Reports straight from Iran

[Evangeline]

http://twitter.com/oxfordgirl

Check this page. You don't have to have twitter to read it. She's reporting from Iran. There are helicopters pouring acid or something on the protesters.

[Evangeline]

Here's a link with nonstop video from Iran.
http://persianq.com/

[Americano]

All I'm reading on AlJazera.net is

"Planned demonstration in Tehran is met with tear gas, water cannon and batons"

http://english.aljazeera.net/

I'm sorry, but reports of helicopters poring acid on people is ridiculous just considering the logistics of loading helicopter tanks capable of holding and dispensing such a corrosive.

Bullets are far more cost effective and personal. I personally feel what Iran's government does to maintain civil order short of genocide is Iran's business. If the Iranian citizenry desires a political revolution, that's also their business.

[dilettante]

...I personally feel what Iran's government does to maintain civil order short of genocide is Iran's business. If the Iranian citizenry desires a political revolution, that's also their business.

Why "short of genocide"?

[Americano]

Why "short of genocide"?

I wasn't thinking. That's also their right as a sovereign country.

[dilettante]

I wasn't thinking. That's also their right as a sovereign country.


Genocide is "their right as a sovereign country"? :ummm:
I don't see how that works. From whence does one obtain the "right" to commit genocide? Do all governments have the "right" to engage in genocidal practices against their citizenry?

[Americano]

Genocide is "their right as a sovereign country"? :ummm:
I don't see how that works. From whence does one obtain the "right" to commit genocide? Do all governments have the "right" to engage in genocidal practices against their citizenry?

Unless restrained by the citizenry itself or outside intervention I'd think so.

[dilettante]

Unless restrained by the citizenry itself or outside intervention I'd think so.

:ummm: Still confused...maybe it's me.

"Unless restrained..."? But if the government has a right to commit genocide, isn't forcibly restraining it from doing so a violation of its rights?

And I can't think of any political legal organization (certainly not that i would choose to recognize) that has granted countries the "right" to commit genocide, so I don't see where any legal right could come from. So unless your saying that countries (or governments, more accurately) have some sort of natural right to murder people groups within their borders, I'm at a loss as to the origins of such a right.


Maybe other countries don't have an obligation to stop genocide going on elsewhere (a debatable premise), but that wouldn't mean that any country necessarily has the right to commit genocide.

[Americano]

:ummm: Still confused...maybe it's me.

"Unless restrained..."? But if the government has a right to commit genocide, isn't forcibly restraining it from doing so a violation of its rights?

And I can't think of any political legal organization (certainly not that i would choose to recognize) that has granted countries the "right" to commit genocide, so I don't see where any legal right could come from. So unless your saying that countries (or governments, more accurately) have some sort of natural right to murder people groups within their borders, I'm at a loss as to the origins of such a right.


Maybe other countries don't have an obligation to stop genocide going on elsewhere (a debatable premise), but that wouldn't mean that any country necessarily has the right to commit genocide.

If said government is attempting to contain civil unrest which develops into a revolution could the 'legal' government not possess the right to suppress the revolutionaries to a point including genocide?

[dilettante]

If said government is attempting to contain civil unrest which develops into a revolution could the 'legal' government not possess the right to suppress the revolutionaries to a point including genocide?

I don't see why it would. Where would such a right come from?

When we're talking about national governments we don't have any authoritative body which can grant legal rights (except possibly the UN, and I don't see them signing off on the right to commit genocide anytime soon). And without any legal rights all we have to talk about are moral or natural rights, and speaking for myself, I'm not willing to acknowledge that a government as a moral or natural right to commit genocide just to save itself.

[Americano]

I don't see why it would. Where would such a right come from?

When we're talking about national governments we don't have any authoritative body which can grant legal rights (except possibly the UN, and I don't see them signing off on the right to commit genocide anytime soon). And without any legal rights all we have to talk about are moral or natural rights, and speaking for myself, I'm not willing to acknowledge that a government as a moral or natural right to commit genocide just to save itself.

What other restrictions would you place on national sovereignty? I'm sorry, I'm unable to comprehend moral and natural rights if a government has taken or been awarded the power to physically dominate the citizenry. Even democracies have extensive plans with temporary executive control by legislation in place for national control of civil unrest due to unforeseen circumstances. Any change in a government deemed as abusing its power would require a revolution or intervention by other sovereign countries.

[dilettante]

What other restrictions would you place on national sovereignty? I'm sorry, I'm unable to comprehend moral and natural rights if a government has taken or been awarded the power to physically dominate the citizenry. Even democracies have extensive plans with temporary executive control by legislation in place for national control of civil unrest due to unforeseen circumstances. Any change in a government deemed as abusing its power would require a revolution or intervention by other sovereign countries.

I think I just object to the way you used the term "right". It seems as if your equating a nation's ability to do something (its having "taken or been awarded the power to physically dominate the citizenry") with its right to do something.
And, IMO, conflating ability with rights both violates the common usage (I have the ability to murder by neighbor, but few people would say that gives me the right to do so) and makes talking about "rights" pointless (why talk about what X has a right to do if you just mean what X can do?)

But I may have simply misunderstood; there seem to be a lot of definition of "rights" floating around. If, in your usage, a government as the right to commit genocide, is there anything that it is capable of doing but that it doesn't have the right to do?