Israel bans use of human shields

[Trotsky]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4314898.stm

Israel's supreme court has banned the use of Palestinian human shields in arrest raids, saying the practice violates international law. The court issued a temporary injunction against the practice in 2002 after a teenager was killed when troops made him negotiate with a wanted militant. Human rights groups who brought the case say the Israeli army has repeatedly violated the temporary ban. The army cannot use civilians for its purposes, Israel's chief justice said. "You cannot exploit the civilian population for the army's military needs, and you cannot force them to collaborate with the army," Aharon Barak said.

Hmmm, should it even have been an issue, the guy in the picture really look like a volunterr, so eager he must have been he's bound his own hands! I sympathise with the soldiers at times, but what the hell were they playing at? Way to get local support, bind 'em up and march 'em in front of yous at gun point.

[Allas]

Personally, i dont see what the problem is. Providing they are using actual insurgents/terrorists/call them what you will, why shouldnt they use them as human shields?
Consider the psychological affect too. The enemy might be more reluctant to shoot one of its own, give up to avoid the lose of a friend, family member, etc.

The term 'human rights' gets thrown around alot these days. Its become the get-out-of-jail-freecard for countless bleeding heart liberals. Thats fine for everyday nonesense. But in this instance, peoples lives are on the line - innocent draftees lives to be exact. Suddenly the context has changed and there is a need for greater perspective and reality: there are no such things are human rights. There are human-privileges. Those privileges are forfitted when a crime is commited.
If the question is here: do you think a soldier's/draftee's life is worth more than a criminals? Then, yes, i most certainly do.

Please note, i am not actually changing the definition of 'human rights'. I am simply, from my point of view, trying to assign it the proper terminology. At any rate, call them human rights if it appeases, rights are still forfitted when violating the law.

In the end you have to remember that wars and conflicts arent won with good table manners.

[Nono]

Quote by: Allas The enemy might be more reluctant to shoot one of its own, give up to avoid the lose of a friend, family member, etc.

Then again, it might not. And guess who's dead then?

The term 'human rights' gets thrown around alot these days.

This is because that's the law. Don't you believe in obeying the law, Allas?

[Allas]

Quote by: Nono Then again, it might not. And guess who's dead then?

With any luck, the human shield. Which i believe is the entire point? To spare the draftee/soldier the "inconvenience" of being shot.

This is because that's the law. Don't you believe in obeying the law, Allas?

Sure. But the law is not infallible. Though, my original objection was not the idea of "human rights" but rather the term assigned to it. A "right" is something that cannot be denied - and these so called "human rights" certainly can be. A priveledge is earned or given - all rights are first earned and then given by those who earned them.

[Nono]

(laughs) I'd like to see you, or someone you love, taken as a human shield. You'd suddenly sing a different tune I think.

A "right" is something that cannot be denied - and these so called "human rights" certainly can be. A priveledge is earned or given - all rights are first earned and then given by those who earned them.

Legal bunk. This particular right is conferred by law. Nobody has to earn it -- they just have it. And to deny it is to break the law.
I ask again -- don't you believe in obeying the law?

[LogicaLunatic]

Quote by: Allas Providing they are using actual insurgents/terrorists/call them what you will, why shouldnt they use them as human shields?

That's just it. This isn't about using the terrorists or insurgents as shields. They're using civillians. They're using children.

Did you miss that part or are you calling all members of a certain coutry/race/religion terrorists?

[Ghumanto]

The whole issue is based on the fact - whether any nation can be deprived of it's homeland. Whenver someone tries to defend his homeland against any invaders / tries to free his motherland - the more powerful invader always depicts them as terrorist .
Nelson Mandela was a terrorist also - in very recent past !

Israel is a country which forgot it's own trauma in the hands of Nazis. They are doing the same thing on the Palestinians !

Guess arms biz, oil etc are more important than anyhting else !

[Allas]

Quote by: Nono (laughs) I'd like to see you, or someone you love, taken as a human shield. You'd suddenly sing a different tune I think.

Sinking the discussion to a purely personal and emotional level is entirely pointless. Your arguement proves nothing. I could of course lie and say i didnt mind any relative of mine being taken as a human shield. But, as stated, it proves nothing. If your arguement is, would i like a relative of mine being taken as a human shield? Then, of course, the answer is, no, i would not. But again, this answer proves nothing seeing as that is not the question.

If you read it carefully, you will notice the term "human shield" is one thrown about the media in this instance. It isnt as though the soldiers are holding the people infront of them and sending them in while steadying the barrel of their weapon over the "shields" shoulder.

The court issued a temporary injunction against the practice in 2002 after a teenager was killed when troops made him negotiate with a wanted militant.
They asked him to negotiate. And regarding this paticular instance we do not know the details. Did the teenager have ties to the militant? Important details. Though, i agree, young teens shouldnt be put in this situation.

More importantly, note that this practice wasnt banned based on it being unethical but rather that the so called shields couldnt be expected to provide a refusal to the request given their frame of mind at the time of the requests.

Legal bunk. This particular right is conferred by law. Nobody has to earn it -- they just have it. And to deny it is to break the law. I ask again -- don't you believe in obeying the law?

I disagree. Following logic, this paticular right is given by law and is thus a privilege. More so, a right is unalienable and seeing as violating the law can result in deprivation of these rights they are again, following logic, not rights.
As to your claim that rights do not have to earned, i wonder if your perspective on this would change if you found yourself in a country where these so called rights are, in fact, not right. (Yes, i dragged that one down to the personal level - a little friendly payback )

[Allas]

Quote by: Ghumanto The whole issue is based on the fact - whether any nation can be deprived of it's homeland. Whenver someone tries to defend his homeland against any invaders / tries to free his motherland - the more powerful invader always depicts them as terrorist . Nelson Mandela was a terrorist also - in very recent past ! Israel is a country which forgot it's own trauma in the hands of Nazis. They are doing the same thing on the Palestinians !

That is of course a matter of point of view and opinion. With the new Palestinian state now officially formed, i no longer view, for the large part, the Israeli troops as occupying forces. Undeniably the militants continue their attack upon Israeli's, civilians more often than not, and it is necessary to respond accordingly. You cannot make peace with fanatics who are hell-bent on war. A fanatics change of heart must come from within.

I agree. Though, there is still a far cry from starving, burning and delousing people death in the millions. Also, dont forget, Israeli Jews havent exactly been leftin peace by their surroundings since 1948 nor is the Muslim faith the most tolorant.

[Nono]

Quote by: Allas Sinking the discussion to a purely personal and emotional level is entirely pointless.

I'd say that remembering that we're talking about real flesh-and-blood people here raises the discussion.

(...) seeing as violating the law can result in deprivation of these rights (...)

Wrong again. They're inalienable.

As to your claim that rights do not have to earned, i wonder if your perspective on this would change if you found yourself in a country where these so called rights are, in fact, not right.

Why no, I think that would strengthen my view.

[Allas]

Quote by: Nono I'd say that remembering that we're talking about real flesh-and-blood people here raises the discussion.

Perhaps, that is no excuse to drag this down to the personal domain. You could do that with nearly every topic, which would in the end defeat the porpuse of these fingers.

Wrong again. They're inalienable.

Yeah, thats what it says right there on the paper. "LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS." But i wonder, what would an inmate think of that?

Why no, I think that would strengthen my view.

Along with your delusions perhaps? :p