myata

Right off the top of my hat, I can think of couple of other differences (between "them" and "us"): - they usually do their barbaric undemocratic business in their own land; so to avoid terrible outcomes of all sorts it's usually sufficient to not be there; i.e. to not bring the Bible into Saudi Arabia, if they don't want you to. We, on the other hand, also do our staff also in their land; the only way to avoid our enlightening interference is to become just like us, complete with adopting our gods, Britney Spears and McDonalds. Wonder why would this strategy sound so familiar? - they don't normally preach and educate others in the need to adopt their way of life. Really, when was the last time Prince of Arabia (or whatever he is) urged America to convert to Islam? US presidents and such are in 7/24 permanent show tasking these people and that with being less than perfect in their quest for holy democracy.

Either they; or them. Who knows? That's what people do at wars, that we at least understand? So, to pretend out of the sheer blue that it's such a high crime to pull the trigger - after sending all those trigger pulling folks there, into another people's land - must be very close to the top of hypocrisy this world has ever seen. Well of course they do. So why all the cry about "terrorists"? They also are soldiers, and follow their orders; different orders, but also resulting in suffering and death. If that's OK with you, there's nothing more to say. Business as usual. If we wanted to stop the bloody machine though, shouldn't all those who give the orders to kill, suffer the same fate - no matter which side they count themselves on, or which rationales they justify their acts with? Wouldn't that be the fastest (and the only real one) way to the peaceful humankind, if we ever happen to get there?

I thought we agreed that this is a war. And you know what people do in wars? Right. So, how is it a crime to do just what everybody else around you is doing? Now the next question is of course, who started the war? And, if, by starting the war, they sanctioned the use of deadly lethal military force? Of course, they would insist that only one side (guess which?) uses deadly and lethal force "legally". But that would sound somewhat one-sided, wouldn't it? The only logical conclusion would be then to say that by starting the war, they got what they intended to get. Really, it'd be a very far stretch, beyond all credibility stretch, to claim that one could start a war, and not expect a military hostility. Same stretch btw that would claim that dropping a bomb on a village does not intend to kill any civilians. So who should be to blame for this war and all what transpired (and will yet transpire) in it? Is it Khadr, really?

Of course he did. And them witches, spoiled good people for nothing, and got what they deserved. And diverse conspirators against miscellaneous dictators all were guilty because somebody knew they were - even if they wouldn't confess voluntarily. The evidence, trial, who needs it really, if there's someone who just knows? As said by them, wise, "absence of evidence isn't evidence of innocence" or something like that.

Would Israel agree? Also a question.

You should try a better answer though. Pointing a finger up into the sky doesn't count. So, again: Do you advocate setting up a different standard for our justice here? (i.e from innocent till proven guilty to "absence of evidence, ...") Or do you advocate having different set of standards for us (innocent till proven guilty) vs. them ("absence of evidence ...")?

Well, yeah. Would you recommend us now changing our actual justice system to be based on these "absence of evidence.." principles that were applied with such an astounding success in Iraq??

If you mean the "laws" that allowed "us" to "go" in Afghanistan and Iraq, then no, these aren't really laws as such. They are arbitrary standards that are forced by some upon others and as such have no relation to justice. Just as there's no arbiter, the main principle of whom is to stand above the conflicting sides. If one side declares itself to be the arbiter making their own laws for everybody else, that has only one common thing with real justice: i.e. words. And as we know, words will suffer anything, and are very cheap. So save everybody these empty lecturing, J.WMD.Bush and Tony "Ballistic Missile" Blair already exhausted it to the extent possible and beyond. And here's a fine illustration of the concepts of these "laws" and "justice": here, it works, there - no-no. Just because I said so.

Right, something we can finally agree on. Everybody does that they have to do, in whatever way they can do it. There's no winners and no claimers of moral right (really). It's a war. Do we want to be in this one (mind you, we dont' really have to), is the $1000 big question..

I'm just curious how dropping a bomb on a populated village or a town would be any different? Is it because it does not constitute an intent to kill (which would be an interesting legal innovation - e.g for those Christmas shooters in Toronto - we fired guns in the crowd of shoppers, but we didn't really intend to kill anybody)? Or because everybody there is presumed to be guilty, by definition? And now prepare for a big news: there's none. No, maybe one: the hypothetical "child" performs their act in their own land... The bomb is usually dropped on someone else's. Would that make a difference? I wonder...

Not exactly. Justification is why I, we, them do or not this or that. Judgement and punishment assumes the existence of an arbiter (independent, impartial, etc - or not) who can deal it. But what if there's no such arbiter? Can anybody do what they like, without regard of the consequences? Can they do what they like because they believe that it's the right thing to do? No, wrong. Canada cares about child soldiers, right? Omar is a child soldier, right? Canada should be concerned with Omar getting the treatement suitable for a child soldier, not an adult criminal, especially in the highly questionnable, context of pseudo justice that considers resisting foreign invaders a war crime. These examples? The car: oops, I just intentionally drove into a crowd of people; but I didn't really intend to kill anybody. Or, the police: I just appointed myself a police officer, invaded the home of a nasty neighbour and was forced to fire a few shots. Surely my intention to deal justice relieves me of all responsibility?? Yes sure, these justifications can justify pretty much anything. As we already found out. Anything can be justified, verbally or on paper. Only the act makes the difference, shows once and for all, to those who care to see, what is what, and who is who.

This isn't about punishment (although it isn't obvious to me that somebody wrecking havoc on the grounds of their good beliefs should be receiving a lighter one) but about what we do and why. What is, self appointed "police officers"?

I'm just asking a question: why does a justification matter, when the result is more or less the same?

Why does it matter, if civilians dying is the end result of it? We already know that everything can (and will, at need) be rationalized. Taleban in all likelihood, has one of their own. In the end, wouldn't it only be a matter of preference, belief, ideology, which one (rationalization) one accepts as truth? I mean, if somebody was truly peaceful, non violent and yada, as they claim to be, wouldn't it also show in the act, the result, rather than verbal justifications?

To that, one can ask one simple question: how many innocent civilians were dying there before and after we came in? And consequently, do we have anything to do with it? Good intentions (even if they are genuinly good) just aren't enough, and very often, as everybody supposed to know, pave road to hell.

Yeah, I know (very well) blame the ... (whoever). In my soul, I'm oh so democratic, open and transparent, you won't believe it if/when you see it (but how - oh yeah, you simply have to read my mind), but those ... (whoever)... It's not my fault! I had no choice! They simpy force me to do that!!!!

I can very well imagine myself stranded if my freedom of movement were restricted, in any country. Now, I'm not commenting on the reasons why it was restircted (being not familiar with the case), only on that attitude that obvious restrictions of democratic rights must be taken as a blessing by the objects of these restrictions.

Well at least they can give interviews! Isn't that like, lightyears ahead (democratically speaking) of "Conservative Campaign"? If Harper had his way, all one'd hear would be his prerecorded addresses.

No, it ensures that all voices in this country are heard before problems deteriorate into something more serious and ugly. Which was the original purpose of parliaments. Specific arrangements can ensure that parties would have to pass certain credibility barriers to get in. The proposal with "taxpayers" is of course nothing new. There's been all kinds of societies where this or that privileged class would have more rights than everybody else. BTW would police and army also qualify as civil servants in your model? Or there would be civil servants and civil servants (as citizens and citizens) also?

Direct democratic delegation in the system of that size probably wouldn't be functional. The only viable alternative is a federated structure where smaller entities delegate certain (very specific and limited) responsibilities to the higher level of management. Theoretically it can go on forever, but in practice creates very cumbersome and slow to response system. Europe made the farthest advances on this path, and its results are far from perfect; with no better alternative anywhere in sight. The greatest concern is that our ability to create problems by far exceeds the one to come together to solve them. In the next few generations, the ability (or lack thereof) to enact meaningful global action would undoubtfully become crucial for the survival of our civilization.

That's of course, one obvious symptom of an outdated majoritary electoral system. All votes cast against dominant incumbent are lost; pure and simple; don't change anything, a bit, heck, milligram. Most people are smart enough to realize that. What was good 100 years back (some choice); isn't good anymore (we need real choice). Should it take us another 100 years to realize that, and start fixing it?

Except we aren't talking about a gang, etc. He's been raised and indoctrinated by his family and traveled and fought alongside his father. Now it's up to the "experts" of US military kangaroo court to figure out whether he new good from evil. Including that it's a high crime to resist military that itself is applying deadly force. But sure, have it your way. We already know that virtually any act of goodness or otherwise can be rationalized justified and louded as absolutely necessary to uphold some greater good. Please note also that it works both ways. So by looking at the deeds of the do-gooders (note: not words; because each side knows to the utmost level of conviction, that their truth is the right one, and they're fighting only for the good to prevail), it's not always immediately obvious who is who.

Indeed it was strongly advocated by the aforementioned professor. I didn't think of it as a much of a solution, but now that you mentioned it, perhaps it's indeed worthy of noticing. Perhaps I shouldn't have made this omission. As a matter of fact, even our PM himself made some comments about the issue, and if any solution they'll come up with, I wouldn't be suprised if some sort of mandatory would be a part of it. Indeed, it's so like these, i.e. Harper's concervatives. Forget about analysing the problem, establishing reasons, addressing root causes; get a quick easy "make them do it, or else" band aid solution. That wouldn't surprise me at all because it would be exact same approach they're taking toward the crime problem (don't think about the causes, hit hard on symptoms), and it would have as much chances of success. But that wouldn't matter, right? - because solving problems is the last thing these policies are intended to do. In the meanwhile drawing attention, and distracting from a needed action to address the real causes: restrictive and backward electoral system, out of touch party politics, etc.

Just stopped at a convenience store on the way to work. There's a big notice, can't buy sigarettes for anybody under 19. And of course, can't buy a drink while under 21. But can get a gun, fight in a combat, and be tried as an adult for that, while still under 16. These conservative folks can be such a ridiculous people. And the scariest thing is that they don't even notice. And of course, we haven't yet explored this whole notion of "taking arms against foreign liberators as a war crime". That concept deserves a long hard look at as well. E.g. applying it to other cases one'd have to brand the resistance in WWII as a war crime organization. But I already said earlier, there's probably not a single truth, principle or moral that hasn't been stretch to the extent that doesn't have any meaning anymore.

Of course, the new rules won't explain the trend with lower voter participation seen in several earlier elections. I think there may be a deeper problem(s) here.