Escape From Guantanamo Bay Bottomless

violence ETA (I): The real crisis

perceive violence as a means only as legitimate as any to get a particular purpose is a position fully consistent with the classical use of violence that humanity has done throughout its history. A left that aspire to a total revolution in human relations is forced to reconsider that position if necessary. It is obvious that if we build a more just and humane from pillars and solidarity is necessary in this analysis introduce new factors such as ethics and morality, apart from the usual political and strategic factors.

Therefore, if we consider that the main result of the violence is the pain and suffering, the choice is obvious: Can a particular political or strategic outcome somehow compensate for the suffering caused by violence? I firmly believe (it is a purely personal belief) that this debate is sterile because it is very difficult to determine whether such compensation exists, exists when and when not, and especially how to calibrate. The answer is so highly subjective, depending on each personal value accorded to different factors in the equation, it is quite possible that any violence could be justified by any political purpose and strategic. What kind of political projects can objectively justify the use of violence? Which are not? What limit is violence, if they had one according to that view?

The most reasonable solution is simply not about taking risks and concluded that Violence can never be justified on strategic or political reasons . Therefore, bearing in mind that violence is not desirable for its harmful effects, it is logical to conclude that one should not make use of it, or at least should be used only as a last resort. The debate is then placed between a moderate pacifism that only accepts the use of violence as a legitimate defense or radical pacifism which excludes any violent acts even in self defense.

Personally I advocate the first option, and although I admire the radical pacifists believe that its position is not only not viable in today's society but is even suicidal. I position, then, for the use of violence only as a last resort if self-defense. Of course, the concept of "self defense" involves a number of basic assumptions:

1. There must be a principle of proportionality : violence has to be exercised against an equally violent attack, and therefore the level of violence in response should not exceed the level of violent offending.

2. violence defense has to be directed against targets directly responsible for the attack: it can not be addressed against targets that have little or nothing to do with it.

3. Finally there should be no other way of nonviolent self-defense (legal, political, etc.) Or it is clearly inadequate.

Such a position, with such basic assumptions, is in a perfect balance between a powerful limits to violence and a preventive effect against any aggression. Of course, this argument can be applied to either individuals or groups, and any situation of aggression imaginable. With respect to a State, a case in point would be that of a police officer violently reduced (of course maintaining the principle of proportionality mentioned in point 1) to an individual who uses violence to attack others.

not difficult to make an assessment of the Basque conflict and the violence of ETA in the light of this position. It is clear that when there are torture, beatings of demonstrators, outlaw forced party, etc. there is a situation of aggression illegitimate state violence could bring about a perfectly legitimate self-defense. However ETA violence is no longer proportional (because the state no longer kills Basque militants or too infrequently) and has extended to groups which have only a very indirect relationship to state violence (Councillors or former Councillors Basques, for example). ETA violence, then, it will only get justification from the point of view of the inability to defend themselves by any other peaceful course of state aggression (mainly due to the impunity enjoyed by the aggressors), but the flagrant violation of other invalidate the premises comply with it.

short, the violence of ETA (at least in its current strategy level) do not think is justifiable. But it does not matter too much if we consider that ETA does not share my view and not even part of the same ethical concepts than me. For ETA, the violence is justified when the state denies collective right (the self-determination of the Basque people) and is a legal means to force the state to the negotiating table. From that point of view any other consideration of moral or ethical passes the background, as is usual for any State, dominion or organization making use of violence to the classic mode, which should give pause to those who are considered to itself "revolutionary."


(Next post: "The violence of ETA (II): a strategy.")

History Of Immanuel Chapel In Largo Florida

ethics Distracting the problem

Overwhelmed by the crisis of the wealthy, we do not want to find out about the crisis of the poor. Even the UN has found that millions of people are dying of hunger and thirst and disgust. And that many more will die. If the twenty-first century world can not stop this nonsense of prices, if the planet XXI can not get people not starve, it's time to do something. The real crisis is not for mortgages, is that of hunger.

The crisis of the rich is terrible, and even more so because nobody understands it, because nobody knows how far the bottomless hole of debt, because nobody wants to know how far reaching the blunders they have committed the banks and the financial arrangements for the institutionalized greed. What we see under such trash, such as logo and harangues is that the system is rotten. Always has been, but now we've reached the climax of misery. We have perfected both the mechanism that supports the greed that there is no way of knowing what is happening. The states are going to run out of money to cover such infamy spoiled and sometimes encouraged by them. International money institutions are already taking things by the back door. While obvious issue their opinions and their gibberish seroleras, everyone is waiting for the helicopter idling on the roofs of its luxury skyscrapers. But the real crisis, which is part of the world and the same system, is that the more and better produced, more Hunger is passed. The more satellites and more networks and more intelligence and more information, more millions of people dying without food and work for a euro from sunrise to sunset.

The solution would be true democracy, which we have not yet dared to imagine. The real problem is not climate change, but the change of ideas: we are like in the Neolithic. Until the spirit predator will have to evolve sometime.

Gistaín
Mariano, El Periódico de Aragón .

Anti Fungal Dietkaufmann

Lokarri thesis is usually based on with which I disagree. Regarding his latest initiative , it is based on: 1) The requirement for political parties (PSOE and interest) in the implementation of a dialogue process "will culminate in a political agreement to improve the coexistence of Basque society. " It also calls for a referendum in the Basque society to express their will, 2) The requirement of an end to ETA violence and any violation of human rights that make possible a peace process and to allow the Basque society to decide that consultation with complete freedom.

things first:

1) not require the State to its violations of human rights, civil and policy in relation to the Basque conflict, as it is required (and rightly) to ETA . I think it is necessary to check that, apart from the killings and threats from ETA, also by the state there are still other forms of violence serious enough to require her disappearance. I am referring, of course, to torture. Requiring only a party to any violation of human rights, while hiding the other party violates also suffers from a worrying lack of objectivity and even suspicious.

2) do not see how the unilateral end to ETA violence can lead to a peace process . In any case we would ETA to surrender and thus would not be needed any process of dialogue or negotiation, and certainly not peace as violence from the other party would still be present.

3) Lokarri requires a "process of dialogue that would lead to a political agreement to improve the coexistence of the Basque society", but does not at all who has to reach that agreement and how to improve the coexistence of Basque society . Lokarri's thesis is too open, so that it can be a simple political agreement between the PSOE and PNV culminating in a mere statutory reform with greater powers to the Basque Government, leaving intact the knots conflict (territoriality and self-determination). I think it is essential that agreement is also present the nationalist left, and if you agree with me Lokarri should specify in their approach. On the other hand, believe that the end of this agreement should not be "to improve the coexistence of the Basque society", but finally achieve minimum democratic standards that demands this, that all political projects are possible if they get enough support democracy and full respect for all human rights, civil and political rights.

4) Finally, Lokarri see your "consultation" more like an end than as a means . I think the end of any Basque type of process (call it "peace", "dialog", "negotiation" or as we like, words are not important) must be respect for all human rights, civil and political (and therefore all political projects), than for the Basque people to rule in a query about which know everything: their time, their purpose, their terms ...

On the other hand, perform a search in the current conditions (with outlawed political parties, with the threat of ETA violence and this, with hundreds of political prisoners in prisons, with the threat of torture and detention always present, with censored media, etc.). not only undesirable, but it is undemocratic. Would be as valid as any referendum held in a dictatorial system. To query the Basque policy is necessary that it has complete freedom to act, and today is not because that freedom is violated by both sides: ETA and the State.

Lokarri Supporting this initiative is an error because he confuses the problem and conflict, and could serve certain political purposes that currently go brewing in the kitchens of the PSOE and PNV. Perhaps Lokarri collaboration in that sense there is a conscious strategy at all, but is the least important thing is that it is absurd and distracts us from the real issues we must address if we find a solution to the Basque conflict.