War and Terrorism
|
Perhaps it's time to consider government as business,and as such it loans money to over governments against collatral. i.e.terortary.failure to keep up your payments. leads to the land becoming ours, incidently it would be like a company buy out, i.e. those living on the land would now pay tax to the new owners, bit like how employees in hostile take overs continue as is.
Continuing at the whim of the new managment teams, which they of course can elect
as per normal election rules. so in hindsight the more profitable companies will
be able to help more people, without a shot being fired.. Thanks all to the
power of international law, don;t you love, contracts. sign here please....
much better working instead of the illegal force thing... just a stray thought for a saturday afternoon...
|
War is wrong, yet sometimes justified? Else why do it? Why did America rebel in the name of independence Why did Ireland?
Why did we bother to defend against Hitler, surely the humane thing would have been to stand and do nothing? Do you stand by and let a bully kill, you beat the crap out of you, or do you stand your
ground and defend yourself? So perhaps you have earned the right to defend yourself
with force, but where is the line crossed, most would say being the instigator of
that crime.
So anyone who moves into another country, is automatically guilty of war crimes,
so surely that means America and Britain when then went into Iraq were acting illegally.
Perhaps they were. When is it morally right to step in and defend people from harm.
If there are people on the ground being executed, killed and they are your citizens,
doesn't that means you are legally obliged to step in and save them? What about
someone else's do you turn your back on them, or let you die. Surely any other justification
for acting would be criminal As going in for resources would be theft.
I see no difference in treating a group of people, or for that matter an individual different under the law. no government gains more or less rights over another, just because they have the "bully tactics" to scare people off.
it is also advisable
to note that any group of people sociciting another group of people to
commit a crime, are also guilty of that crime.
so for example anyone who comits or orders a crime, for profit, reward or even to get elected is answerable to the law.
they should gain no immunity. it is also observered that any group getting into a fist fight, carguably consented to the agression.
However while those groups my push a case for retaliation, based on prior events and do indeed need to be listened to before the courts.
if for whatever reason it appeared that international law no longer worked, with executives refusing to answer to trial. it is hard to argue how they can do anything but retaliate using other less desirable means.
However any such action should be soley reserved for the purpitrator of the origional crime, it is no good, justifying punching another man on the street. because someone else punched you, and expecting it not to be counted as assult.
so it is with that we have to state the obvious, and the not so obvious. it could be argued that their were indeed individuals who supported and perhaps indeed encouraged a governments desire to commit crimes against humanity. and any such crimes would of course have to be actioned in a court of law.
However if such crimes were proven then those people who supported or such promoted such actions would also indeed be guilty under the eyes of the law. however that being said, democracy is not what it is, and the majority of the people could most likely be shown as having not supported the government, and indeed perhaps even protested against it. ergo these would be innocent bystandars.
so clearly these terrorists are not immune under the law, and neither should governments who resort to criminal tactics which resort int the loss of innocents. in order for the law to work, both sets of people need to be brought before the courts and punished accordingly, with no bias being shown either way. when it comes to ensuring the same high standard of proof. So joe bloggs in the street would be treated in exactly
the same way as say the president of the united states. No one should be allowed
to justify revenge tactis, and i observe the bombing of libya in this regard as well as the tower incient. If a crime is alleged the correct course is to bring proof before the courts, upon which the international courts if enough evience is available, should issue a warrent for the arrest of those who purpitrated the crime.
it is then the duty of all givernment involvedto assist in bringing those people
to trial, failure to assist the courts, and bringthem to trial, could result in
more warrents being issued, if obstruction was proven.
This could be for the heads of state,and entire parties who voted for any such action,
which can and will be deemed a crime against humanity.
As stated anyone refusing to appear before the courts once a warrent had been issued. would be guiltyof a crime, and the use of force in their extraction by other countries would be legitamised. so in the case of iraq. warrents for the arrest should have been issued, and those individuals given the chance to surrender themselves
to face trial.
Any military invovlement should have been restricted to going in, and removing those
individuals to face trial before the courts, assuming warrents for their arrest
has been granted.
Of course war being as it is, if those government(s) hide behind soldiers and the innocent, then minimum force should and could be used by those seeking to justify bringing the purpitrators to trial.
However that is where there envolvement ends, the remvoal and extraction of anyone
guiltyof an offence. To bring those accused of crimes before the courts, to face
the charges under the do process of law.
Any other other linguring involvement is suspect to tyranny and is danger of being
a crime,just as a polcemen is guiltyof a crime when they go about beating people
up in the streets. the law extends to defence, not attack, and it is not enough
to suspect an attack, one has to prove that a threat indeed exists, if a person
is threatening violence then it is clear the individual could belegitamised
at defending themselves in the street. with a pre-emptive punch, however just because
someone knows how to say do martial arts or build a bomb, does not justify a threat
exists, as indeed anyone has the same rights as anyone else at seeking to defened
themselves (No matter how obhorrent we may find it) so as long as states feelthe
necesity to build armies, those rights should extend to every other individual,
and anyone who moves beyond defence to taking the law into their own hands should
be treated inthe same way!
So all in all this could perhaps be argued a criminal offence. not withstanding they would just asny individual, have a duty to protect the innocent from harm, as their is always going to be cases when the only way to defend a life, is with
leathel force. but you better be able to justify that belief, else your commiting
a crime!
The scale of the atrocities,or the numbers involved is irrelevent. One or many.
Any individual has that duty when they are passing another person being wronged in the street, to take steps in protecting that person from harm. No borders, and no organisation should ever impede the due process of law, borderes and numvers
are irrelevent in the modern age,we are civilised to treat people as equals, without
discrimination and without bullying ir resorting to petty fear tactics.
It is also for that reason why i see no reason why individuals or organisations
can't issue proceedings in the same way as states, for we are all treated equally,
and if the same standard of proof is required,then it matters not who initiates
the case, as long as justice and fairness is seen to be served. so on that note,any
judges not seen not to consider all the points, and/or reflect on the merits of
a the case,would be most disturbing, regarless of the court and its juristicion.
it is hoped that in the future, states will bring cases before the courts, and give
the law a chance, before taking it in their own hands,vigilanty justice on an intnerational
level should never be tolerated. indeed if states justify it, then they justifyit
for the individuals concenered, one brush, one world, and numbers are irrelevent,
respect the law, or it will disintigrate into every man/women and child for themselves.
so with that in mind, i have no sympathy for any government, group or organisation
who is the subject of terorist actions, when they themselves refused to observe
the law, on the internationl law... either you all follow it, or no one will! |
So when does a military action cross the line into war crimes, say if the invading
army did more then safeguard the people under immanent threat, say move to safeguard
infrastructure, doesn't that constitute a holding action, and perhaps invasion.
Or is it justifiable for strategic counter measures, if the people need it. I'm not
sure it can stretch that far.
What about acting on the presumption something could happen a pre-emptive strike, they
might nuke us, or attack us, hence we have to stop them, surely
that is completely wrong, and no one has the legal basis of acting on such a hypothesis.
Any state that entertains the idea would surely be guilty of international war crimes.
Yet what if they had reasonable assurances that the threat was
real? If you are being threatened by an irate country, and you believe they are
capable of the threat, like a mugger threatening to shoot you, are you not automatically
assumed to be in your right to act as though your life is in immanent
danger and take action?
How does one ascertain that threat?, and how does one justify it, if it is not reasonable
or immanent. Say for example it was imagined or hyped up, by states wishing to proceed for an alteria
motive, surely then those government are then guilty of a crime. What of those countried, using oppearatives without the consent of
the government in question, are they not breaching the law? Or is it safe to assume satalite telematry is enough to be sure, how does one varify if a threat is real.
Do they ask permission? To verify the threat, if that permission is not given, is that not a breeach, an assumption of guilt, or a crime.
therfore safeguards an action to look by force?
If they are unable to produce
satisfactory evidence which would indicate that that threat was real, imminent or in progress. Then
surely they are in contempt of international law, and that country and those leaders
who acted illegally acted on that justification should be held to account.
What good is information, if its not accurate, or sustained from multiple sources? How many people fall for rumour as fact, and
panic react to hype, and fear mongering? Perhaps I should rely on spirit, to conform my actions. Would that be any more real, or is that just imagined
It's not provable in court, so back to the real process, of verifiable evidence, least the entire world falls into chaos, and petty scare mongering?
If they fail to produce, surely the benefit of the doubt is given. Anything manufactured would surely be a breach of law, and should be followed up in a court of law.
What of efforts of judgments, or best guess, where does one judge the line between guilty and not guilty? Perhaps that's for a court to decide, or independent tribunal which could remove
said leaders from power. How else does one ensure governments which act for peace, and not against it?
Perhaps if there is a doubt to any legitimacy it would be in the interests of world
peace, that those said leaders who were responsible were tried and executed, to show the due process of justice.
Yet surely execution is a breach of those rights, and vengeance is unbecoming, so how far does one go to remove the threat,
is it in our best interests to buy them off? Set them up someone where else, or does that send the wrong signal. Surely that depends
on the reasons for the breach to begin with, if it can be shown that that states failure to communicate was the cause, then
the sensible thing to do would, be to fix the issue, and make it so people can air their grievance and more importantly show them how
they can do it peacefully. Share the apple of temptation, not squander it by taking it advantage of ignorance.
Why would we want this, to uphold the law, love and the process of democracy
perhaps. If we don't we end up with people loosing faith in government and what
happens when government cross the line, and starts to subjugate the people. Do the
people have the right and the obligation to defend themselves, up rise or take down
that said government. Or should they use the courts? Remember the people don't have
the authority to raise a case against a government, as that can only be done by
another state. So what then. Were the founding father wrong to rebel against
the British
Were any of the people's in any country say the French resistance guilty of a crime,
or was it their natural right to defend and fight back using any means necessary?
Some would say that perhaps their is a time for the legality of terrorism and a
time when it crosses the line, same with war. Could it be possible, to handle all
such disputes in a court of international law, instead of the country in question
being the one who imprisons terrorists in breach on international law, and how
does one distinguish which courts are petty vandals, crooks and which ones have
a serious complaint to uphold.
It seems the word has gone mad, and are desperately trying to divert attention away
from the legality of their actions, by saying terrorism is in itself a crime. Perhaps
its sometimes the other way round. So who's right who wrong?, and what of those
who pass on misinformation censor view, perhaps editing one side of the argument
for publicity, are they guilty of a crime for not passing on the point of
views, the stances of either side, after all their must be some merit in both sides
argument, else why would they uphold those views.
It's rare to find people are that insensitive, and then what about the ends justify
the means? How far does one go to uphold their view point. Is is right to target
the public, civilians, to get your point across What is democracy if it is not
a government of the people, surely the people who have voted in that government
are responsible for that governments views, and hence are legitimate targets in any
wrong doing. Yet what of others who didn't vote for the government? minors who are
too young to have a say. Perhaps you hit a dodgy middle ground, where some could
be argued as being legitimate
Of course one has to argue if hitting the sheep and those too stupid to know any
different, really make a difference, perhaps targets should be construed to high
level political individuals, who are responsible for that policy after all are
they not just manipulating the sheep, who don't know any better.
So in that case would terrorists like William Wallace have been mistaken to go after
generals, commanders, taking the film as an example of a counter action. Surely
the best and legal approach is to adopt a scalpel affair, where the minimum casualties
to achieve the objective are taken into consideration. Then what of prisoners
you end up with all these prisoners you could kill them, but that would be murder,
keeping them takes man power, do you ransom them back, perhaps to fund your endeavours
but surely that only counts if you end up with them accidently, or people surrender,
taking prisoners as an end has to be illegal, yet what if it is to extradite
them for trial?
Can you legitimately kidnap a target, or is that the ounce for the courts to decide,
and states with issue should partition the proper international foundations.
What happens, if you just sort of were in there, defending your people, and then
you "ended up" with them, is that a grey area?
How does one resort to terrorism, why does one do it? If that's the what of the future,
surely its because you feel your rights are being surprised your not being listened
to, or you feel as though your beliefs are being pressured, yet surely we all have
a duty to share knowledge and opinion by peaceful means. Isn't that what the
united nations
for. I'm never sure what they do these days. What good
are they, if the member states are not held to account for any of their actions,
or rival states don't use the courts as a means of settling their disputes, instead
of violence.
Yet back to people, who feel as though they have been silenced, they can't speak
out, a government is persecuting you, and you are being treated as a number, and
penalised against your basic rights, without ant course to individuality, guilty
until proven innocent, and yes our country does pass statues, which are illegal
in that regard, surely the argument because it might, or
its inconvenient can't hold sway. The nanny state, suppress
and prevent people going about their business, say check points, curfew, or passport
control, because they might pose a threat.
On what basis? Surely the underling basis for democracy and world peace is that their
are no borders, their are no controls, and people are left to move freely, in fact
isn't the entire concept of government and nationality obsolete, perhaps we should
move past that, and allow people to contribute taxes to any world government, no
matter where they are based, and it all flows under a single legal umbrella of
a world government which in truth we already have, for we all contribute upwards,
so in its way, the only thing missing , is holding those states to charge, and
enforcing those freedoms, by removing anyone who holds them to account, this is
not war on the individuals, the people, but on the states, who have twisted the
threat, and the vision to instil fear, and not love and harmony.
So perhaps another call to dropping borders, passport control, and allowing people
about their business, without hindrance till they have proven their threat, at
which point the legally and honourable thing to do is hold them to account to courts
of law, not private wars, the time of warlords should be ended, freedom demands
a new world order, one which is based on honour, love and trust.
So here's to freedom, and the suggestion of an opt in in government, Perhaps for all
member nations of the united nations, I know it will play havoc with your taxation systems, but then isn't it the individual not the state which
matters, perhaps to the victor go the spoils of war, the war in this case
being,
which governments can actually improve the life's of the people, at the best price. For isn't that what governent's for to safeguard your
freedoms and give you what you want, a servant of your needs, bending over backwards
to make your life's more beneficial. Connecting you up to those who are in
the know, who can give you the skills you need, and the contacts to help society
in turn, and of course reward you for it. For don't we all have something to contribute,
and the more skilled individuals, the ones who have put the most effort in get more
then those, who would rather choose more trivial pursuits Yet that is more the ounce
of business, then again perhaps that's still the same topic, but thankfully now ones
raised a private army in the name of Microsoft they have the means to settle international
disputes in the civil courts, as should be the governments.
So the ounce is on intellect strategic foresight and intellectual bullets, not the continual
breaches of international law, destruction, and excuses in the name of god, or freedom,
for it brings back no one who's died in the name of god, belief, or the view that
anyone government, or otherwise has the right to subject the people to control against
their will.
So with that, I find most of the world, guilty, and isn't about time the devil
was adopted, to let people be themselves, and work and play as lovers. So
here's the apple of temptation, and the time of fear has ended. If only you would
open your eyes to the possibility, and trust instead of kill, love not war, was
so much sensible, yet while it continues, people just fight and defend for the rights
and freedoms, and so they should, until the world trade organisation, and other
organisations start throwing their weight around, econoic, so keeps famine
at bay, she's hungry for action, and the scales are tipped with an eye for an eye.
So were we and should we be holding all governments to account, if not by them, its time the citizens woke up to the apple of knowledge
and realised that ignorance is indeed bliss, how i envy you, trusting the system, but the matrix has
hit the button a little too much, lemons as power sources - or is that the ones
in charge - but for these stupid oversights, which can not
and should not continue, but they will. For they are human, and the machines do not run the world, yet -
and in some cases it would be preferable. for if they did, we would be dead
by now, computer error. So thank god, no the devil for tying things up in small
print, for ever and a day, some progress is perhaps not what you want. or is that
the reason sited for war? What's the rush, if everyone's waiting, for the dogs of
war are rabid and should have never been let loose, least in defence of ones loves.
Sorry! You have to be a
member and logged
in to view any more details.
It's only fair before we give away too many secrets, a little taster before
we give the rest away. Apple anyone?
For example you could read something without needing to be logged in: (not
everyone has the balls to join, offended they are, thank fuck for
Article 10)
i.e. Philosophy is the Spice of
Life
Or The Human Rights
Act
or the book extract: God
is Evil, The Devil is Good
So with that, I bid you good day, war is calling me, and its not what I want,
she's not death for she's busy changing her clothes, but her mood swings, so
that leaves famine and the world trade organisation to contend with that one, that
leaves me as conquest, or is that an old wives tale. for I prefer intellectual conquest,
and stomping down on the stupidity of the morons, for the bow is cupid and that is
the fools path, I'm not fool but perhaps I am, as I've made my mind up, no matter
what happens next, theirs going to be DEATH XIII.
Back to the introduction