We decided that proper and reasonable treatment of refugees was important after the Napoleonic wars, and the standards for such treatment remain enshrined as a testament to humanity in the Geneva and Hague conventions.
Hospitality and fair treatment of refugees is not a duty that one nation owes to another nation, it's a duty that each of us, as individuals who benefit from national laws and identity, owe to all other individuals, considering that but for the grace of God (or your luck and fortune) you could also be outlawed by your own state and pushed out of its borders... or just executed and cremated in a mass oven.
Of course, thanks to George W. Bush's administration the Geneva Convention doesn't mean as much as it once did, and we will have to relearn why we created and ratified it in the first place.
So you can choose to vote against allowing refugees into your borders. You can choose to deny others sanctuary when their own have turned against them and the trains are getting packed and the ovens are on day and night.
But when fortune turns around, and it happens to you, or your grandchildren or your descendants down the line, when they become the persecuted, when the death camps are cooking once again, you had best hope that the people controlling those borders are kinder, more empathetic or more honorable than you are.
I bet there are many millions of people who would have preferred far less powerful government were they not already killed by that government.
Are you referring to demographics that are not regarded by the government except as outlaws, such as Jews in Nazi Germany?
That is the same end result of when you have too small a government, which is invasion by a larger one.
As for this mythical people who regard corporations as bad but governments as saintly, you'll have to be more specific. I don't know a single person, or a single group that insists that is a platform.
Here, we know that government is necessary for infrastructure, but it is also prone to corruption, which is a problem we've yet to solve.
But if you choose to have a smaller government, then you choose to have less infrastructure, which means lower standards of living e.g. not only no running water, but no consistent supply of safe drinking water. And if you get the fever, you're just written off.
Safe meat, safe water, consistent electricity, firewood every winter, sewage processing, waste disposal, disease control...all these things require infrastructure which requires government regulation. Market forces do not make for these things.
If you like them then you like the fruits of big government.
It continues to be curious to me how representatives and agency officials, when they suspect a policy might get an unfavorable response from the public consider as their first option to continue with the policy, but make it secret.
This is in contrast to other options that seem more in line with serving the people of the United States, such as first hearing and addressing concerns from the public in a public forum, or even avoiding unpopular or distasteful policy.
It's also curious to me how a growing record of secret implementations of disagreeable policy have not turned into an indictment of our representatives and agents who endorse these policies, and endorse the method of secret implementation.
When secret implementation is the accepted operating procedure, doesn't that mean we are no longer a for-the-people government? And if so, why do we continue to pretend that we are?
Isn't this exemplary of clear and present tyrany against the people of the United States?
Police reviews now suggest Usain Bolt fans clapping were not the source of the panic.
According to the New York Times, the panics nucleated from Terminal 8 which is away from the main Bolt fan crowd. Witnesses continue to insist what they heard was not cheering or applause, but something bangy.
This is from the NYT, and facts are still coming in, so take that for what it's worth.
People would buy a microwave oven that baked anyone in line of sight if it weren't for the state regulating microwave oven emissions.
Worse yet, so long as the corporations could suppress news of customers getting cooked by their own oven, they'd continue to sell until there were tens or hundreds of thousands of dead victims. And no-one in the company would be held liable.
So no, we're thankful for many of the regulations we have. We're thankful for the government assuring us that our clock radio doesn't give us cancer. (some models do.)
But because the technical details of IoT appliances are lost both to regulators and customers, we're not going to see a regulation until there's a disaster.
Only after the Titanic sinking did we see regulations on the number of lifeboats required on a ship.
Only after an outlet botnet are we going to see reform of IoT security.
In the political culture I want, representatives and officials would be held to higher standards than the rest of us. Their extensive teams of staffers would be used to assure that everything they say before the House (or on the stand) would hold up to scrutiny when our fact-checking institutions confirmed their data points in active hopes of a blunder that can be used to scorn them as idiots or deceptive.
So that like John Kyl's infamous Over 90% of Planned Parenthood is abortions line that Stephen Colbert turned into the #NotIntendedToBeAFactualStatement, any wrongful data would be cause for scrutiny of an official's bias or competence, and a field day for news and comedians.
For now lying on the floor is expected, and people are eager to believe what confirms their biases, rather than know the truth, and our reps are allowed to capitalize on this (to the point of being allowed to perjur with impunity). And amazingly, Trump supporters, even commenters on this sight, seem to overlook the degree to which he lies.
Be careful that you don't generalize people based on one or two points of disagreements. I don't see you calling out the US conservative right whose bedfellowing with the Religious Right as turned the GOP platform in to a white Christian males club.
I know that not all conservatives are like that, but you apparently don't have the perspective you are calling for.
So what is our scenario for an agency going rogue?
What does it look like when our branches of government decide the NSA has gone rogue and is operating not in the best interests of the United States, neither its people nor the government system that runs them?
I must only assume the NSA has dirt on everyone in office and that's why they are silent from one end to the next.
No. If a [Hindu] Kills a Hindu in the name of Hinduism, then you have a situation where an extremist or secular individual or group did something out of the norm. But if thousands, hundreds of thousands, even millions of [Hindus] kill other [Hindus] and/or people of other religions, then you have a problem with the basic religious [belief] of [Hinduism] that has now become the root of the problem. You are completely wrong on this.
Whatever standard you apply to one religion or ideology, you have to apply to them all. It eventually leads to thought-crime, which is messy. Or you can come to realize that human beings are capable of filtering out what really doesn't suit them in their faith, as many do with Christianity and Judaism.
Does it matter where or the situation? If [you're] drone striking civilians, then [you're] drone striking civilians. A quick google search reveals thousands of Afghani Muslims losing their lives in the name of a multiple-Christian-church endorsed jus bellum military campaign starting as early as 2003 and continuing through 2016 Aside from the occasional extremist, which admittedly [does] exist, lets see a modern civilian massacre campaign exceeding all the gun deaths in the US, sanctioned by the local political party or state, by a Muslim enacted on a Christian populace.
The reason we (as a people aspiring to civilization, not specifically the US) avoid such general sweeps as locking them in their sandbox of misery is that most of the people there don't agree with the premise behind terrorist extremism. Most of them, by far, want to be industrialized and have liberties and have nothing to do with war.
Our own officials like to send our troops to unnecessary war, but they don't like to go, themselves.
Punishing the Muslim world is punishing a lot of innocent people for the will of a few extremists and radical leaders. Our moral responsibility is to remove radical individuals from power with the least amount of collateral damage.
Sadly, our officials agree with you, in painting progress as the massacre of huge numbers of innocent civilians.
It's probably going to go down the way it did with guns...
Assuming that any given thing Trump says turns into actual policy (no guarantees, except the Trump guarantee)...
He'll probably push to pass regulations on who can use the internet.
And thus only people who use the internet without state permission will become criminal.
So we'll have a lot more criminals using the internet. Will we have a lot of criminals using the internet who are criminal for reasons other than using the internet? Hard to say.
Then we'll get to the point that we realize those who are determined to be law abiding are at yet another disadvantage to those who are willing to break the law. And that this is not a good state of affairs.