Quote:
Originally Posted by hoyacoug
Good stuff. Glad to hear you are glad I have "retreated" from a position I never held (but which you attributed to me). I am glad you have retreated from your position that Buddhists like to eat green jello.
I freely admit this conversation involves some ambiguity. Of course it does! I have said as much earlier in this thread as well (and we are starting to rehash some of the arguments that have already been debated earlier, so I recommend you read those posts rather than ask for information that is already available). We are dealing with natural rights. You appear to accept the premise that people do hold natural rights. Isn't the very concept of natural rights ambiguous? Which rights are natural rights? Only the three listed in the Declaration of Independence? Hard to accept that proposition, since Jefferson argues that those listed are "among" others. Locke gives property as one; Jefferson does not. The entire debate is based on a theoretical principle. Arguing about how to apply a certain situation in the abstract will only lead to more ambiguity. The best we can do is argue that, based on the facts before us, the theory dictates a certain outcome (and we both appear to agree on that outcome).
As to your question about killing a person v capturing them, yes, I accept that killing someone on the battlefield is appropriate. In that moment, a person is presented with exigent circumstances that dictate an immediate decision- kill or don't kill. Not killing could very well lead to the death of the ponderer or his comrades. When a person is captured (comes within our grasp) those circumstances disappear. The person is not an immediate threat. We have a responsibility to respect their natural rights at that point (i.e., must afford them due process).
You could ask the very same question with those in our government compact: why is it that you could kill an intruder in your home if you felt threatened but you would have to give them due process if the police came and captured the intruder?
Your argument with the civil war is interesting (though it isn't the position the US took in the Civil War).
As to this:
You are only confused because you continue to attribute arguments to me that I didn't make. You seemed to understand my argument earlier on in your post but then somehow forgot that argument and reverted back to believing in your misinterpretation of my argument by the bottom of the post.
|
Look hoya, you are who you are. I'm not learning anything new about you here. Apparently you are an exceedingly poor communicator because 90% of the time when someone disagrees with something you can't adequately defend you try to say that you ACTUALLY said something else entirely. So far on this board you have never been wrong, only misunderstood. Obviously since I'm engaing you this much I'm not put off enough by it to stop. You will undoubtedly respond by saying you have no idea what I'm talking about. I know. I know.
Anyway, I would just say as to the ambiguities of it all that principles like natural rights are only useful tools if they lead us to apply them in someway. That is why I was trying to get you to define and defend your notion of "within our grasp." Once you finally did that, I thought the distinction you drew about present exigencies vs. when the exigencies abate was pretty persuasive. Maybe this is because it is what I think too. :-)
Now we move to the real issue that our government has to grapple with: having been told by the supreme court that these folks must get due process, how do we do it? How much due process is enough? Does it have to be identical to what you and I get? In one respect it will always be inferior to what we would get: they will never be tried by a jury of their peers. In what other ways would "less" due process be permissible? What is the cost benefit here?
I at least give the president some credit for proposing an alternative once he was defeated in his original position (which by the way I think he COULD have maintained and ignored the courts on, though I'm glad he didn't).