This seems like such a departure from your usual heavy respect for process and rules!
Not to mention some distrust of the government?
The ability to revoke citizenship is second only to the ability to ignore whatever laws ever whenever in terms of increasing the destructive power of a malicious government
pretty much one and the same. If the US government can take away your citizens while your out of the country they can pretty much do anything to you without recourse. No other country is going to do diddly to help you(except maybe Russia to piss the US off)
I've grown very good at doubting by doubting myself my whole life
*sits back smugly in empty room*
+2
Options
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
edited November 2015
Quickly scanning the UDHR, these seem relevant to the discussion:
Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 6
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 7
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 9
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 12 is fascinating, btw:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 13
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Article 15
1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Article 25
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
But nothing specific with regards to self-defense. Though I believe that may be covered in the (many) articles referencing the right to fair trial.
Why would we consider that, spool?. Wouldn't it violate the universal declaration of human rights?
I'm not entirely bothered by that. The UDHR doesn't even include a right to self defense iirc.
Actually I'm not entirely positive on that and I'd appreciate a fact check.
But we should consider it as a deterrent to citizens leaving the country, training in terrorist acts, then returning to kill their fellows.
No, we shouldn't. You mentioned the possibilities listed on your passport; all of them presume that they were triggered by the citizen of his own volition, with the nice detail that, presumably, "involuntary" service at a foreign armed force (let's pick a nonpolitical example and imagine a New Yorker being pressganged into Blackbeard's pirate crew) would not divest the citizen of his citizenship.
You'd need a criminal court to establish, legally, that a returnee killed his fellows. That would've been the case even if Mohammad Atta were an American who bailed out of his 9/11 plane. To disenfranchise a citizen through a process initiated by the State because of a criminal act is a blatant constitutional travesty.
0
Options
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
Article 3 and 25 might be enough to lead you to believe you have the right to defend yourself, though.
strictly read that guarantees free food/housing/clothing/medicine
UDHR is nice and all but I think it's silly to pretend it's law.
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
+1
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
This seems like such a departure from your usual heavy respect for process and rules!
Not to mention some distrust of the government?
The ability to revoke citizenship is second only to the ability to ignore whatever laws ever whenever in terms of increasing the destructive power of a malicious government
pretty much one and the same. If the US government can take away your citizens while your out of the country they can pretty much do anything to you without recourse. No other country is going to do diddly to help you(except maybe Russia to piss the US off)
Well, yeah
In theory
In practice I'd assume the slight hassle in revoking citizenship would be a slight deterrent so it'd be slightly less bad (also, ignoring laws would have a slew of other issues re: laws that aren't written about citizens but other stuff, as in EPA regulations and such)
But in terms of the bad stuff we're talking about, pretty much the same.
0
Options
OnTheLastCastlelet's keep it haimish for the peripateticRegistered Userregular
This controller has so many buttons and dongles. I am but a simple consoler. What am I to do.
0
Options
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
Why would we consider that, spool?. Wouldn't it violate the universal declaration of human rights?
I'm not entirely bothered by that. The UDHR doesn't even include a right to self defense iirc.
Actually I'm not entirely positive on that and I'd appreciate a fact check.
But we should consider it as a deterrent to citizens leaving the country, training in terrorist acts, then returning to kill their fellows.
No, we shouldn't. You mentioned the possibilities listed on your passport; all of them presume that they were triggered by the citizen of his own volition, with the nice detail that, presumably, "involuntary" service at a foreign armed force (let's pick a nonpolitical example and imagine a New Yorker being pressganged into Blackbeard's pirate crew) would not divest the citizen of his citizenship.
You'd need a criminal court to establish, legally, that a returnee killed his fellows. That would've been the case even if Mohammad Atta were an American who bailed out of his 9/11 plane. To disenfranchise a citizen through a process initiated by the State because of a criminal act is a blatant constitutional travesty.
Exactly.
Of course then the next question is what kind of court would this be? The vast majority of the evidence would be classified. It'd have to be run by the US since we wouldn't trust such intel to be passed around. Some kind of military setup?
0
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
I finally finished reading the article Echo posted in the France thread
tl;dr ISIS appears to actually be motivated by religion and religious goals, unlike other organizations such as Al-Qaeda where religion is secondary and goals are generally speaking, secular
+1
Options
Powerpuppiesdrinking coffee in themountain cabinRegistered Userregular
strictly read that guarantees free food/housing/clothing/medicine
UDHR is nice and all but I think it's silly to pretend it's law.
interesting!
given that point and that we didn't sign the statelessness conventions, maybe we're no more obligated in international law to let people keep their citizenship than we are to have like guaranteed basic income?
I finally finished reading the article Echo posted in the France thread
tl;dr ISIS appears to actually be motivated by religion and religious goals, unlike other organizations such as Al-Qaeda where religion is secondary and goals are generally speaking, secular
Do they still like porn as much as alqaeda? I don't know how you could join any organization without porn.
strictly read that guarantees free food/housing/clothing/medicine
UDHR is nice and all but I think it's silly to pretend it's law.
interesting!
given that point and that we didn't sign the statelessness conventions, maybe we're no more obligated in international law to let people keep their citizenship than we are to have like guaranteed basic income?
Well I'm saying we're bound by our own law to let people keep their citizenship, unless we find them guilty of treason (or similar).
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
0
Options
21stCenturyCall me Pixel, or Pix for short![They/Them]Registered Userregular
I finally finished reading the article Echo posted in the France thread
tl;dr ISIS appears to actually be motivated by religion and religious goals, unlike other organizations such as Al-Qaeda where religion is secondary and goals are generally speaking, secular
Do they still like porn as much as alqaeda? I don't know how you could join any organization without porn.
I am sure that some people partake, given human nature
But the organization clearly does not, and based on the article I read, a lot of the reason so many people have rushed to join ISIS is that they're, well, actual religious fanatics that take adherence to the core text of the Qur'an, in the context of the 6th/7th century political and social conditions under which it was written/received, very seriously.
I finally finished reading the article Echo posted in the France thread
tl;dr ISIS appears to actually be motivated by religion and religious goals, unlike other organizations such as Al-Qaeda where religion is secondary and goals are generally speaking, secular
we were talking about this kinda at work today
the short version of my conclusion from that conversation is that most people are incapable of nuanced thought and this line of reasoning leads otherwise-rational people to become islamophobes very quickly
0
Options
y2jake215certified Flat Birther theoristthe Last Good Boy onlineRegistered Userregular
I finally finished reading the article Echo posted in the France thread
tl;dr ISIS appears to actually be motivated by religion and religious goals, unlike other organizations such as Al-Qaeda where religion is secondary and goals are generally speaking, secular
we were talking about this kinda at work today
the short version of my conclusion from that conversation is that most people are incapable of nuanced thought and this line of reasoning leads otherwise-rational people to become islamophobes very quickly
yeah my first thought from that article was that the general public already assumed they were motivated by religion
including incorrectly thinking al-qaeda was as well
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
0
Options
Powerpuppiesdrinking coffee in themountain cabinRegistered Userregular
strictly read that guarantees free food/housing/clothing/medicine
UDHR is nice and all but I think it's silly to pretend it's law.
interesting!
given that point and that we didn't sign the statelessness conventions, maybe we're no more obligated in international law to let people keep their citizenship than we are to have like guaranteed basic income?
Well I'm saying we're bound by our own law to let people keep their citizenship, unless we find them guilty of treason (or similar).
oh sure, i also think it's a terrible idea on principle, just interested in the international law implications
I finally finished reading the article Echo posted in the France thread
tl;dr ISIS appears to actually be motivated by religion and religious goals, unlike other organizations such as Al-Qaeda where religion is secondary and goals are generally speaking, secular
we were talking about this kinda at work today
the short version of my conclusion from that conversation is that most people are incapable of nuanced thought and this line of reasoning leads otherwise-rational people to become islamophobes very quickly
Wait, are you arguing with this line of reasoning or saying why perhaps it is hard to use to argue?
0
Options
21stCenturyCall me Pixel, or Pix for short![They/Them]Registered Userregular
hahaha.
Apparently, according to "Howlongtobeat.com"
it would take me exactly 1 year + 4 hours to beat my entire Steam collection.
Posts
You doubt right.
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
Get them cheddar billz!
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
pretty much one and the same. If the US government can take away your citizens while your out of the country they can pretty much do anything to you without recourse. No other country is going to do diddly to help you(except maybe Russia to piss the US off)
I've grown very good at doubting by doubting myself my whole life
*sits back smugly in empty room*
Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 6
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 7
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 9
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 12 is fascinating, btw:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 13
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Article 15
1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Article 25
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
But nothing specific with regards to self-defense. Though I believe that may be covered in the (many) articles referencing the right to fair trial.
I feel like I should have brought some study material with me.
I was going to, but decided to take a break since I just finished my finals on Thursday and had to work Friday.
No, we shouldn't. You mentioned the possibilities listed on your passport; all of them presume that they were triggered by the citizen of his own volition, with the nice detail that, presumably, "involuntary" service at a foreign armed force (let's pick a nonpolitical example and imagine a New Yorker being pressganged into Blackbeard's pirate crew) would not divest the citizen of his citizenship.
You'd need a criminal court to establish, legally, that a returnee killed his fellows. That would've been the case even if Mohammad Atta were an American who bailed out of his 9/11 plane. To disenfranchise a citizen through a process initiated by the State because of a criminal act is a blatant constitutional travesty.
strictly read that guarantees free food/housing/clothing/medicine
UDHR is nice and all but I think it's silly to pretend it's law.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Well, yeah
In theory
In practice I'd assume the slight hassle in revoking citizenship would be a slight deterrent so it'd be slightly less bad (also, ignoring laws would have a slew of other issues re: laws that aren't written about citizens but other stuff, as in EPA regulations and such)
But in terms of the bad stuff we're talking about, pretty much the same.
press the any key
Exactly.
Of course then the next question is what kind of court would this be? The vast majority of the evidence would be classified. It'd have to be run by the US since we wouldn't trust such intel to be passed around. Some kind of military setup?
tl;dr ISIS appears to actually be motivated by religion and religious goals, unlike other organizations such as Al-Qaeda where religion is secondary and goals are generally speaking, secular
interesting!
given that point and that we didn't sign the statelessness conventions, maybe we're no more obligated in international law to let people keep their citizenship than we are to have like guaranteed basic income?
Best Steven Universe clip
I mean we use it when the gender of someone is unknown, I don't see the problem in extending that.
This gets weirdly close to the discussion on meaningfulness at 1:50
Make sure you install the Xbox accessories app.
Best Steven Universe clip
Well I'm saying we're bound by our own law to let people keep their citizenship, unless we find them guilty of treason (or similar).
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Sardonyx!
Goooooood Evening everyone!
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
I am sure that some people partake, given human nature
But the organization clearly does not, and based on the article I read, a lot of the reason so many people have rushed to join ISIS is that they're, well, actual religious fanatics that take adherence to the core text of the Qur'an, in the context of the 6th/7th century political and social conditions under which it was written/received, very seriously.
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
we were talking about this kinda at work today
the short version of my conclusion from that conversation is that most people are incapable of nuanced thought and this line of reasoning leads otherwise-rational people to become islamophobes very quickly
yeah my first thought from that article was that the general public already assumed they were motivated by religion
including incorrectly thinking al-qaeda was as well
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
oh sure, i also think it's a terrible idea on principle, just interested in the international law implications
Wait, are you arguing with this line of reasoning or saying why perhaps it is hard to use to argue?
Apparently, according to "Howlongtobeat.com"
it would take me exactly 1 year + 4 hours to beat my entire Steam collection.
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
I mean, i already have a big chunk of my steam collection "beaten"...
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
The European Convention of Human Rights, are binding and enforced by a court that regularly tells EU countries to not be giant dicks.
This is why Cameron hates them. He wants to exclude GB from them.