Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges

[TFMF]

In time of war the law falls silent...

 

Do you think this is the right kind of attitude we should have?

[Tenebrae]

For a free society?

 

No - it's entirely the wrong one to have, just remember the old addage about those who would give up fundamental liberties for temporary security.

[GhostShadow]

ben franklin said. " thoes who sacrifice liberty for security diserve neither ".

 

I think that it can be applied to situations. And I do think that war has no rules, just limits.

[TFMF]

mmmnnn

 

i'm really not sure about this - in some ways i can see how desperate measures must be taken in war that may break the law - but in other ways - i know that these laws need to be obeyed.....it really depends on the way you look at it...

[GhostShadow]

well, I think that laws are all well and good in a time peace. but war is dark and dirty, the players need to get dirty if need be.

 

The priamry objective of government is to protect the citizens. The very first governments where made out of protection of land and people. in war, winning is like the omega directive, all other priorities are recinded.

[TetsuoShima]

Depends also on the definition of war imo, for example the 'war on terrorism' is not a 'typical' war.

 

But say there are 2 nations in a clear 'WWII-style' war, they are both of equal strength/numbers/resources/technology/.... and no other nations are involved or likely to get involved.

 

Now nation 1 is willing to do whatever it takes to win and nation 2 is absolutely sticking to their morality first policy...

 

Who do you think would win?

 

 

Now, this is of course a very unrealistic/simplified scenario, so whether it would be correct to carry over conclusions to real life I don't know...

[GhostShadow]

I disagree, War is war. In war the goal of the enemy is to over come you. Even in a war on terrorism i feel that it is still the goverments hights order to protect the citizens of its country.

 

If you say that there is an impending attack that could devistate a city, say.. uhmm... nuclear attack, by a terrorist group. I Feel that it is ok for the government to beat the living shjt out of a prisoner to obtain knowlage to stop such an attack.

 

If that is what you mean by the laws falling silent....

[TFMF]

In the War on Terrorism - you could argue that these terrorist groups will do what ever it takes to get their point heard

[TetsuoShima]

Yes, but my point was that in case of terrorism, you do not have a clearly defined enemy. In most cases (or at least some cases) it is impossible to determine with high certainty whether or not an individual is in fact a terrorist. Might as well go and beat up my neighbour, because he has been behaving strangely these last few days.... :)

 

 

In this same line of reasoning, I'd be pro death penalty, but the problem is agian identifying with a high enough certainty that the accused is in fact guilty of what he's accused of...

 

The point where do you draw the line? Is 95% certainty enough to kill someone? Or 99% or 90% perhaps...

[Tenebrae]

There's something to be said for the view that by rescinding fundamental liberties, you're playing into the terrorist's hands.

 

Britain has lived with the threat of terrorism for decades but we never had anything quite as sinister as the Patriot Act. Now, obviously there might have been some minor things and obviously Northern Ireland wasn't quite the same.

[GhostShadow]

There's something to be said for the view that by rescinding fundamental liberties, you're playing into the terrorist's hands.

 

Britain has lived with the threat of terrorism for decades but we never had anything quite as sinister as the Patriot Act. Now, obviously there might have been some minor things and obviously Northern Ireland wasn't quite the same.

 

Well I think that the patriot act is a very good Idea. What is does is tap a phone number to a known terrorist. Its not like they are tapping every phone. It really ensures that ppl dont blow up central square or take down another plane and bulding.

 

I know its not a 100% perfect way, but it does keep Americans safe. Now as far as britian, they are not as big as target as the USA. I know that they have pissed off their fair share of terrorist, but America is leading the war on terror so it makes sense that terrorist would rather kill Americans. So britian really doesnt need such massive plans, imo.

[TFMF]

Yes, but my point was that in case of terrorism, you do not have a clearly defined enemy. In most cases (or at least some cases) it is impossible to determine with high certainty whether or not an individual is in fact a terrorist. Might as well go and beat up my neighbour, because he has been behaving strangely these last few days.... :)

 

 

In this same line of reasoning, I'd be pro death penalty, but the problem is agian identifying with a high enough certainty that the accused is in fact guilty of what he's accused of...

 

The point where do you draw the line? Is 95% certainty enough to kill someone? Or 99% or 90% perhaps...

 

hmm... you kind of do have a clearly defined enemy - it's difficult to explain really - but when these terrorist groups get violient - they are breaking the law - and so they have to be stopped. It depends how severe the threat is that decides whether the law must be put aside in order to save lives...

[TetsuoShima]

hmm... you kind of do have a clearly defined enemy - it's difficult to explain really - but when these terrorist groups get violient - they are breaking the law - and so they have to be stopped. It depends how severe the threat is that decides whether the law must be put aside in order to save lives...

 

hmm, yes, I see what you mean, it really depends on how you interpret 'clearly defined', terrorist is indeed a clearly defined term, but who is a terrorist, is not clearly defined, at least not in advance, only after the facts can you say with certainty that a person was a terorist. hmm, no, that isn't entirely correct, you'd probably have some (very little) time before the terrorist act is done, but that time is so very limited, that it is nearly impossible to stop it in advance, once you know the plans with certainty. Of course, it would be possible to determine those plans long before, but that would mean seriously restricting the civil liberties of all citizens and along with that their privacy (and this opens the doorway for a completely government controlled society going towards dictatorship (some exaggeration here ;) )). Since that last thing is not an option, I don't think there is very much any government can do about terrorism except increasing police forces and surveillance....

 

 

In WWII, they had it much easier, any German with a gun could be shot on sight, Germans without a gun could sometimes get the benefit of the doubt... You could clearly see and hear the difference between an enemy and a friend (at least in 99.9% of the cases) when you were 'walking on the street' (in a manner of speaking). Now when you're walking down the street, can you see who's a terrorst and who isn't? I can't and I don't think police forces can either (at least in 99.9% of the cases), so it is completely opposite... If you compare it with determining who was the enemy in the Vietnam-war, than in this terrorism thing it is even more difficult to see who's who...

 

Another problem with terrorism, is that it targets civilian targets first, since they are easier to take out and common people are easier to scare than soldiers (at least, I would hope so :) )....

 

It is the most awful thing to resort to: terrorism... The worst crime of them all imo...

 

 

But one thing is for sure, only a global joint operation supported unanimously by all countries has a chance of wiping out all 'global' terrorism. After that the regions where the terrorism started would have to be clearly examined and living conditions clearly improved, because in most cases terrorism gets its breeding ground in regions where people are not satisfied with the current status quo. To insure it doesn't happen again, you have to give the people something (or multiple things) they don't want to loose (ie. remove economic malcontentment). For the religious part, the only thing I can currently come up with that might do any good is close observation of all religious activities...

imo, the international community currently lacks the cohesion to do overcome this 'large scale' terrorism. One reason could be because it doesn't immediately 'pay off' and it's hard to accomplish. (It's far easier to vote some laws that help some entertainment corporations persue people and appease those corporations, so that you might one day recieve some needed funds for one thing or the other... (elections and such))

 

 

In checking out some of my own governments (and surrounding countries) actions, I have come to the conclusion that not the wellfare of the people is their first concern, but more their own wellfare (next elections and own income) and their countries corporations... Civilians are allways put on the last row. Most likely because (most) individual civilians have no power at all (and since corporations generally have a lot of money, they obviously do have power) and they (civilians) are to unorganised and random in their thinking that they really pose little threath to their (governments) 'reign' in the long term, the general public can reasonably easy be swayed from one opinion to another, given enough 'propaganda' (that may be a bit to strong of a word here)... I have actually seen it happen in my country on more than one occasion.... It's nearly funny to see how blind and stupid the general public is... I can't remember who said it, but someone did say something like this: "Man is generally very intelligent, but masses are incredibly stupid..." Or something along those lines anyway....

 

But I'm terribly off-topic here, so I'm shutting up. :)

 

 

extra:

definition of politics: the art of taking away as many of the peoples liberties as possible without causing a riot/revolution (after which it starts all over again)!

[GhostShadow]

well tesuo, I dont think that it was easier back in the day of WWII. ever hear of the French resitance? The Germans didnt know who was good or bad. And there where several factions in America that where Nazi and ppl did not know. During WWII, Japanese citizens gave infromation to the Japanese Empire. So agian, I dont know if it was easier, it is very easy to mislead some one.

 

I also dont think that Terrorism can be stopped. But it can be limited. We can stop major attack that can devistate cities and such things, but a car bomb and suicide bombers are harder to stop.

 

In order to stop these major attacks our government has to get down and dirty. Right now America has officaly declared war on all Terroism. But that is just formality, I think that it is safe to assume that the American Government will only defend America from terrorist. I agree that in order to stop terrorism we need to crack down a lot. Since this is a time of war for America I feel that if there is another major attack such as that of 9-11 then the borders need to be officaly locked by the US ARMY RESERVE and NATIONAL GUARD and declare Marshal law on major cities such as LA and NY and others and cities and commit to a mass investigation. Of cource this will require pulling the enitre army out of Iraq and the middle east in general, but I feel that it would be a risk we have to take. This would last for a few years or how ever long needed.

 

I will say that terrorism if VARY FAR from that point of extreme measure and I hope to god that it never comes to that. But As the topic states...

 

"Inter Arma Eniem Silent leges"

 

 

[StitchInTime]

I also dont think that Terrorism can be stopped.

I think it can, but that's a long term goal, and you can't achieve long term goals using short term methods. War and getting "down and dirty," as you call it, are short term methods that cause long term damage that can take generations to fix. The events leading up to 9/11 started before WWI even began, and the consequences of these terrible wars are with us still. The only thing that wars ever lead to are more wars. Only peace generates peace, but peace is a long term solution, not a short term one.

 

I feel that if there is another major attack such as that of 9-11 then the borders need to be officaly locked by the US ARMY RESERVE and NATIONAL GUARD

That's impossible, impractical, not to mention, economic suicide.

[GhostShadow]

I also dont think that Terrorism can be stopped.

I think it can, but that's a long term goal, and you can't achieve long term goals using short term methods. War and getting "down and dirty," as you call it, are short term methods that cause long term damage that can take generations to fix. The events leading up to 9/11 started before WWI even began, and the consequences of these terrible wars are with us still. The only thing that wars ever lead to are more wars. Only peace generates peace, but peace is a long term solution, not a short term one.

 

I feel that if there is another major attack such as that of 9-11 then the borders need to be officaly locked by the US ARMY RESERVE and NATIONAL GUARD

That's impossible, impractical, not to mention, economic suicide.

 

I am confused here, you say that war is a short term method and peace is not. I dont uderstand that b/c the diffrence between war and peace is simple. Peace builds up to war. I think that it is impossible to matian a constant state of peace. That would require every one to be at full bliss. And yes, you can have the ppl of a country to stay happy, but that would not last. The world needs to be balanced between good and evil, and to tip the scale to ever lasting bliss could very easily lead the world to a state of major war. When you put a lot of weight on a scale then take it off it will raise very quickly while the other sides rises and there will not be an even balance for a while. That is how i see it.

 

Also about closing the boreders it has been done before. I dont mean stop immagration completly, I mean close the borders to stop illegal immagration. Back in the day, America had very strict rules of getting into America. Only a certian ammount of ppl from europe where allowed a year, same with asia ect. Immagration was only a small stream, now it is a rageing river and I feel it has gotten out of control, but that is off topic ;) lol.

 

I am just simply pointing out that it is an extreme measure that SHOULD be thought about if terroism gets to an extreme.

 

It all goes back to "despreate times call for desperate measures".

[StitchInTime]

I am confused here' date=' you say that war is a short term method and peace is not. I dont uderstand that b/c the diffrence between war and peace is simple. Peace builds up to war.[/quote']

Peace and war are two totally different things. Peace is peace and war is war. Peace doesn't build up to anything. It just is. War creates all sorts of problems that peace solves. War, on the other hand, never really solves anything in the long term and creates long term problems that have to then be solved by other means.

 

I think that it is impossible to matian a constant state of peace. That would require every one to be at full bliss.

You don't have to be in a state of bliss to pursue a peaceful course. You don't even have to be happy. Inner struggle does not require violence, and neither does positive social change. Ghandi did it. Martin Luther King did it. Many others activists, in America and around the world have done it and continue to do so. So can the rest of us. Such people aren't happy all the time by any means. They face numerous frustrations and obstacles. Such people don't put up with social injustice, and they don't give into violence, nor do they wage war or resort to violence to achieve their objectives.

 

When asked after the Second World War how it should have been fought, Ghandi advocated non-violent resistance. People asked him how that could be possible. They said millions would have died in such an attempt. His response was to point out that millions did die anyway.

 

Pursuing a peaceful course does not mean that you never suffer or that you are happy all the time. It does not mean that you never get angry, but that you channel your anger constructively instead of destructively. You use nonviolent action instead of violent action. Peace does not eliminate suffering. Natural disasters, disease, old age, death, and social injustice still occur. We simply fight using non-violent means.

 

It all goes back to "despreate times call for desperate measures".

Not necessarily, and that's simply a catch phrase that some people use to justify the unjustifiable. Plus, I think it's a very big stretch to call these desperate times. My Grandparents, who lived through the depression and two world wars would laugh pretty hard at that suggestion, if they were still alive.

[motoxjesse]

It all goes back to "despreate times call for desperate measures".

Not necessarily, and that's simply a catch phrase that some people use to justify the unjustifiable. Plus, I think it's a very big stretch to call these desperate times. My Grandparents, who lived through the depression and two world wars would laugh pretty hard at that suggestion, if they were still alive.

 

yeah i agree when u think of it that way it doesnt make sense, i mean unless the was an occupation in north amererica, or wherever u are. cause then i think u can bend the rules

[Tenebrae]

The war on terror is not a war - it's a way for various idealogical factions in the USA to remove civil liberties under the guise of it being in everyone's best interests. Have we already forgotten the word's of Benjamin Franklin? It seems so and it's not even temporary, by all accounts the "war" on terror could go on forever. Mainly because invading nation states doesn't tend to do much to terrorists.

 

Of course, I'm forgetting the success of America's previous vague and immaterial wars... like the war on drugs... I mean, you guys won that one right?

 

Ah - government, absolute proof democracy is a bad idea.

[TetsuoShima]

well tesuo' date=' I dont think that it was easier back in the day of WWII. ever hear of the French resitance? The Germans didnt know who was good or bad. And there where several factions in America that where Nazi and ppl did not know.[/quote']

 

Good point, I hadn't thought of that. :)

But in the large scale of things, it was only a minor group that was hard to make out... Of course, I imagine the terrorsts are also just a minor group (at least, I would hope so), but in case of terrorism, there is no larger group you can attack to force the smaller group to cease functioning... At the very least, 'our side' had it easier :grins:

 

During WWII' date=' Japanese citizens gave infromation to the Japanese Empire. So agian, I dont know if it was easier, it is very easy to mislead some one.[/quote']

 

Now, I may be wrong about this, but weren't all Japanese rounded up in the US and placed into camps to prevent just that... Or did I pick that up in a movie... I'm not entirely certain (my knowledge of US history is not very good).

 

Since this is a time of war for America I feel that if there is another major attack such as that of 9-11 then the borders need to be officaly locked by the US ARMY RESERVE and NATIONAL GUARD and declare Marshal law on major cities such as LA and NY and others and cities and commit to a mass investigation.

 

Of course this would widely open up the door for some serious abuse of power... I'm not sure if that would be the best way to proceed...

 

Peace builds up to war. I think that it is impossible to matian a constant state of peace.

 

I am inclined to agree with you here. It is human nature to want more. The grass is allways greener and such... I agree that it's usually only a matter of time before someone/some group of people 'explodes'... illustration: A single human is usually very calm, but place the person in a group and leave him there long enough, he's bound to step on someones toes and if that persons toes are long enough, it might lead to a fight. Now, this example was full with if and might, but in the long term, if and might are usually certainties... :)