Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges

[str82u]

I think I can either agree or cause pain on this, but my own beliefs may contradict themselves.

First, I think thatpeoples personal privacy and similar rights should not be stepped on, like the fact that it's now legal for the gov't to spy (call it what you want) on those suspected of certain crimes, which haven't been clearly enough defined, suspected terrorists definately should be checked out, but only to the point of ruling them out or picking them up and trying/deporting them. The power they have right now is unexceptable because the officials doing the snooping can twist anything to look like suspected crime, not just terrorism.

Next, we have to make it clear, with no doubts, that we will kill you if you are supporting or participating in terrorist activities...no loopholes. Bush used to be such a cowboy, but the congress has clipped his nuts I think, when he was governer he'd have just had terrorists shot on the spot before having to house, clothe or feed them. In the absense of respect, fear will have to do - Str82u. I don't mean that peace doesn't beget peace, but when a threat appears, eliminate it before it infects others.

Finally, closing our borders isn't economic suicide, trade isn't affected by that, it just keeps people from physically entering/staying into the country illegally. Besides, trade sanctions on countries like Japan that have such discustingly huge trade deficits wouldn't break my heart. Yes, it would cost more to buy American on some things at first, but in this day and age we can produce cheaply also. And sure, we want to let in those persecuted or underprivileged, but illegal workers, piss on them.

At this moment, I think, in some way, my point is that security and deplomacy don't work together. We don't have the right to impose our sensabilities (or lack of) on others, but "Don't Tread On Me" is certainly fair.

[GhostShadow]

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.

 

First off just want to say War and Peace are not as diffrent as you may see them as. I see war as anger being released thorugh physical means. I see Peace as anger being stored inside and being relased on oneself. One can only be desolate for so long. And yes, peace will make ppl desolate. People will become stale in a sence. They will become... bored. Humans need conflict.

 

And just beacuse Ghandi and MLK showed some restraint that does not mean that EVERY one can and will. That is assuming that every person is the same... and if we where all the same then there would probly not be war.

 

and are you saying that despreate times call for CALM/LAME measures?? Yes, there where thoes monks that burned them selves alive to protest the british but what did that get them?? Nothing. It defeats the purpose of obtaining peace if you have to kill yourself to get it...

 

ever hear of this..?

 

A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to be quite, and a time to speak; A time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace. -The Book of Ecclesiates

 

That is life in a nutshell imo.

 

 

[maverick]

during the current iraq occupation the britsh news paper describe the actions of british soldiers as barbaric fo doing something called "clearing ground".

 

this is the act of firing two rounds in to a body which appears to be dead to ensure it is dead and is not an enemy soldier pretending to be dead and ambush the "good guys".

 

war is war and not a lot has changed in the last couple of thousand years except for the ability to communicate and that individuals are more accountable for their actions due to improved communications - though this is in doubt too.

 

for laws to apply you must have a group of people who by choice or by citizenship agree to abide by those laws and will be punished if they do not abide by those laws - retributive justice.

 

during war time your enemy is not expected to abide by these laws and is able to do anything to win a war, whereas the "Good Guys" are bound by a code of conduct which ties their hands.

 

the quote TFMF used was from season 7 of DS9 - which i actually watched yesterday (well, i had a trek fest and watched ep 10 through to ep 22 - aaaah student life) and i believe that the world does need individuals like sloane. while his existence may be seen as grotesque by some, I think it is necessary.

 

freedom cannot be preserved by the idealists, who with the best intention in the world, cling to their belief in what is right.

 

what difference does it make if you die a pointless death and your ideal goes unheard and unrealised.

 

as the discussion encompasses DS9, kira is a good example of someone who was prepared to fight for a greater good. an individual who was aware of an ideal and fought to preserve the right of others to experience that ideal even if she struggled to live BY that ideal.

 

perhaps TFMF's next question should be what is "a greater good?", and "what justifies actions like those of Section31?"

 

if you can change human nature, you will find peace.

 

[Tenebrae]

I've a feeling that the quote might somewhat predate DS9. ;)

 

This reminds me of Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan.

 

Section 31 were an interesting - if ultimately predictably defeated - idea... but their defeat undermined the purpose of their existence.

 

“The first and foremost consideration of a civilisation must be survival. When a society puts other considerations first, it grows weak, decadent, corrupt and ultimately it falls. It is arrogance to believe that one is entitled to survive simply because of culture or wealth or achievement – to endure one must have strength and the will to use it.â€ÂÂ

[maverick]

I've a feeling that the quote might somewhat predate DS9. ;)

 

This reminds me of Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan.

 

i wasnt disputing that it didnt. but i had a feeling thats where TFMF got it from. i know he is a big DS9 fan.

 

Section 31 were an interesting - if ultimately predictably defeated - idea... but their defeat undermined the purpose of their existence.

 

 

i disagree.

 

if not for the bunch that were playin dirty tricks then it is possible that the federation would not have survived.

 

it is also possible to argue that we cannot be sure that would not have survived but.......basically if one side is tryin to use dirty tricks on you, then you gotta have someone around who understands the game they play and try and stop em.

 

at the end of the day, your opponent MAY be doin somethin wrong (and only by your standards) but what you gonna do about it when theyre done??

 

call the referee and say "thats not nice OR fair. i want a re-match.

 

life doesnt work like that.

 

mutual trust is the only way out of a situation like that.

 

and in the real world it takes a lot to earn it and more effort to keep it.

 

TRUST

[TFMF]

You might want to delete all those repeated posts on the previous page ;)

 

I didn't mean to relate this argument specifically to the episode in DS9 but it was this episode that got me thinking about Laws and war and i wondered what everyone thought about the quote in general (not really about DS9)

[Tenebrae]

I think you misunderstood me, maverick.

 

The point I was trying to convey was that Section 31 was a necessity - I don't doubt that it survived, even the Chief and Bashir aren't going to manage to derail a secret organisation that predates the existence of the Federation. However, DS9 undermined that by having them derail that and assert that their moral course of action - which ultimately lead to a relatively peaceful conclusion to the war - was preferable.

 

It's similar to how Worf stopped Garak from bombing the Great Link. It was a morally correct choice - but it wasn't a particularly expedient one.

 

Captain Sisko made... well, I think "In The Pale Moonlight" was about the only time I can recall a Starfleet officer basically being complicit in murder and deception to such a degree.

 

The treatment of Section 31 is classic Trek though. You have an organisation that is willing to basically do whatever it takes to ensure that the typically idealogical members of the Federation get to be all moral and so on but then - despite the obvious benefits of this organisation - Bashir and O'Brien try and take it apart, for no other reason than Odo being sick.

 

Realistically, Section 31 IS a necessity but events conspire to make them seem bad and extraneous. Which is very typically Star Trek.

[maverick]

You might want to delete all those repeated posts on the previous page ;)

 

ta!

 

my connection is really slow today - like 2-3 mins to up a post. BAD

 

I didn't mean to relate this argument specifically to the episode in DS9 but it was this episode that got me thinking about Laws and war and i wondered what everyone thought about the quote in general (not really about DS9)

 

it wasnt my intention to make the thread about DS9, i understand the purpose of it but it was easier to attach principles to a situation which i know most - if not all - are aware of and discuss the rule in general rather than the specifics.

 

Realistically' date=' Section 31 IS a necessity but events conspire to make them seem bad and extraneous. Which is very typically Star Trek.[/quote']

 

so how is this example relevant to todays world?

 

did bush and blair have the good of the west in mind when they invaded iraq and liberated.....oil supplies. is it acceptable

 

where is the line drawn?

[bones2097]

i say this just isn't cricket!!

:p

[Tenebrae]

Oh, the example isn't really relevant to today because our politicians aren't idealists - they're for the most part self-serving.

 

Although, in some respects - organisations like MI5/6 NSA, CIA etc. can act in such a fashion as to extricate leaders from blame.

[maverick]

so its "practicality over principle"

 

whatever solves the problem rather than what is right.

 

i think everyone knows form personal experience that a certain amount is right but where should one stop?

[Tenebrae]

That's the real question.

 

I suppose its really all down to how important your morals are to you and also what's at stake.

 

In the case of Sisko in DS9, it would be fair to say that the stake of [shouty voice]THE ENTIRE ALPHA QUADRANT[/shouty voice] Naturally as the real world isn't QUITE that cut and dry, things become a lot more shades of grey, really.

 

In the real world, I'd say that often in cases of practicality over principle, it's "does the end justify the means?"

[Steveo]

The problem with that is, when asking 'do the ends justify the means?', it's so often a very subjective matter, lacking any real empirical test.

 

With that in mind, one has to ask, if the ends do justify the means, and those means were perhaps criminal in themselves, would it be right to punish someone for the criminal actions that benifit many?