I don't know very much about constitutional law, but I think that the U.S. Constitution only guarantees privacy from the government, but not other persons (irrelevant whether that person is physical or juridical).
Obviously, the same/similar act(s) may be illegal irrespective of whom undertakes them, but the categorization would vary:
By government: search; seizure; arrest.
By person(s): sexual harassment; theft; kidnap. The former chiefly regulated by the U.S. Constitution (stronger), the latter by statute (weaker).
Thus, the alleged crime or civil wrong relevant to the case against Mr Uy would be harassment, wouldn't it, rather than an infringment of Mr Moore's constitutional right to privacy?!
Re:Does anyone find it odd...
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
... that Peter Arnett of CNN looks like something out of a Dracula movie? Has he spent the decade since the 1991 Gulf War buried in Baghdad... or merely in a coffin with soil from his homeland?
On an even less somber note: it appears the internet entire has been slashdotted by the Iraqi crisis.
Couldn't disagree more ...
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
So what follows is simply that you can not argument one way or the other with a trade-off argument. It is no justification for any action. Although this has definitely a rather philosphical nature now...
It is not entirely clear to me what you mean by a 'trade-off argument', but it appears you mean that there are arguments both for and against a war. And because of that you draw the conclusion that there is no justification for this war and that this line of argument has now become 'philosophical'. I disagree. In real life clear-cut cases, i.e., cases involving nothing but good things (e.g., no people dying) or cases involving nothing but bad things (e.g. all people dying), are few and far between. That means that in most instances we have to make a choice, not between totally good and totally bad, but (usually and, I would and have argued, in this case) between the bad and the worse/worst and, furthermore, that we have to make that choice without the benefit of that 20/20 vision only history and hindsight confer. In this instance we have to chose between (a) doing nothing in which case people will probably get killed but by Mr Hussein's regime; or (b) doing something in which case people will probably also get killed but by 'us' (or whether that should be 'U.S.') but hopefully fewer of them and for a shorter time. Either way people will be killed. I don't see how that is a justification for non-action. Clearly, non-action has consequences too. And those consequences might actually end up being worse in the terms of number of humans killed. Again: just because a case isn't clear-cut doesn't mean that a case cannot be made. Just because it is difficult to know where the day ends and the nights begins (as that pesky twilight interferes) doesn't mean that you don't know when it is day and when it just isn't.
... you are trading lives by saying "it's better to kill 1,000 than letting 100,000 be killed."... The answer: you simply can't.
I don't recall making the argument that it is necessarily better to 'kill 1,000 than letting 100,000 be killed'. However, even though you seem keen to infer things that aren't necessarily there: for the sake of the argument let us say that the present attack on Iraq kills 1,000 'innocent' civilians. But let us then also say that leaving Mr Hussein in power would kill 100,000 'innocent' Iraqi people. How is that a better option for the Iraqi people or for the world (and please remember: no man is island...)
As for the whole "violations of the Iraqi people's basic human rights", that is an internal affair of a sovreign nation
Yes, it definitely used to be the case that a sovereign nation could treat its population however it saw fit. However, is that really true after WWII and the Nürnberg Trials? If yes, wouldn't that mean that Nazi Germany had the right to gas German Jews, but not Jews with other nationalities? (N.B. I am not making any other comparisons with Nazi Germany here: I am merely referring to the Nürnberg Trials because they are the first cases of genocide and crimes against humanity that I know of.) Personally, I don't think that is within the sovereign rights of a nation any more.
How about solid proof of capability to, or inmminent intent to commit an act of agression.
Yes, I would agree that in the normal case such proof (or at least evidence) would be necessary. However, as far as I know, Iraq agreed, as part of the cease-fire agreement negotiated after the 1991 Gulf War, to disarm. Does it appear to you that Iraq has disarmed and with whom rests the burden of proof?
Just because ...
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Just because there isn't a second UN Security Council resolution doesn't mean that it was necessary to have one (when the first resolution spoke of 'grave consequences' what did that mean -- watching the French quip and quibble?).
Just because the Bush Administration has failed to argue the case for war coherently and convincingly (Saddam Hussein has links to Al Quaida... no, he tried to kill my dad... he has nukes... er... well, anyway he is bad and Wolfowitz always said so) doesn't mean that e.g., Tony Blair, John Howard , Tim Collins, Timothy Garton Ash, Julie Burchill, and Christopher Hitchens haven't.
Just because the case for war isn't clearcut doesn't mean that there isn't a case to be made. After all: if we say that Mr Hussein's violation of the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire agreement, his violations of 18 UN Security Council resolutions, and his violations of the Iraqi peoples' [sic] basic human rights do not, put together, consitute a sufficiently strong case for war what exactly would?!?
'Innocent' (whatever that means) Iraqi civilians will inevitably die in this war. But is that really the same as saying that no 'innocent' Iraqi people will die if Mr Hussein is left to his own device and in power?
In the immortal words of the leftist Swedish band Hoolabandoola Band (admittedly à propos their supporting the then-guerilla the Sandinistas of Nicaragua) [I'm paraphrasing]: 'Är det verkligen fred vi vill ha? Och till varje enskilt pris?' (Is it really peace we want? And at any cost?)
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously, the same/similar act(s) may be illegal irrespective of whom undertakes them, but the categorization would vary:
By government: search; seizure; arrest.
By person(s): sexual harassment; theft; kidnap.
The former chiefly regulated by the U.S. Constitution (stronger), the latter by statute (weaker).
Thus, the alleged crime or civil wrong relevant to the case against Mr Uy would be harassment, wouldn't it, rather than an infringment of Mr Moore's constitutional right to privacy?!
... that Peter Arnett of CNN looks like something out of a Dracula movie? Has he spent the decade since the 1991 Gulf War buried in Baghdad ... or merely in a coffin with soil from his homeland?
On an even less somber note: it appears the internet entire has been slashdotted by the Iraqi crisis.
It is not entirely clear to me what you mean by a 'trade-off argument', but it appears you mean that there are arguments both for and against a war. And because of that you draw the conclusion that there is no justification for this war and that this line of argument has now become 'philosophical'. I disagree. In real life clear-cut cases, i.e., cases involving nothing but good things (e.g., no people dying) or cases involving nothing but bad things (e.g. all people dying), are few and far between. That means that in most instances we have to make a choice, not between totally good and totally bad, but (usually and, I would and have argued, in this case) between the bad and the worse/worst and, furthermore, that we have to make that choice without the benefit of that 20/20 vision only history and hindsight confer. In this instance we have to chose between (a) doing nothing in which case people will probably get killed but by Mr Hussein's regime; or (b) doing something in which case people will probably also get killed but by 'us' (or whether that should be 'U.S.') but hopefully fewer of them and for a shorter time. Either way people will be killed. I don't see how that is a justification for non-action. Clearly, non-action has consequences too. And those consequences might actually end up being worse in the terms of number of humans killed.
Again: just because a case isn't clear-cut doesn't mean that a case cannot be made. Just because it is difficult to know where the day ends and the nights begins (as that pesky twilight interferes) doesn't mean that you don't know when it is day and when it just isn't.
I don't recall making the argument that it is necessarily better to 'kill 1,000 than letting 100,000 be killed'.
However, even though you seem keen to infer things that aren't necessarily there: for the sake of the argument let us say that the present attack on Iraq kills 1,000 'innocent' civilians. But let us then also say that leaving Mr Hussein in power would kill 100,000 'innocent' Iraqi people. How is that a better option for the Iraqi people or for the world (and please remember: no man is island
Yes, it definitely used to be the case that a sovereign nation could treat its population however it saw fit. However, is that really true after WWII and the Nürnberg Trials? If yes, wouldn't that mean that Nazi Germany had the right to gas German Jews, but not Jews with other nationalities? (N.B. I am not making any other comparisons with Nazi Germany here: I am merely referring to the Nürnberg Trials because they are the first cases of genocide and crimes against humanity that I know of.) Personally, I don't think that is within the sovereign rights of a nation any more.
Yes, I would agree that in the normal case such proof (or at least evidence) would be necessary. However, as far as I know, Iraq agreed, as part of the cease-fire agreement negotiated after the 1991 Gulf War, to disarm. Does it appear to you that Iraq has disarmed and with whom rests the burden of proof?
Just because there isn't a second UN Security Council resolution doesn't mean that it was necessary to have one (when the first resolution spoke of 'grave consequences' what did that mean -- watching the French quip and quibble?).
... no, he tried to kill my dad ... he has nukes ... er ... well, anyway he is bad and Wolfowitz always said so) doesn't mean that e.g., Tony Blair, John Howard , Tim Collins, Timothy Garton Ash, Julie Burchill, and Christopher Hitchens haven't.
Just because the Bush Administration has failed to argue the case for war coherently and convincingly (Saddam Hussein has links to Al Quaida
Just because the case for war isn't clearcut doesn't mean that there isn't a case to be made. After all: if we say that Mr Hussein's violation of the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire agreement, his violations of 18 UN Security Council resolutions, and his violations of the Iraqi peoples' [sic] basic human rights do not, put together, consitute a sufficiently strong case for war what exactly would?!?
'Innocent' (whatever that means) Iraqi civilians will inevitably die in this war. But is that really the same as saying that no 'innocent' Iraqi people will die if Mr Hussein is left to his own device and in power?
In the immortal words of the leftist Swedish band Hoolabandoola Band (admittedly à propos their supporting the then-guerilla the Sandinistas of Nicaragua) [I'm paraphrasing]: 'Är det verkligen fred vi vill ha? Och till varje enskilt pris?' (Is it really peace we want? And at any cost?)
Ever heard of cookbooks?!