Timeline for Do individual rights supersede the raison d'état?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 days ago | answer | added | Gabriel Vaz | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jul 3 at 8:01 | comment | added | Morisco | @shoover Thanks, this is interesting. From what Google says - supercede and supersede both exist, but mean somewhat different things. | |
| Jul 3 at 5:55 | history | edited | SJuan76 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited title
|
| Jul 2 at 21:44 | answer | added | Gray Sheep | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jul 2 at 18:20 | answer | added | ohwilleke♦ | timeline score: 7 | |
| Jul 2 at 15:17 | comment | added | shoover | I don't think I can make a single-character change, so can the next person to edit this change the word in the title to supersede? Fun fact: "supersede" is the only word in the English language that ends in -sede. There are three common ones that end in -ceed: exceed, proceed, succeed. All others end in -cede. Thus endeth the English lesson for the day. | |
| Jul 2 at 14:49 | answer | added | o.m. | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jul 2 at 13:30 | comment | added | got trolled too much this week | FWTW/FYI, regarding the Trump case youtu.be/Dc4_RFeKaz4?t=97 And more generally relevant, many Western countries have moved away from the (US-style) principle that prosecution is a monolithic power of the executive branch. There was a Q here about that... | |
| Jul 2 at 13:13 | comment | added | got trolled too much this week | TBH the Trump example and the other ones aren't that closely related. SCOTUS didn't decide that Trump can kill whomever he wants in office. And getting killed in a warzone basically (al-Awlakis), is not that uncommon, nor generally illegal for some classes. You may quibble around the def of 'enemy combatant' etc. | |
| Jul 2 at 13:03 | comment | added | Morisco | @StackExchangeSupportsIsrael yes, as per my earlier comment - where it is actually illegal. | |
| Jul 2 at 12:39 | comment | added | Stack Exchange Supports Israel | Realistically: in all countries. Are you asking in which ones it's illegal, even though they can still do it? | |
| Jul 2 at 11:24 | comment | added | Morisco | @dEmigOd de facto yes - they surely do. But do they do it legally or do they violate their own laws? | |
| Jul 2 at 10:53 | comment | added | Steve Melnikoff | If internment counts as "violating individual rights", then the list could be quite long, and would include the US and UK, among many others. | |
| Jul 2 at 10:45 | comment | added | dEmigOd | go back 4 years, and look for a nation, which did NOT violate such a right. The answer is all of them can violate whatever they find necessary right on the spot. | |
| Jul 2 at 10:21 | comment | added | Morisco | @Cadence good point. I suggest limiting it to life and liberty or other cases where the violation can be easily proven/evident. Also, what rights are included in fundamental rights varies from place to place | |
| Jul 2 at 9:50 | comment | added | Cadence | When you say "violate individual rights", do you solely mean life and liberty, as in your example, or do you mean any fundamental right? | |
| Jul 2 at 9:39 | history | asked | Morisco | CC BY-SA 4.0 |