Post by markdsouza on Nov 8, 2013 23:13:29 GMT
I expect you've read about Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed and how he's decamped under a burqa. He's also been suing British officials for their alleged complicity in the detention and torture he suffered at the hands of Somaliland officials. An opinion piece in the Guardian raises the old debate about whether there is any moral obligation to obey an unjust law. See
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/08/mohammed-ahmed-mohmed-on-the-run-security-services
Any thoughts about the normative defensibility of things like control orders and Tpims (at least in their current form)? This isn't something I've studied in any detail, but based on my limited knowledge on the subject, it seems to me that these powers are far too wide, and the judicial oversight of them far too indulgent, for them to be morally defensible. But as I said, I'm happy to be educated.
Also, perhaps I can rake up the old debate - assuming an Act creates a set of executive powers that are morally unjustifiable and backs them with criminal offences, should it even theoretically be possible for a person charged with committing one of these offences to assail the morality of the Act, and to assume the stance of something like a conscientious objector as a defence to criminal liability under the Act?
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/08/mohammed-ahmed-mohmed-on-the-run-security-services
Any thoughts about the normative defensibility of things like control orders and Tpims (at least in their current form)? This isn't something I've studied in any detail, but based on my limited knowledge on the subject, it seems to me that these powers are far too wide, and the judicial oversight of them far too indulgent, for them to be morally defensible. But as I said, I'm happy to be educated.
Also, perhaps I can rake up the old debate - assuming an Act creates a set of executive powers that are morally unjustifiable and backs them with criminal offences, should it even theoretically be possible for a person charged with committing one of these offences to assail the morality of the Act, and to assume the stance of something like a conscientious objector as a defence to criminal liability under the Act?