Political Empathy and Changing of the Guard

[Zoe]

ShodanIf one was arguing on principle before. a change in power shouldn’t invalidate the principle…If we should believe the woman in matters of sexual harassment, then it shouldn’t matter if the woman is Anita Hill or Juanita Broadderick (or Kathleen Wiley or Paula Jones.

You ran out of examples of realistic principles before you got to this one.

smiling bandit: In despised the Nuremburg trials for similar reasons: victor’s justice, and nothing more, no matter how pretty it’s dressed up to be. Or even how fair it actually it.

Would it have be fairer still to have no justice on either side? That’s a contradiction in terms.

…and embraced the use of civilian-killing rather than plausible military methods.

That hasn’t been proven yet. They haven’t even been charged with that. Do you think they are guilty because they’ve been in prison for such a long time?

Sorry, Richard. I won’t hijack your thread further.

[Richard_Parker]

@Zoe

Sorry, Richard. I won’t hijack your thread further.

No problem. It wasn’t quite as popular as I would have hoped. Hijack away.

[SteveG1]

@smiling_bandit

We do follow the Geneva convention. They were taken in battle, fought without uniforms, and embraced the use of civilian-killing rather than plausible military methods.

But, and this is the key concept, it is not the place for a civilian court to decide. neither military nor civilian courts do not decide issues of fact. Furthermore, what evidence could possibly be provided? The only thing you can say is that Soldier A did capture said invidual, who was armed and not acting properly under the conventions of war. Which is why we could have pretty much blown all their brains out. The prisoners at Gitmo are those who have already been weeded out, and are let go if there’s any doubt at all of their guilt. But they broke no laws of the United Sates in doing so; we have no criminal jurisdiction.

In despised the Nuremburg trials for similar reasons: victor’s justice, and nothing more, no matter how pretty it’s dressed up to be. Or even how fair it actually it.

Are you saying no one has jurisdiction? There are civilian courts. There are military courts and tribunals. There are regulations and laws, and even customs/traditions that can determine what to do and how to do it.
If there is nothing and no one who has any jurisdiction or authority to decide, then we are all in deep shit.

As for Nuremburg, given the evils that were done, and the magnitude of it, victor’s justice is still better than no justice at all. High ranking Nazis were tried, comvicted, and executed for their crimes, which were verified and proven - often from their own records and documents. It was justice. Victor’s justice? Yes, but justice all the same.

[Shodan]

Rather than rehash the previous slew of arguments, perhaps a new example would help.

President Obama wants, allegedly, to end the confirmation wars over judicial nominees (cite). Traditionally, a nominee who is qualified and of high character was supposed to be confirmed. Thus, for instance, Scalia was confirmed to the Supreme Court without an opposing vote. Likewise Ginsberg and O’Connor.

Obama, however, in a speech, mentioned that he did not believe in that approach. He said that the Senate is entitled to consider judicial philosophy as well as qualifications and character. So, topic for debate -

Is it legitimate for the GOP to oppose Obama nominees based on their belief that the philosophy of those nominees is incorrect, regardless of their qualifiactaions (or lack thereof). Does that count as new experience? Or should the Senate return to the former standard - permanently?

Regards,
Shodan