More coverage from CNN.
Gunfire heard at two Mumbai hotels - CNN.comA series of gunshots rang through the air at the Oberoi Hotel Thursday morning, where about 100 members of a specialized unit of the Indian police undertook an operation to rescue four to five foreigners hostages on the 19th floor.
There is clearly a large number of people who are proven terrorists and/or known associates of such. When the things are clearly evident with background and intent of certain individuals (again I'm not talking about "shades of gray" or present a philosophical dilemma), we often rely on unconventional (but proven and effective) means of extracting information.
oh yes and here...
Assigning rules to wars makes as much sense as fighting a guerrilla war in the woods while wearing bright red uniforms, or trying to fight a "War on Terror" with a conventional army.
>> They shouldn't! War, in its very nature is the opposite of rule of law!
This I have to agree with.
It seems absolutely idiotic to go "we'll shoot you because you're wearing a uniform, but if you're not, we'll give you chocolates".
The nature of war is to kill and conquer and you look at the modern technologies used... they do just that, from a distance, with significant collateral damage.
All said and done, all these laws and rules simply do not matter in times of desperation. They're irrelevant when the other party (good or bad) has nothing to loose and are willing to do whatever it takes to make a statement. From terrorists to corrupt politicians and law enforcers .. the system is used and abused to extremes.
Let's have a little look at the Geneva convention shall we...it came about as a result of the Red Cross ( another institution that I would imagine you have contempt for...) which was founded by Henri Durant in around 1860ish and given the support of a number of states who also agreed on the red cross emblem to represent humanitarian aid...The Geneva Convention followed this and the principals that were agreed upon were to respect military hospitals, to care for wounded soldiers whatever their nationality...this later expanded to cover (amongst other things) prisoners of war...a result of the Geneva Convention is that it has been a major contributing factor for respect of human rights becoming an international obligation ( although clearly not followed by all!)..
Yes, you're clearly right, a derisory thing indeed....
Well I am afraid that you are both wrong then.
The Rule of Law is that the rights of individuals are determined by legal rules and not the arbitary behaviour of authorities...ie we are ruled by rules not rulers.. additionaly there can be no punishment unless the breach of the law has been so decided by a court and finally that no body is above the law, regardless of any position in socety.
This does in anyway stipulate that all warfare is unlawful and therefore 'the very opposite of the rule of law'.
Under whose law is the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan legal? Surely its not legal under Iraqi or Afghani law.The Rule of Law is that the rights of individuals are determined by legal rules and not the arbitary behaviour of authorities...ie we are ruled by rules not rulers
As for International law, this is the law relating to the legal rights, duties, powers etc of one nation in relation to its dealings with nations - set out in treaties, conventions, protocols etc. Obviously there is no international body or court that can make and enforce laws that bind every country in the world, the only thing enforcing these laws is that generally there is a standard that countries adhere to to achieve some sort of acceptance by other countries - to avoid condemnation by other countries or to lose out on acceptance and support that they require from another country...which is the starting point for an argument as to why the US disregard international law when it doesn't suit them, because as things stand the consequences of doing so are not enough of a deterrent due to the resources it has...
Wouldn't it be great if all the terrorists also took such care to review and adhere to the rule of law and the Geneva convention?
If they did, they would be political activists rather than terrorists....
The law must be sufficiently flexible to enable authorities to deal with those to whom human rights, let alone the law, have no meaning.
In doing so, this flexibility needs to have checks and balances to protect the rest of us from its' abuse.
No doubt we get this wrong all the time - does not mean we should stop trying and just try to sue the terrorists into submission.
The law is flexible and the rights of the individual are balanced against other factors, such as national security, freedom of expression etc..and this very legal system is the 'check and balance to protect the rest of us'..