Comments on: "Freedom Fighter" not a defence http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2007/02/freedom-fighter-not-a-defence-2/ Two lawyers on law, legislation and liberty. And other stuff. Wed, 07 Jan 2009 00:50:12 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Legal Eagle http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2007/02/freedom-fighter-not-a-defence-2/comment-page-1/#comment-10157 Legal Eagle Sun, 25 Feb 2007 22:50:31 +0000 http://legalsoapbox.wordpress.com/2007/02/19/freedom-fighter-not-a-defence-2/#comment-10157 It's true, sometimes you can't just sit idly by and watch injustice occur. But does that mean one has to commit terrorism? To me, terrorism is when someone kills innocent people at random in a cold-blooded way for a political reason (suicide bombing, random shooting, car bombs, flying a plane into a building). I don't care whether you're pro-West or anti-West, left or right, or doing it for a particular religion or ideology - it's all equally as bad in my mind. I just hate the idea of innocents dying in pursuit of "justice" where they have no choice in the matter. I guess the cold-blooded nature of terrorism really freaks me out. <br/><br/>If F had wanted to go and fight Gaddafi's government and security guards, I would have less of a problem with his actions - because those people have chosen to be allied with or employed by Gaddafi, and there are consequences in that. That way, there is at least a nexus between the cause and the victims. It’s true, sometimes you can’t just sit idly by and watch injustice occur. But does that mean one has to commit terrorism? To me, terrorism is when someone kills innocent people at random in a cold-blooded way for a political reason (suicide bombing, random shooting, car bombs, flying a plane into a building). I don’t care whether you’re pro-West or anti-West, left or right, or doing it for a particular religion or ideology - it’s all equally as bad in my mind. I just hate the idea of innocents dying in pursuit of “justice” where they have no choice in the matter. I guess the cold-blooded nature of terrorism really freaks me out.

If F had wanted to go and fight Gaddafi’s government and security guards, I would have less of a problem with his actions - because those people have chosen to be allied with or employed by Gaddafi, and there are consequences in that. That way, there is at least a nexus between the cause and the victims.

]]> By: Rich http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2007/02/freedom-fighter-not-a-defence-2/comment-page-1/#comment-10156 Rich Tue, 20 Feb 2007 09:27:36 +0000 http://legalsoapbox.wordpress.com/2007/02/19/freedom-fighter-not-a-defence-2/#comment-10156 It's been pointed out elsewhere that Gandhi's philosophy of non-violence worked well against 1930's Britain - it would not, I think, have worked against the Nazis.<br/><br/>The trouble with anti-terrorism law is that it's entirely dependent on governmental fiat. Terrorism equates to "non-governmental combat disapproved of by the prosecuting nation". Had "F" been part of a pro-western group at a time when Gaddafi was seen as a threat, he would not have been prosecuted. It’s been pointed out elsewhere that Gandhi’s philosophy of non-violence worked well against 1930’s Britain - it would not, I think, have worked against the Nazis.

The trouble with anti-terrorism law is that it’s entirely dependent on governmental fiat. Terrorism equates to “non-governmental combat disapproved of by the prosecuting nation”. Had “F” been part of a pro-western group at a time when Gaddafi was seen as a threat, he would not have been prosecuted.

]]>