Is this the right decision?
-
German court rejects hijack law[^] Personally I don't think so: a government must have the ability to do whatever it thinks best to protect it's citizens. It may make the wrong decision or choose not to make any decision or make a decision with which I or you disagree but surely it can't be right to hamstring them? Supposing the hijacked plane was heading towards a highly populated area and there was a real risk of it crashing? Surely it's best to bring it down before it gets there? Is this a case of judges placing the law above the people it's meant to protect? www.merrens.com
www.bkmrx.com -
German court rejects hijack law[^] Personally I don't think so: a government must have the ability to do whatever it thinks best to protect it's citizens. It may make the wrong decision or choose not to make any decision or make a decision with which I or you disagree but surely it can't be right to hamstring them? Supposing the hijacked plane was heading towards a highly populated area and there was a real risk of it crashing? Surely it's best to bring it down before it gets there? Is this a case of judges placing the law above the people it's meant to protect? www.merrens.com
www.bkmrx.comWell as far as I know the court will consider if the law 'fits' the constitution. That means that according to them this law is illegal because of 'higher valued' laws (constitution, european laws, international treaties like the human rights treaty etc). If the germans want his law they will have to adapt their constitution, or move to scrap some european laws or step out of some treaties. so it's not juges placing the law above the people it's just making sure all is consistent.
-
German court rejects hijack law[^] Personally I don't think so: a government must have the ability to do whatever it thinks best to protect it's citizens. It may make the wrong decision or choose not to make any decision or make a decision with which I or you disagree but surely it can't be right to hamstring them? Supposing the hijacked plane was heading towards a highly populated area and there was a real risk of it crashing? Surely it's best to bring it down before it gets there? Is this a case of judges placing the law above the people it's meant to protect? www.merrens.com
www.bkmrx.comI don't agree making law based on the happening of exceptional events, like 9/11. This is not something that threatens our day to day lives. Tobacco kills more poeple, on a daily basis, but few countries ban it for good. -------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson
-
German court rejects hijack law[^] Personally I don't think so: a government must have the ability to do whatever it thinks best to protect it's citizens. It may make the wrong decision or choose not to make any decision or make a decision with which I or you disagree but surely it can't be right to hamstring them? Supposing the hijacked plane was heading towards a highly populated area and there was a real risk of it crashing? Surely it's best to bring it down before it gets there? Is this a case of judges placing the law above the people it's meant to protect? www.merrens.com
www.bkmrx.comdigital man wrote:
Personally I don't think so: a government must have the ability to do whatever it thinks best to protect it's citizens. It may make the wrong decision or choose not to make any decision or make a decision with which I or you disagree but surely it can't be right to hamstring them? Supposing the hijacked plane was heading towards a highly populated area and there was a real risk of it crashing? Surely it's best to bring it down before it gets there? Is this a case of judges placing the law above the people it's meant to protect?
I'm not sure a law is needed. It really needs to be the decision taken when such an incident happens. I have no doubt that the German airforce would still splash a hijacked plane if it presented a clear and present danger. Michael CP Blog [^] Development Blog [^]
-
digital man wrote:
Personally I don't think so: a government must have the ability to do whatever it thinks best to protect it's citizens. It may make the wrong decision or choose not to make any decision or make a decision with which I or you disagree but surely it can't be right to hamstring them? Supposing the hijacked plane was heading towards a highly populated area and there was a real risk of it crashing? Surely it's best to bring it down before it gets there? Is this a case of judges placing the law above the people it's meant to protect?
I'm not sure a law is needed. It really needs to be the decision taken when such an incident happens. I have no doubt that the German airforce would still splash a hijacked plane if it presented a clear and present danger. Michael CP Blog [^] Development Blog [^]
Michael P Butler wrote:
I'm not sure a law is needed. It really needs to be the decision taken when such an incident happens. I have no doubt that the German airforce would still splash a hijacked plane if it presented a clear and present danger.
You are right. And this is the intention. There are many problems with such a law. Is it allowed to kill someone innocent to protect another innocent life? In the german sense of justice it isn't. And this is correct. In a special case every responsible has to decide on his own and no law will restrict him it's his decision. No law will help him to decide. Greetings, Ingo ------------------------------ A bug in a Microsoft Product? No! It's not a bug it's an undocumented feature!
-
German court rejects hijack law[^] Personally I don't think so: a government must have the ability to do whatever it thinks best to protect it's citizens. It may make the wrong decision or choose not to make any decision or make a decision with which I or you disagree but surely it can't be right to hamstring them? Supposing the hijacked plane was heading towards a highly populated area and there was a real risk of it crashing? Surely it's best to bring it down before it gets there? Is this a case of judges placing the law above the people it's meant to protect? www.merrens.com
www.bkmrx.comBut who protects us from the protectors?
digital man wrote:
it can't be right to hamstring them
I don't trust "them" any more than my own code. The ruling is that the German Constitution has two strong points against the law. First, giving a government body immediate control over your life. Second, using the military for domestic protection - something that is touchy for historical reaosns I guess. Actually, in that widely hypothetical* situation, there is so much at stake that you cannot control it by law. Scenario (A): You are 100% sure that plane is going to explode and kill thousands, but you are not willing to sacrifice your military career and risk lifelong jail to save them. Scenario (B): You are 50% sure and are afraid that if you don't act, you risk your career. *) Yes, it has happened. Once. Theer aer so many other possibilities.
Some of us walk the memory lane, others plummet into a rabbit hole
Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighist