rights for GB inmates have been partially denied, it does not follow that all of the hundreds of other rights for GB inmates have been denied in full. You don't know this; and won't be told for 50 years possible for one person to have one opinion that is good and another that is bad. Yes it is again it is not science It is all very subjectiveOriginally Posted by Me (hoping to find consensus) Quote:Originally Posted by MichaelangelicaI don't agree with 3.We can't know this because we don't know what is happening because the law is being brokenFirstly, you can't deny it. You argue you cannot know one way or the other.Nor can you prove it so where does that leave us. Waiting 50 years for documents to be de-classified so we can learn the truth as we have to our horror in the past? now agree with 5?NoQuote:Quote:Originally Posted by MeThe difficulty with human rights as a moral tool is applying them in any given situation.No its not, you apply them in all situations and protect them like hell Morally, human rights can be deprived if more important considerations come along.Who decides you or Pol Pot?Quote:Originally Posted by MichaelangelicaSo the end justifies the means?What means? Human rights can and must be overrided by other considerations or one gets morally rediculous solutions. no they can't they must be given 1st priority in a 'Liberal' Democracy Quote:Originally Posted by MichaelangelicaHow can you know there is "a threat to national security" from these people if everything is done in secret, due process it not observed and access to the prisoners is non existent. (Especially the 500 who are detained in places we don't know about.)This is not an argument but an yes it is an argument "a threat to national security" can be anything I or you or anyone else wants it to be. maybe this discussion on Hypography is a "a threat to national security"This is also called 'shifting the frame' and it is what politicians do when they duck questions. It has great pursuasive value but absolutely no logical merit and so will not get a response from me.Well it does have merit, and since when did alack of logic stop you?You are taking the debater's high ground?? Quote:Originally Posted by MeHowever, I prefer the view that in all the above circumstances, what is actually going on is that human rights are conflicting with each other and it is just a matter of looking a little deeper to find the exact rights that are conflicting.Quote:Originally Posted by MichaelangelicaWhat?I'll explain it another way. Concepts of national security and all other such concepts that might apparantly conflict with human rights I believe can be translated into human rights language. National security thus becomes the right of the innocent population to life. Establishing Law and order becomes the right of the innocent to life, to be free from abusive treatement, and the right to property. GB, which is necessary for national security becomes necessary to defend the human right to life of innocent people. So now the problem becomes entirely a human rights problem in which one must balance the competing rights, eg for GB, the rights of the terrorist suspects against the rights of the innocent potential victims.What??Quote:Originally Posted by meGB protects the innocent people's right to life, whilst the angry Australians (and others) are trying to protect the terrorist suspects right to a fair trial. Unfortunately one cannot get both. If you don't like that, blame god. Quote:Originally Posted by MichaelangelicaGod is not involved.It is your government (The USA) who is breaking the law and abusing human rights and due process.Fine, then blame nature, the universe, science, or even green elfs from mars for all I care. It is not Americas fault that the world is so cruel as to create tough choices.Other than repeating that I'm not American, your latter argument again is reframing the debate so I will ignore it.Convenient; you can ignore it all you like it does not make it any the less valid. Still God is not involved.Quote:Originally Posted by meLastly, on your melodramatic point about the values your forfathers fourght for (and mine died for) being under threat. Even if you are right, all it amounts to is one irregularity in a society of rightousness. It might sound melodramatic but it is very real to me. Quote:Originally Posted by Michaelangelicapeople are disappearing in mysterious circumstances. That we have learnt, from Nazi Germany, is the thin end of the wedge.and "people (have)start(ed) rounding up ethnic groups for beatings or murder" It is happening in Iraq. Watch the news. Another 'thin wedge' of many. So we have the 'thin end of the edge' argument. That has to be about the most stupid pointless illogical argument (not you, just the argument) I have ever heard rivalled only by 'better the devil you know'. Also known as 'the slippery slope' argument. It's not your fault. I've seen many bright people slip over on a 'slippery slope' time and time again. Wake me up when the edge gets a little thicker. Until then, lets not wildly press panic buttons and abuse the good values our forefathers fought and died for. By the way, I haven't eaten for about 5 hours. I'm hungry. Isn't that the thin end of the wedge in which I am close to dying of starvation?Yes, actually it is.On of the many reasons that Israel is overeacting now,in Lebanon is they have learnt though Jewish history about the "thin edge of the wedge"Quote:Originally Posted by TheFaithfulStoneIf a CIA agent decides it's absolutely necessary to torture somebody to find out some information, that's fine, but he should expect to pay the piper. What if it turns out that it saves millions of lives? Great, but the CIA agent still goes to jail.The CIA and all other intelligence agencies already have a very difficult and important job. I see no pressing reason to make their jobs even tougher and put our best agents behind bars for making what was at the time a correct decision.The CIA are incompetent fools read your history books. How many years have they been after Bin Laden now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgrmdave Posted August 1, 2006 Report Share Posted August 1, 2006 This thread has gone on for too long, and it is verging on a flame war. I am closing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts