|
|
|
|
#1
06-30-2010
|
||||
|
||||
30/6/2010 The Year I Lost My Belief
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/10464282.stm
It's Very Rare that I do this, but I am just in need of opinions from people in and out of the UK. Is this Right? 
|
|
#3
06-30-2010
|
||||
|
||||
|
well, bringing in a legal view, I can only summise it is following the ruling of McCann, which said that even the unbreachable right to life can be breached in name of war and so what this means is that cannot enforce human rights during "battle" as simply impractial and battles sort of go against them from the start, if it means anything I will feel physically sick (not sure I like my view as it stands, but at least I can see logic to that, ether way, my next stop its Nexis Case reports)
|
|
#4
06-30-2010
|
||||
|
||||
|
great. i can only guess what this will do for other rights during wartime...
|
|
#5
06-30-2010
|
||||
|
||||
|
off first glace no, but it makes sence from a theralogical persepective.
|
|
#7
06-30-2010
|
||||
|
||||
|
Normal people are no better. Remember Vietnam when Veterans returning to the States were attacked by civilians and treated like garbage? Pretty much more of the same. It's something I can't understand. I don't have the balls to be a soldier and neither do a lot of the bureaucrats these days. So of course those are the people who decide when to send other people's children to die.
|
|
#8
06-30-2010
|
||||
|
||||
|
How utterly shameful. Especially during this time and age. I would expect better from the United Kingdom than this. This almost overshadows the terrible landmark court ruling the US Supreme Court made regarding corporations and campaign spending.
Bring the boys home. They've had enough.
|
|
#9
07-01-2010
|
||||
|
||||
|
Agreed with above post. I don't live in the UK and am unfamiliar with war, but denying people their basic human rights is wrong.
|
|
#10
07-01-2010
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#11
07-01-2010
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#12
07-01-2010
|
||||
|
||||
|
i'm thinking the only reason this is being brought into view is so someone can sue the government. in the military you have basic rations and it's been that way for hundreds of years (in the "civilized world"). you get food, you get water, you pee and shit whenever you find the place to do so, and you eat when you have the chance. you join the military knowing your armour, camos and whatever gear you have are almost 100 lbs (typically 60-90+ lbs) if not more.
in the case of the video shown in the article the soldiers are in the desert. the guy is straight up fat so of course he's going to get overheated faster than anyone else. but honestly that is NOT the military's fault. it's the soldier's fault for not taking care of himself. in a military zone you're on ration more or less. you go into a military zone knowing what you're going into and if you're not physically capable you damn well don't belong there. i believe this comes down to the soldiers parent lashing out because their kid died and nothing more but i don't believe (from what i've seen in the videos) the onus belongs with the military...beyond the fact that perhaps they shouldn't accept such heavy people as the young man in question into active military zones.
|
|
#14
07-02-2010
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
It's not like this hasn't happened before in any other country, especially other superpowers... I don't get why this is such a big deal really... A few years ago the US stated that the constitution of the US and the US's Morals (Even stating "All men are created equal") Does not apply to "Terrorists". I don't remember this getting alot of publicity. Then again, I suppose the US can do what the US wants to do... Equally, Martial law where the military can impose laws against the peoples will - sometimes even going as far as breaching their human rights - has existed for many, MANY years. Ok, So I don't agree with the idea of taking rights away from any citizen, Especially those who are willing to die for their country, but come on... You have to admit it is a little impractical to give Soldiers a guaranteed right to life when their job involves willingness to die =P It would kind of unstabilise the entire military idea when soldiers can refuse orders on account that it has a slight probability of resulting in death AND get away with it because they can point towards their human right to life... It's not like the Military will stop granting them their rights because they can, it just means that in extreme security issues they will be able to protect the civilians, no matter what. Last edited by Spoofs3; 07-02-2010 at 08:27 AM.
|
|
#16
10-06-2010
|
||||
|
||||
|
I am neutral on this whole discussion, as I have not done enough research on it to form an opinion. The way I see it, if you are going to die, rights aren't as important as life (which is a right though, right?). I mean, which is more important, the right to education or the right to live? Call me a freak, but in self defense, I would deny someone else their right to happiness/live if it saved my life/many lives.
|
|
#19
10-20-2010
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#20
10-20-2010
|
||||
|
||||
|
technically, on the way he has perceived these facts, it would be within the definition of ironic, his mistake is not a mistake of definition but a mistake of fact, and an easy 1 to make unless someone who understands how human rights laws actually work
|
|
#21
10-20-2010
|
||||
|
||||
|
oh sorry
|
|
#22
11-03-2010
|
||||
|
||||
|
I agree that cetain rights are impractical to hold while in battle, however, the right to a decent treatment is vital. I don't know too much about this, but even if you remove their right to life as a matter of practicality, they should still have the right to be as comfortable as can be made in this sort of situation, especially when it may result in soldiers dieing outside of fighting.
|
 |
|
|
