Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
This was started because I said:
However, I know I am a naive irrational moron, but I believe in the above statement. However, most of these occupants at Gitmo have been trampling on other peoples rights (most particularly their right to life) and thus they have sacrificed their own rights.
And then you said:
Think about the word "inalienable."
You were implying that by being inalienable they could not be taken away. I responded that they could not be transferred but taken away by the government.
I think it is clear that when you infringe on other peoples rights sometimes the government takes away yours. That is what our criminal justice system does, and that is what is happening at Gitmo.
I would also posit that if you have information that could save the lives of innocent people (or if not revealed innocent people will die) the government can take away your right not to be tortured.
|
If rights can just be taken away by the government when it's in the public interest (e.g., when a government official says it could save the lives of innocent people), then there's not really much to those rights, is there? When Thomas Jefferson et al. referred to inalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence, I don't think he meant that the government could simply annul those rights if it was in the name of the common good.
Everyone understoods that your right to liberty is not a right to whatever you please, regardless of the effects on others, and that if you harm other people you may be imprisoned. If so, your right to libery has not been violated.
