ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that a tip of an imminent explosion constitutes probable cause and that the police don't need a warrant to evacuate a building in such a case. That, I believe, IS the legally required thing to do. However, were the police to find the caller of the anonymous tip and torture him until the caller told them exactly what was in the truck and who was responsible, that is not legal, nor should it ever be.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

It was materially different in the magnitude; otherwise no. But for sake of argument, lets say the police received a tip that a rental truck legally parked in front of the Oklahoma City federal building might explode causing unimaginable destruction and loss of life? Would you favor them following the legal route of taking the time to call a judge, get a warrant, and open the truck for inspection? Or would the wise thing be to take whatever measures were immediately necessary to prevent the truck from exploding where it was?

If it is your loved ones inside the building and there may not be time to warn and evaucate everybody, what do you want the police to do? Do the legally required thing? Or do the immediately expedient thing to prevent loss of life?

Again, I see a difference. Please PLEASE tell me that you do too.

Well, I know that the police here, as Walter has pointed out, can take virtually whatever measure necessary to prevent something like that while acting in accordance with the law.

So, are you saying there would be no legal way for the police in the USA to take whatever measures immediately necessary to prevent the truck from exploding?

You know, I once was at an airport where a suitcase was found, and nobody seemed to be around whom it belonged to. I was under the impression that it took the police significantly less time to act upon that fact than it would take to call a judge and get a warrant. And I was under the impression that they were still acting within the law.

I think your claim that the police cannot work effectively within the boundaries of the law is patently false.

0 Replies

And I love the way FreeDuck put it.....

<nods>

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

And I love the way FreeDuck put it.....

<nods>

I do as well.

(Although in such a case there still would be the possibilty of transferring such a person to a secret prison abroad ....)

0 Replies

INSANE AND SANE CAUSES AND EFFECTS

INSANE -- Israel, a signatore of the GC, is required to wage war in compliance with the GC, even when waging war with IT who are not signatores of the GC and do not wage war in compliance with the GC.

SANE -- Israel when waging war against IT, is permitted to to wage war against the IT in the same manner as IT wages war against Israel.

INSANE -- IT = Islamo Totalitarians (e.g., Fatah, Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Taliban, Baathists, et al) are waging war against non-combatants.

SANE -- Protectors of non-combatants are waging war against IT to end IT's war against non-combatants.

INSANE -- IT, not a signatore of the GC, is not required to wage war in compliance with the GC, even when waging war with Israel who is a signatore of the GC.

SANE -- IT, not a signatore of the GC, is required to wage war in compliance with the GC, when waging war with Israel who is a signatore of the GC.

INSANE -- IT sympathizers say IT will stop killing Jews when the Jews stop discriminating against Arabs.

SANE -- Israeli sympathizers say Jews will stop discriminating against Arabs when IT stops killing non-combatant Jews.

INSANE -- Arabs do not stop killing Jews when Jews stop killing Arabs.

SANE -- Jews stop killing Arabs when Arabs stop killing Jews.

INSANE -- IT sympathizers say IT will stop killing Jews when Jews leave Palestine.

SANE -- Israeli sympathizers say Israel will stop killing Arabs when IT stops trying to force Jews to leave Palestine.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that a tip of an imminent explosion constitutes probable cause and that the police don't need a warrant to evacuate a building in such a case. That, I believe, IS the legally required thing to do. However, were the police to find the caller of the anonymous tip and torture him until the caller told them exactly what was in the truck and who was responsible, that is not legal, nor should it ever be.

Your example has nothing to do with whether Israel has the legal right to defend itself, in whatever manner Israel determines is necessary to survive, against nations or groups attacking Israel.

Rockets firing into northern Israel from outside of Israel constitutes probable cause. IDF evacuating northern Israel is a legal self-defense tactic. IDF attacking rocket launching sites outside of Israel that are firing rockets or are said by anonymous callers to be aiming rockets at northern Israel, is a legal self-defense tactic. Also, IDF attacking neigborhoods that have allowed sanctuary to these rocket firing sites and to those that fire rockets from these sites, is a legal self-defense tactic.

So let's change your example to fit the actual reality with which Israel was/is confronted.

A tip from an anonyous caller of imminent rocket firing from outside the country into a city inside the country constitutes probable cause and the country's defense force doesn't need a warrant to begin evacuating the city as quickly as they can in such a case. That, I believe, IS the legally required and rational thing to do. If the defense force were to capture the caller of the anonymous tip and force the caller to tell from where the rockets were going to be fired and who was going to fire them, that is the rational thing to do, and should always be the legally rational thing to do.

The question one might raise is how much or what kind of force is legally rational to use.

Should it be legal to befriend, incarcerate, bribe, frighten, insult, humiliate, or to deprive of sleep or normal diet, such an anonymous caller for the single purpose of deterimining where the rockets were going to be fired and who was going to fire them, but not use the information obtained to indict/convict the caller?

I say yes, because I believe that is easily justifed on the basis of probable saving of many lives! I guess you would say no!

The force I would prohibit is killing, maiming, disabling, or wounding the captured anonymuous caller. I would prohibit that out of respect, not for the captured anonymous caller, but for the interrogators of the captured anonyous caller.

Is befriending, incarcerating, bribing, frightening, insulting, humiliating, or depriving of sleep or normal diet, torture? I think so!

Is killing, maiming, disabling, or wounding, also torture? Of course, but it is far crueler torture.

0 Replies

Great. So you get busy taking the many minutes necessary to evacuate the building with no idea whether or not the bomb will explode within a minute. You followed the law and you allow a lot of people to be kiled and horribly injured. For them and their loved ones it's pretty small comfort that you followed the law. Of course you start evacuation, but you also remove that truck if you can or at least break in to see if there is a bomb that can be defused. That's how I want my loved ones to be protected.

So also knowing that Islamofacist bombers complete with bombs and detonators are holed up in a residential neighborhood should be sufficient license to go after them in a residential neighborhood.

It's sort of like when Israel is being shelled with rockets and they believe a rocket launcher is positioned in a Lebanese residential neighborhood, they have a right to take out that launcher even though it is in a residential neighborhood.

The evidence for both those things is far more plausible than an anonymous tip during a time when bogus bomb threats were commonplace. But in all cases, those responsible for protecting the lives of the innocent act on the immediate threat BEFORE there is loss of life.

No imminent threat to innocent life, follow the law. Imminent threat, do whatever is necessary to protect innocent life.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that a tip of an imminent explosion constitutes probable cause and that the police don't need a warrant to evacuate a building in such a case. That, I believe, IS the legally required thing to do. However, were the police to find the caller of the anonymous tip and torture him until the caller told them exactly what was in the truck and who was responsible, that is not legal, nor should it ever be.

You're leaving half the picture out of the picture.

Suppose that in 1944 US agents capture a German spy who knows something about a plot to blow up the Empire State Building at 10 AM the following Tuesday. They might indeed tell him something like "Hey, we're cool, we're not gonna torture your sorry ass, but if this plan of yours goes through, there's going to be a thousand-plane raid over the small city of _________ where you grew up two days later, and the newspapers are going to carry the word that you sent them there."

I mean, even at Pearl Harbor the Japanese had the decency to have their own flag markings on their own aircraft, and nobody had to guess who had done it or where they came from.

What we're talking about now on the other hand is totally different. We're talking about terror organizations which operate in countries which may or may not sympathize with them, which fire rockets from civilian areas and use civilians as human shields, which seek to inflict maximal damage on innocent civilians in other countries without provocation, and which obey no rules of war which were ever formulated.

To tie the hands of our own leaders in dealing with such people in such a conflict is basically criminal and insane.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Great. So you get busy taking the many minutes necessary to evacuate the building with no idea whether or not the bomb will explode within a minute. You followed the law and you allow a lot of people to be kiled and horribly injured. For them and their loved ones it's pretty small comfort that you followed the law. Of course you start evacuation, but you also remove that truck if you can or at least break in to see if there is a bomb that can be defused. That's how I want my loved ones to be protected.

So also knowing that Islamofacist bombers complete with bombs and detonators are holed up in a residential neighborhood should be sufficient license to go after them in a residential neighborhood.

It's sort of like when Israel is being shelled with rockets and they believe a rocket launcher is positioned in a Lebanese residential neighborhood, they have a right to take out that launcher even though it is in a residential neighborhood.

The evidence for both those things is far more plausible than an anonymous tip during a time when bogus bomb threats were commonplace. But in all cases, those responsible for protecting the lives of the innocent act on the immediate threat BEFORE there is loss of life.

No imminent threat to innocent life, follow the law. Imminent threat, do whatever is necessary to protect innocent life.

You seem to forget one point here Foxfyre. No one is going to go up to a suspicious object, in this case the truck, open it up and see what's in it.

Have you ever heard of booby traps? Why do you think they evacuate an area when they detect a suspicious package in, say, an airport. Because they don't have a warrant? Ridiculous.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that a tip of an imminent explosion constitutes probable cause and that the police don't need a warrant to evacuate a building in such a case. That, I believe, IS the legally required thing to do. However, were the police to find the caller of the anonymous tip and torture him until the caller told them exactly what was in the truck and who was responsible, that is not legal, nor should it ever be.

And besides under torture how do you know the truth is being told. Many times the person being tortured will say anything he/she thinks the inquisitor wants to hear, just to stop the pain.

0 Replies

That is correct.

Moreover in the case of slammonazis, there's a better idea.

The guy in charge of any prison like Gitmo should be a hog farmer, and a cell without (other) pigs in it should be a reward for valuable information.

0 Replies

Poisonous clouds of pollution spread after Israel air strike
Lebanese minister says damage was deliberate, causing 'an even bigger disaster than the war itself'

Geoffrey Lean / London Independent | September 10 2006

More people will die as a result of pollution unleashed by Israel's bombing of the Lebanon than perished in the month-long war itself, the Lebanese government believes.

Yacoub Sarraf, its Environment Minister, speaking exclusively to The Independent on Sunday, said last week that a highly poisonous cloud spread over a third of the country - an area that is home to half its people - from a fire in a bombed fuel tank that burned for 12 days.

The same bombing released about four million gallons of oil into the sea, in the largest ever spill in the eastern Mediterranean. He insists that the environmental damage was "deliberately" caused. Experts say that, if this was so, it would constitute a war crime, in breach of both the Geneva Convention and the statute of the International Criminal Court. Israel retorts that any such suggestion is "very ridiculous".

The damage began on 13 July, when Israeli rockets hit a fuel storage tank at the Jiyyeh power station 18 miles south of Beirut. The government managed to repair the damage and prevent an oil spill. But two days later, he continued, the rockets returned, not merely hitting the same tank again - just 25 metres from the sea - but fatally damaging its protective burm, a concrete and earth barrier designed to stop any oil spilling from the tank from reaching the Mediterranean.

"It was definitely deliberate.," he said. "They did not hit the power station, just the fuel storage, and this was the tank that was closest to the sea."
He expects the greatest "catastrophe" from the toxic cloud that was blown by the prevailing wind over Beirut and one-third of the country. Tests have shown, he says, that it contains high levels of poisonous lead and mercury, and highly dangerous PCBs.

"Not only have we been breathing this for a month, but all the agricultural produce has been subjected to it. Even worse, all these poisons will come down with the rain, and some will seep through the soil and give us a polluted water table.

"Then in a couple of years every single citizen in Lebanon will definitely be subjected to poisonous matter in his drinking water." He expected more Lebanese to die from the pollution than the 1,300, overwhelmingly civilians, killed in the war. He added that studies have shown there would be decreased fertility and higher rates of cancer. "This is a bigger disaster even than the war itself," Mr Sarraf said.

A spokesman for the Israeli government said: "We deny the minister's accusations. They seem to be very ridiculous.

"We never deliberately targeted any civilian capacity or place, we only targeted places or facilities relevant to Hizbollah."

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Great. So you get busy taking the many minutes necessary to evacuate the building with no idea whether or not the bomb will explode within a minute. You followed the law and you allow a lot of people to be kiled and horribly injured. For them and their loved ones it's pretty small comfort that you followed the law. Of course you start evacuation, but you also remove that truck if you can or at least break in to see if there is a bomb that can be defused. That's how I want my loved ones to be protected.

So also knowing that Islamofacist bombers complete with bombs and detonators are holed up in a residential neighborhood should be sufficient license to go after them in a residential neighborhood.

It's sort of like when Israel is being shelled with rockets and they believe a rocket launcher is positioned in a Lebanese residential neighborhood, they have a right to take out that launcher even though it is in a residential neighborhood.

The evidence for both those things is far more plausible than an anonymous tip during a time when bogus bomb threats were commonplace. But in all cases, those responsible for protecting the lives of the innocent act on the immediate threat BEFORE there is loss of life.

No imminent threat to innocent life, follow the law. Imminent threat, do whatever is necessary to protect innocent life.

You seem to forget one point here Foxfyre. No one is going to go up to a suspicious object, in this case the truck, open it up and see what's in it.

Have you ever heard of booby traps? Why do you think they evacuate an area when they detect a suspicious package in, say, an airport. Because they don't have a warrant? Ridiculous.

The point isn't how its done. The point is whether the police (or military) should do WHATEVER IS NECESSARY to prevent murderers from killing or maiming innocent victims even if they don't have time to get a warrant to permission from the UN.

And changing the scene from that imminent threat to one less threatening is not the way to have this discussion.

0 Replies

Quote:

permission from the UN.

Oh please Foxfyre, don't insult our intelligence with this crap.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

And changing the scene from that imminent threat to one less threatening is not the way to have this discussion.

Every threat is treated as an immenint threat. An abandonded suitcase in an airport terminal or a suspicious truck parked outside a building.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Israel's Arab neighbors are under no threat whatsoever from Israel if they choose to leave Israel alone.

But this doesn't address the issue of Israel's discrimination against, and oppression of the Palestinian people.

Quote:

Israel is under constant threat from its Arab neighbors because the majority of the Israeli population are Jewish.

Many of Israel's neighbors use the fact of Israel's discrimination against, and oppression of the Palestinian people as a pretext to distract their populaces from issues concerning their own countries. The fact remains, however, that Israel is discriminatory towards, and oppressive against the Palestinian people.

Quote:

Nevertheless, any persons living peacefully in Israel regardless of race, ethnicity, or country of origin, even Arabs, are afforded full citizenship rights.

Again, your continued parroting of this assertion does not make it true. Simply read about the marriage cohabitation restrictions against the Arabs in Israel to see how this assertion is false.

Quote:

The Jews have nowhere else in the Middle Eastto go where they will have any guaranteed rights at all. No other developed country anywhere is going to allow all of them to immgirate to that country either, at least all at once.

Why would the Jews have to go anywhere else in the Middle East, or other developed country? This red herring does not negate the fact that Israel is discriminatory towards, and oppressive against the Palestinian people.

Quote:

You persistently denounce the evils of Israel who DOES afford human rights and affords full rights of citizenship to its Arab citizens, but I've seen no posts at all where you make a point to denounce or criticize any of the Arab/Muslim countries for their policies. This appears to reflect a strong prejudice against Israel with little or no concern about human rights anywhere else.

What is apparent to you, as you have demonstrated in your postings throughout this thread, diverges markedly from reality.

Quote:

Your argument claiming concern for human rights is simply not persuasive.

That my argument claiming concern for human rights is not persuasive to you is irrelevant to the fact that Israel discriminates against, and is oppressive towards the Palestinian people.

0 Replies

You're still missing the point Xingu. My point is that when the lives of innocent people are at imminent risk of murder or mayhem committed by terrorists, the police or the military or the Commander in Chief of the military should put protection of innocent civilians/victims ahead of protocol or other people's expectations. So far the anti-Israel crowd has tried every possible way to divert the discussion from that one central point.

0 Replies

Xingu wrote:

And besides under torture how do you know the truth is being told. Many times the person being tortured will say anything he/she thinks the inquisitor wants to hear, just to stop the pain.

end of quote

Absolute bunk!!! The fact that interrogation has brought facts to light which HAVE PREVENTED ATTACKS is clear evidence that Interrogation works..

Bush defended the program, saying captured terrorists "have unique knowledge" about how their networks operate, where operatives are deployed, and about plots that are under way.

"This is intelligence that cannot be found any other place, and our security depends on getting this kind of information," he said. "To win the war on terror, we must be able to detain, question, and when appropriate, prosecute terrorists captured here in America and on the battlefields around the world."

Thanks to the information gained by the program, "everything from initial leads to photo identifications, to precise locations of where terrorists were hiding," the president said potential mass murderers were taken into custody "before they were able to kill," and authorities gained a greater understanding of al-Qaida's structure, financing, communications and logistics.

The program is "invaluable" to the United States and its allies and is "one of the most vital tools" in the war against terror, Bush said.

0 Replies

InfraBlue wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Israel's Arab neighbors are under no threat whatsoever from Israel if they choose to leave Israel alone.

But this doesn't address the issue of Israel's discrimination against, and oppression of the Palestinian people.

No it doesn't because that would be a separate issue entirely. It also doesn't address discrimination by Arabs against Jewish people.

The issue again is protecting innocent people from being kidnapped, maimed, raped, or murdered by terrorists intent on doing that.

Quote:

Quote:
Israel is under constant threat from its Arab neighbors because the majority of the Israeli population are Jewish.

Many of Israel's neighbors use the fact of Israel's discrimination against, and oppression of the Palestinian people as a pretext to distract their populaces from issues concerning their own countries. The fact remains, however, that Israel is discriminatory towards, and oppressive against the Palestinian people.

That fact has absolutely nothing to do with the right of people to defend themselves against those who wish to murder them, and does not address the fact that the Palestinians are discriminated against because they commit terrorism against the Israelis or harbor terorrists who do. If they stopped doing that and then there was no change in Israeli policy, you might have a valid point. At this time your point appears to favor murdering terrorists being able to do anything they wish to Israelis just because they're mad.

Quote:

Quote:
Nevertheless, any persons living peacefully in Israel regardless of race, ethnicity, or country of origin, even Arabs, are afforded full citizenship rights.

Again, your continued parroting of this assertion does not make it true. Simply read about the marriage cohabitation restrictions against the Arabs in Israel to see how this assertion is false.

I have posted numerous credible sources citing Israel's stated policies and the testimony of the Israeli Arabs themselves that show that Israel's system of government is quite fair and equitable to all people. Even if it were not so, the fact that you demand such of Israel but not from any Arab nations committed to destroying Israel just doesn't pass the smell test.

Quote:

Quote:
The Jews have nowhere else in the Middle Eastto go where they will have any guaranteed rights at all. No other developed country anywhere is going to allow all of them to immgirate to that country either, at least all at once.

Why would the Jews have to go anywhere else in the Middle East, or other developed country? This red herring does not negate the fact that Israel is discriminatory towards, and oppressive against the Palestinian people.

They would have to go elsewhere because the minute they stop defending themselves, they will be methodically exterminated by those very Arabs you say they are mistreating. The policy of the leadership of those very Arabs is quite explicit on that point.

Quote:

Quote:
You persistently denounce the evils of Israel who DOES afford human rights and affords full rights of citizenship to its Arab citizens, but I've seen no posts at all where you make a point to denounce or criticize any of the Arab/Muslim countries for their policies. This appears to reflect a strong prejudice against Israel with little or no concern about human rights anywhere else.

What is apparent to you, as you have demonstrated in your postings throughout this thread, diverges markedly from reality.

Quote:

It certainly diverges markedly from your reality. I do not find your reality to be persuasive as having any basis in fact however.

Your argument claiming concern for human rights is simply not persuasive.

That my argument claiming concern for human rights is not persuasive to you is irrelevant to the fact that Israel discriminates against, and is oppressive towards the Palestinian people.[/quote][/QUOTE]

And as long as you think Israel should not discriminate agianst those who firebomb crowded busses and market places, we are unlikely to agree on that point.

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

The program is "invaluable" to the United States and its allies and is "one of the most vital tools" in the war against terror, Bush said.

This opposes what Foxfyre said earlier:

Foxfyre wrote:

I have NEVER heard any conservative of any party and certainly no Republican speak against the Geneva Convention or indicate in any way that s/he was not in favor of all provisions of the Geneva Convention.

And it clearly opposes the understanding in most other DEMOCRATIC countries:

Walter Hinteler wrote:

The rule of law requires that people should be governed by accepted rules, rather than by the arbitrary decisions of rulers. These rules should be general and abstract, known and certain, and apply equally to all individuals.

0 Replies

ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know