Israel 'could kidnap Ahmadinejad'

[CptStern]

I'd prolly think different if I was a tribe leader, but meh.

you'd be too busy negotiating a trade off of opium cultivation for co-operation with the US ..also a potential leadership role once hamid karzai is assassinated ..also stoning the odd woman or two

 

[jerkasaur]

the Iranian leader had threatened genocide

ffs, who the hell mentioned genocide? When ayatollah Khomeini Predicted the soviet union's time was over, it was "wiped off from the map" without a genocide now wasn't it?

 

[Kadayi]

ffs, who the hell mentioned genocide? When ayatollah Khomeini Predicted the soviet union's time was over, it was "wiped off from the map" without a genocide now wasn't it?

Spot on. Too many people here suffer the inability to comprehend (more often than not deliberately to support an untenable position) that the terms or manner in which one culture speaks, is not necessarily reflective of what it translates as literally to another culture.

 

[The Monkey]

Well right now I'm wondering what the relevance is, I mean exactly where did I state I was defending Iran Monkey? I'm discussing the Iranian Presidents comments regarding Israel, nothing more. :dozey:

This statement claims that he hasn't violated human rights:

What exactly has he violated? Since when is speaking out against the Israeli occupation a violation of human rights? Worse than the actual occupation itself? I know your big on your Northern Ireland thing, never quite made the connection between the situations?

 

[Kadayi]

This statement claims that he hasn't violated human rights:

Did he personally pass the laws that condemn homosexuality? Is he personally hanging them himself? Or does he merely happen to live in a Country where Homosexuality is considered a crime? Passive acceptance of a state of being might not be in itself good in our eyes, but it hardly constitutes actual violation of human rights. Plenty of people in Germany stood by and did nothing whilst the holocaust went on, by your rationale they'd all be subject to trial. :dozey:

Levelling charges of human rights violations over this at him alone, would be akin to you standing trial for the rape and slaughter your ancestors committed during the middle ages. In an honest court a man can only be judged on the acts he personally commits, nothing more, nothing less. To do otherwise is to enter the realms of prejudice.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Kadayi, I agree with the basic motives of your broad assault on the "let's kidnap mahmoud" lobby here, but it's not true to say the guy isn't culpable for what is happening in his country. He is in a high-ranking government position, clearly supportive of and implicated in the acts that the government commits - and he is there voluntarily.

EDIT: Obviously, if he were legally cuplable in a human rights court, I imagine tha so too would be a number of high-ranking Israeli personnel who are implicated in the same government that perpetrated the recent war against the people of Lebanon.

 

[unozero]

ffs, who the hell mentioned genocide? When ayatollah Khomeini Predicted the soviet union's time was over, it was "wiped off from the map" without a genocide now wasn't it?

you can try to coat all the honey on it you want.
for the sake of the all the good looking persian women I hope it doesn't come to far allthough with the current arms deal,the u.s selling bbb's to Isreal I fear the worst.

 

[Kadayi]

Kadayi, I agree with the basic motives of your broad assault on the "let's kidnap mahmoud" lobby here, but it's not true to say the guy isn't culpable for what is happening in his country. He is in a high-ranking government position, clearly supportive of and implicated in the acts that the government commits - and he is there voluntarily.

Sulks

You're mistaking the Government for the Courts here, they are entirely seperate bodies just as in other Countries. Governments can establish new laws but the overturning of/refining of them is something that occurs through legal process in the legislature itself as a rule.

 

[Solaris]

I think it goes without saying that sulkduds knows what a government is and is not.

 

[Kadayi]

I think it goes without saying that sulkduds knows what a government is and is not.

Why because he has a moderators badge? I worked in Law for 4 years when I was younger before I changed career paths.

 

[Solaris]

Why because he has a moderators badge? I work in Law for 4 years when I was younger before I changed career paths.

No, becuase he's been positing here for years and I think we all have a good idea of his intelligence from what he's posted...

I don't even understand why you would think he is confusing the two???

Not to put words in his mouth but I think he's saying, as president of a country which commits human rights abuses, he could be held responcable for this at an international court.

 

[Kadayi]

No, becuase he's been positing here for years and I think we all have a good idea of his intelligence from what he's posted...

So you awarding smarts out by post count or incept date? :dozey:

Not to put words in his mouth but I think he's saying, as president of a country which commits human rights abuses, he could be held responcable for this at an international court.

Here's a thought, why not let Sulks answer instead of trying to second guess him. All You're doing is repeating the same argument I refuted earlier on, repetition does not = success. :dozey:

 

[VirusType2]

if he were legally cuplable in a human rights court

The pursuit of human rights was a central reason for creating the UN. World War II atrocities and genocide led to a ready consensus that the new organization must work to prevent any similar tragedies in the future.

Damn it.

 

[Solaris]

So you awarding smarts out by post count or incept date? :dozey:

No, I have read his posts. I know he is not a dumb ****. Which is what you would be if you did not know what the government was.

Here's a thought, why not let Sulks answer instead of trying to second guess him. All You're doing is repeating the same argument I refuted earlier on, repetition does not = success. :dozey:

What???

Sulk made an interesting observation and you said he confused what the government and courts were. I think Sulks observation still stands and you should just make your point and take it for granted that Sulk is not a ****tard.

 

[Kadayi]

No, I have read his posts. I know he is not a dumb ****. Which is what you would be if you did not know what the government was.

Who says what, really doesn't matter to me. All that matters is the truth to their arguments, personality doesn't count in such debate and I don't dwell on it. Even people whom I have a long history or arguing with occasionally make lucid points. The only one arguing that personality counts for anything around here is you.

Sulk made an interesting observation and you said he confused what the government and courts were.

In his observation Sulks confused the acts carried out by the Courts as acts carried out by the Government because legal work is often carried out by Civil Servants. Governments come and go, but the infrastructure of the Civil Service (Courts, Police, Home office, Tax office, etc etc ) are a constant force that operate regardless of whomever is power. A government can introduce new laws, but revoking and overwriting existing ones is not an easy thing to achieve, and certainly isn't always within the remit of an individual. To attempt to hold someone to trial for failing to deal with an issue they might not even have the means to address successfully is the height of folly. There's an assumption that a president has carte blanche at times, that isn't always the case.

I think Sulks observation still stands and you should just make your point and take it for granted that Sulk is not a ****tard.

Never said he was, merely highlighted the flaw with the assumption. See above.

 

[Sulkdodds]

It's difficult to make aspersions as to the relationship between different branches of government, because such relationships differ from country to country - here, for example, we've seen remarkable instances of both government meddling with the courts and the courts standing up against government. I'd argue that the institutions of legislature, executive and judicary are rarely if ever "totally seperate".

In Iran, although the President is fairly far below the Supreme Leader, it's not true to say that he's not involved in the work of crushing people. I will not pick apart and quote in full the analysis of the Human Rights Watch (I imagine everyone is capable of reading it themselves) but some key points relevant to this discussion jump out of it: firstly that supposedly the country's human rights record has worsened noticeably since Ahmadinejad's coming to power, which indicates that he shares in responsibility. Further, many "serious human rights violations" are bound up with his cabinet, "dominated by former intelligence and security officials", and under his administration the Ministry of Information has increased its surveillance of activists, journalists, etc. It has been government ministries - their heads appointed directly by Ahmadinejad - who have been shutting down media outlets and arresting demonstrators.

In any case the point of my post wasn't to say that he was necessarily culpable in a court of human rights - such a question is best left to an examination of the actual law - but rather that, at least morally, it isn't sufficient to say "oh, he's in a different branch of government to the one doing the abuses" (which is not strictly true). He is not a prisoner of government. Nor is he a principled member who is active against the bad forces in the state apperatus - not protesting against the actions of the courts, nor attempting to curtail them. He is a fully willing and competent member of a government which is doing these things, and as such must necessarily bear a certain amount of responsibility in letting them happen, indeed in making them happen.

Yes, it's true that even in government, individuals do not necessarily have that much power. But it is also true that they have a choice as to whether or not they wish to be implicated in the system of which they are a significant part. Mahmoud is not engaging in "passive acceptance of a state of being" as you said earlier. He is an active worker for that state of being, and his position is not equivalent to an ordinary citizen until he resigns in protest.

 

[Kadayi]

It's difficult to make aspersions as to the relationship between different branches of government, because such relationships differ from country to country - here, for example, we've seen remarkable instances of both government meddling with the courts and the courts standing up against government. I'd argue that the institutions of legislature, executive and judicary are rarely if ever "totally seperate".

Not really, governments make laws and with enough party support can change/repeal them, but courts enforce and interpret them. There is liason between the two, but the law is a much bigger beast than the government, or an individual in a government. Some decisions can go to appeal to a government offical, but if the judgement they prescribe is legally incorrect such judgements are normally overturned by the appeal courts. Law is an ever evolving machine as well, as cases come to court and are assessed, and decisions reached those cases can often set precedents for future interpretation.

In Iran, although the President is fairly far below the Supreme Leader, it's not true to say that he's not involved in the work of crushing people. I will not pick apart and quote in full the analysis of the Human Rights Watch (I imagine everyone is capable of reading it themselves) but some key points relevant to this discussion jump out of it: firstly that supposedly the country's human rights record has worsened noticeably since Ahmadinejad's coming to power, which indicates that he shares in responsibility. Further, many "serious human rights violations" are bound up with his cabinet, "dominated by former intelligence and security officials", and under his administration the Ministry of Information has increased its surveillance of activists, journalists, etc. It has been government ministries - their heads appointed directly by Ahmadinejad - who have been shutting down media outlets and arresting demonstrators.

Pretty much any government carries out abuses of one kind or another, to label someone responsible simply by implication assumes a degree of omnipotence, omnipresence and all knowingness that is unrealistic, esp in a Country with 60 million people. To drive a car one does not need to know how the engine works, merely the direction you are going in.

In any case the point of my post wasn't to say that he was necessarily culpable in a court of human rights - such a question is best left to an examination of the actual law - but rather that, at least morally, it isn't sufficient to say "oh, he's in a different branch of government to the one doing the abuses" (which is not strictly true). He is not a prisoner of government. Nor is he a principled member who is active against the bad forces in the state apperatus - not protesting against the actions of the courts, nor attempting to curtail them. He is a fully willing and competent member of a government which is doing these things, and as such must necessarily bear a certain amount of responsibility in letting them happen, indeed in making them happen.

Morality has nothing to do with legal process. What is morally right or fair and what is legally correct are different entities and shouldn't be confused. A case in point, a friend I know worked for a company fulltime under via an employment agency for 18 months, eventually the company offered them a position. However after 10 months they were dismissed. They appealed to an industrial tribunal that they had been unfairly dismissed, but the tribunal deemed that they hadn't worked for the company for the requsite 12 months so weren't entitled to pursue a case. Truth of the matter is, the only difference in their working life was who sent them their pay cheque; they worked for the same people, they obeyed the same rules & regulations, but because to be considered 'employed' you need to be 'obliged' to work for your employer, and this couldn't be argued to be the case because they were Agency. However in cases that are the reverse of this, where claims have been pursued against agencies, agencies have equally been able to argue that the workers are not obliged to work for them either. Without proof of obligation a person cannot be deemed employed in the eyes of the law. Fact of the matter is, if you work through an employment agency you technically don't fulfill all the requirements of being classed as an employed individual, and until such time as an amendment is brought into the law on this matter, that will still be the case and you forfeit all your employment rights accordingly. Now there is nothing 'fair' about that state, but right now it is the law, and all employment adjudications follow along those lines.

Yes, it's true that even in government, individuals do not necessarily have that much power. But it is also true that they have a choice as to whether or not they wish to be implicated in the system of which they are a significant part. Mahmoud is not engaging in "passive acceptance of a state of being" as you said earlier. He is an active worker for that state of being, and his position is not equivalent to an ordinary citizen until he resigns in protest.

This is again an argument that hinges on the unreality of an individual being all knowing, as to what is going on at all times and everwhere within the machinery. Accountability falls down when applied in this broad brush manner because suddenly everyone becomes accountable.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Not really, governments make laws and with enough party support can change/repeal them, but courts enforce and interpret them. There is liason between the two, but the law is a much bigger beast than the government, or an individual in a government. Some decisions can go to appeal to a government offical, but if the judgement they prescribe is legally incorrect such judgements are normally overturned by the appeal courts. Law is an ever evolving machine as well, as cases come to court and are assessed, and decisions reached those cases can often set precedents for future interpretation.

I know how the law works, and am aware of its larger-than-people persuasive power, but you haven't really contradicted my points that A) the relationship between judiciary, legislature and executive differs between governments and B) there is always a link between them. It's bizarre and reductionist to negate any possible responsibility on the President's part because he is in a different 'section' of government from the courts.

If you read the summary I posted, you will find that many of the human rights problems do not come simply or solely from the courts and their actions, but rather from collaboration between the two, or even policies enacted by government Ministries (for example, two prisoners held for their political beliefs die in prison - but the government takes no action to investigate the cause of the deaths, and blocks independent autopsies).

In 2006 two prisoners held for their political beliefs, Akbar Mohammadi and Valiollah Feyz Mahdavi, died in suspicious circumstances in prison. The authorities prevented their families from conducting independent autopsies. The government has taken no action to investigate the cause of the deaths.

Pretty much any government carries out abuses of one kind or another, to label someone responsible simply by implication assumes a degree of omnipotence, omnipresence and all knowingness that is unrealistic, esp in a Country with 60 million people. To drive a car one does not need to know how the engine works, merely the direction you are going in.

But when your crank-shaft spies on students and arrest demonstrators, and you installed it yourself, you should expect people to assume you have an element of responsibility. Ignoring the nonsensicality of "a degree of ominpotence", to say that Mahmoud bears no responsibility whatsoever for the actions performed by the secular government that he runs and the cabinet ministers that he directly appointed is somewhat of a stretch. I don't need to allege Orwellian omnipotence to claim that Ahmadinejad may be morally culpable for the actions of the government under his purview, just as Tony Blair may be held for those under his.

Indeed, the HRW report contains a number of clauses like this:

Since President Ahmadinejad came to power, treatment of detainees has worsened in Evin prison as well as in detention centers operated clandestinely by the Judiciary, the Ministry of Information, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

The Ahmadinejad government, in a pronounced shift from the policy under former president Mohammed Khatami, has shown no tolerance for peaceful protests and gatherings.

It seems apparent that a "pronounced shift" in policy coincidees with a pronounced shift in who is the President.

Morality has nothing to do with legal process. What is morally right or fair and what is legally correct are different entities and shouldn't be confused.

Luckily for brevity, I already made such a distinction in my last post.

This is again an argument that hinges on the unreality of an individual being all knowing, as to what is going on at all times and everwhere within the machinery. Accountability falls down when applied in this broad brush manner because suddenly everyone becomes accountable.

Yes, everyone's accountable. If a person is made aware of what their actions are causing, and they don't change their actions, they become accountable. But even you must admit that the President of Iran has a greater moral accountability than this, both in terms of his position (his responsibility) and the knowledge that it affords him. I'm well aware that high government office does not necessarily afford as much power practically as it should in theory. But you seem to think that, though President of a secular government, and political ally of leading figures of the judiciary, the guy has less idea of what his own state is doing than I do.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does not, as you say, "merely happen to live in the country" and his actions aren't "passive acceptance of a state of being". Claiming this is opposite in perspective to, but equally absurd as, the notion that it would be a good idea to abduct Iran's president.

 

[jerkasaur]

you can try to coat all the honey on it you want.
for the sake of the all the good looking persian women I hope it doesn't come to far allthough with the current arms deal,the u.s selling bbb's to Isreal I fear the worst.

Well I hope Isreal isn't that stupid to want to start a war with Iran, 33 days of misery should have taught them something.

 

[Kadayi]

I know how the law works, and am aware of its larger-than-people persuasive power, but you haven't really contradicted my points that A) the relationship between judiciary, legislature and executive differs between governments and B) there is always a link between them. It's bizarre and reductionist to negate any possible responsibility on the President's part because he is in a different 'section' of government from the courts.

It's not about contradicting them, it's about recognising their differences (that they are not one unified force). If the law of a land says that all men must wear say black trousers on Sundays or face castration, and this law is strictly enforced by the state police is it the president?s responsibility that such a brutal law exists? Simple truth of the matter it can only legally be levelled at him if he personally introduces it. In the event that he appoints a new head of police and one who really cracks down on the application of the law, nothing changes in that assessment. The law may be brutal, but failure to apply is the real crime in a legal sense, no matter how unjust or barbaric it may seem.

It seems apparent that a "pronounced shift" in policy coincides with a pronounced shift in who is the President.

Whenever an incumbent leader is replaced there is always a policy change, this is the rule of politics and the promise given to gain support, but it is a mistake to adjudge all the change is the direct result of the appointment of that one man/woman. No one becomes president or stays president without a party and a loyalty towards the wider agenda that party subscribes to. If your an extreme right wing president, your party is going to be extreme right wing and your appointed cabinet are going to be extreme right wingers, who will act in an extreme right wing way, this is a political given. If you don't promote your parties agenda you'll find yourself ousted and someone more compliant in your shoes in little time.

Yes, everyone's accountable. If a person is made aware of what their actions are causing, and they don't change their actions, they become accountable. But even you must admit that the President of Iran has a greater moral accountability than this, both in terms of his position (his responsibility) and the knowledge that it affords him. I'm well aware that high government office does not necessarily afford as much power practically as it should in theory. But you seem to think that, though President of a secular government, and political ally of leading figures of the judiciary, the guy has less idea of what his own state is doing than I do.

What Ahmadinejad gets up to personally is on no importance to me, what interested me is the facts of a condition as a neutral debate. Whether one likes it or not a people as a collective subscribe to the life they live. If people are unhappy with the world in which they live then they need to find the route to change that world, or themselves, and there is more than one way to skin a cat when it comes to such things.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does not, as you say, "merely happen to live in the country" and his actions aren't "passive acceptance of a state of being". Claiming this is opposite in perspective to, but equally absurd as, the notion that it would be a good idea to abduct Iran's president.

Your straying from the original argument and have been for a few posts tbh. Let's have a look at what I said in full in response to monkeys post about homosexuality: -

Did he personally pass the laws that condemn homosexuality? Is he personally hanging them himself? Or does he merely happen to live in a Country where Homosexuality is considered a crime? Passive acceptance of a state of being might not be in itself good in our eyes, but it hardly constitutes actual violation of human rights. Plenty of people in Germany stood by and did nothing whilst the holocaust went on, by your rationale they'd all be subject to trial.

I'm being pretty specific on a topic, not generalising as you seem to imply. Homosexuality is illegal in Iran (like it or not) and has been for many years. It is an existing state of being (in law), it is not a state Ahmadinejad personally introduced. I'm not excusing any crimes he may of personally enacted, but I'm delineating between what a man can judged on and what he can't at trial.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Then we're at cross-purposes, because as I have said:

In any case the point of my post wasn't to say that he was necessarily culpable in a court of human rights - such a question is best left to an examination of the actual law - but rather that, at least morally

If we were going to discuss how cuplable the man was in law, we would be best to examine the laws in question. Those people who are claiming he could be tried need to actually start citing the laws that they are referring to.

But yes, I am "straying from the original argument" - you may have been arguing that it would be ridiculous to try the President only for Iran's treatment of homosexuals (I agree; it would be), but the fact that you quoted and argued against Monkey's statement that Ahmadinejad "has violated human rights" meant that you appeared to imply that he can't be held to a measure of responsibility for things done by the state he gives his name to. I inferred this general proposition from your post, perhaps wrongly.

That said, I think there are some points to be made here about law: firstly that ommissions are on occasion recognised as being actions themselves, because not to act is itself an action. This is usually held in situations where there is a duty of care from the defendant towards the victim, and you might argue that members of government actually have a general duty of care towards the populations of their countries. In your example, though the president did not create that law, he has entered a government which he knows enforces that law, and, far from attempting to get that law changed, he has supported it. Legally, both his implicit support of the law, and his indirect enforcement of it, might be held to be a continuing act in service of that law and thus the unjust actions which result from it. While all of this is slightly iffy, it is not implausible.

Further, while it's true that all leaders are to some extent bound by their allies, I imagine that in court there would be some uncertainty as to whether the threat of losing political capital or ejection from the party counts as duress. Like as not, an "extreme right wing president" could probably not be acquitted for whatever crimes he might commit on the basis that his "extreme right wing party" were in support. And, moving away from the law, I don't think it's any excuse if you are voluntarily part of a party, voluntarily helping their aims, etc.

( As an argument for the culpability of the Iranian President for human rights abuses, you've really skipped over the fact that the "pronounced shift" was simply one piece of evidence in a larger argument. But fair play; it is evident that isn't an argument you're interested in having right now, and not one you seem to have meant to get into )

I don't know whether President Ahmadinejad could be tried in a court of human rights, yet even if he could be, it would be monumentally stupid and problematic to kidnap him or probably even to wage war on Iran. I do believe that he is morally responsible for what is happening under his purview.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I've just deleted Kerberos' last three posts because they made no sense at all, and deleted Kadayi's because they wouldn't have been necessary save for the absurdity that preceded them.

Kerberos, this is a persistent problem with you; if you continue to post nonsensical rubbish which has no relation to the topic at hand or to anybody's actual arguments, I'm going to have to ask you to stay out of Politics. Start making sense or get off the pot.

 

[Kase]

dont they still stone people to death in iran
i think thats a violation of human rights

 

[Eejit]

Yeah, capital punishment is a violation of human rights.

 

[nurizeko]

GUANTANAMO BAY.





Sorry, I figured its like, tradition here that the human rights violations of one country cannot be let go without mentioning "Gitmo".

 

[Kase]

Yeah, capital punishment is a violation of human rights.

it is if the person is brutaly exicuted :imu:

 

[Sulkdodds]

I guess you just missed that huge discussion back there about how far the President is responsible for the punishments meted out by the country's courts.

 

[Eejit]

it is if the person is brutaly exicuted :imu:

No, just generally. Right to life.

I guess you just missed that huge discussion back there about how far the President is responsible for the punishments meted out by the country's courts.

And this.