305 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

Getorex wrote...
If google finds someone on the web saying it or blogging it, then it MUST be true.

Secular and religion cannot go together. Round peg, square hole.

There is no such thing as a "secular religion" except to religionists who are trying to justify forcing their particular religious viewpoint upon the masses (ie, claiming Evolution is something akin to "secular religion" as an argument to justify teaching of "Creationism" or "Intelligent Design" as co-equal with Evolution...nuh uh!).

If you're debating the existence and usage of a concept that's been around for years... well, the fact that it does exist, and is used, and has been for years, rather disqualifies the objection.

[Moiaussi]

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
As I mentioned several posts ago on the piece by which this rail of argument started, by some standards of morality.

Yes, there are people who consider all lives equal. Even criminals. And they think that soldiers are psychopaths who join the military to kill without consequences.

Samara's reasons for killing any given indivual is that they are unjust, which is a horrible standard without a full system of checks and balances to base and mitigate such a wide brush. Unjust people do not deserve to be shot out of hand on the basis of crimes.[/quote]

And yet she lets Pitne For be dealt with by the conventional justice system. And yet she doesn't vow to track down any surviving mercs. You seem much quicker to judge and condem than the character you accuse.

[quote]She also didn't have the opportunity once she acted by her Code. Once she met her Code's requirements, she couldn't get him afterwards.[/quote]

And yet there is no evidence that she pursued him further. We don't know what mission Nihilus was on either. We do know that Spectres aren't all always saving the world.

 [quote]I didn't say Nihlus would have started a war. It would have caused an incident, very easily could have serious consequences, and Samara's Code makes an unnecessary incident all the more likely because she 'has' to do so.[/quote]

I am pretty sure that if the Council weren't willing to intervene in much more dire circumstances, they would be unlikely to go to war against the Asari (themselves a council race) over the actions of a single Justicar. You are really going out on a limb here.

[quote]That doesn't mean he couldn't have if he had gotten his way, or that his actions were without reasonable consequence.[/quote]

You have yet to prove any of Samara's actions have had unreasonable consequences.

[quote]As I did not claim she had started a war, please reconsider who is delusional.[/quote]

You claimed she was likely to with absolutely nothing to back you up on that.

[quote]Non-lethal is not the same as peaceful. Batman is very violent, and that doesn't change because he doesn't kill. To deny that is to deny the heart of the Batman character.

The man fantasizes about inflicting punishment and fear into criminals.[/quote]

You really really don't know much about Batman at all. You should stop pretending to. He isn't into punishment. If he was, the Joker would have been long dead, probably by slow torture.

[quote]Hm, if only there was a word for someone who uses terror on a population to get them to do what the terrorizer wants them to do...[/quote]

You should really stop talking about things you have no clue on. When does Batman terrorize the general public? Or when do Justicars do so other than in your delusions?

[quote][quote]
I have specified a few: the risk of starting wars,[/quote]To date, who's made that claim? Not that you've really said she wouldn't, only that she hasn't so far. Which is a rather poor defense for any behavior in general.[/quote]

Funny, you haven't started any wars either. I guess you should be incarcerated 'just in case' too. And the onus is appearantly on you to prove you never will start a war. Not sure how you would prove that, so into jail you go.

The onus is on the accuser to prove risk, not on the defendant to prove lack thereof.

 [quote]You really haven't provided cases where she's used gentle force when some other authority isn't already present and taking care of the criminal. (Pitne, for example).[/quote]

Pardon? I have to prove she uses gentle force but can only use as examples situations where she doesn't? Letting regular law enforcement arrest the criminal is using lesser force. Saying only examples convenient to your arguement are valid is just trolling.

 [quote]Nihlus, her definition of 'dishonorable acts' are the support.[/quote]

None of which are actually described and may actually have been reprehensible.

[quote] Most descriptions of the Spectres we got in ME1 were completely square. They aren't bound by the rules, rogue spectres who go to far do have their status revoked and another spectre sent after them.

And, as you said, corrected later. There is no 'correction' about the lengths Samara will go. That's her own admission.[/quote]

But the descriptions that get corrected dismiss the concept of a rogue spectre. They simply claim spectres have carte blanche to do anything. There are limits to how far Samara will go as described in her Nihilus story. She could have stopped him if she was willing to sacrifice an innocent village. She didn't. So there are obviously limits.
By her own admission.

[quote]The eclipse merc she crushes when you first see her. [/quote]

The one that fights back and is part of the same mercs who never surrender nor cooperate with Shepard?

[quote]'Unable to harm' is a very good start. [/quote]

I seem to recall her being pinned, but if she was let up, likely she would be 'able to harm' again.

[quote]Because Asari are a bit nutty about Justicars, who've carved out a place in Asari acceptance. The Asari accept the Justicars, but they recognize that other races won't.[/quote]

And yet it is an Asari world, and in the traverse, yet. One would think that enforcement of Asari contract law would be a lot more likely to start a war. Regardless, writing the Asari off as 'nutty' doesn't make them so other than by way of your own prejudices and assumptions.

[quote]Killing indefinite numbers of police for a detention not even called a violation of her rights, would.[/quote]

SHE HAS NOT DONE THAT YET! You are suggesting that she should be arrested on the basis that if she was falsely arrested, she might break the law and therefore she should be treated like a criminal, even though she wouldn't be unless detained in the first place? Do you even hear yourself?

[Moiaussi]

Getorex wrote...

Police forces have the power to detain, persuant to a crimnal investigation, anyone who is suspected of playing some role in a crime. Pretty standard (and necessary). The Asari cop wasn't doing normal US police procedure of tasering the crap out of her, cuffing her, tasering her again for good measure, and then tasering her yet again for giggles. She was being a prim and proper cop from the old fashioned ideal. And her "reward" for following normal procedure is to be threatened with death because no law applies to a Justicar?

Meh. I hate the very idea of SPECTERS for the very same reason.

They do not have the power to detain undefinately! Otherwise they would just gather up everyone they think is guilty and simply detain them. What is it with people having such strange ideas of the law anyway?

Please explain what law would be used to detain Samara indefinately, without any actual charge against her.

[Moiaussi]

Getorex wrote...

I daresay that Samara, and perhaps renegade Shepard, would be totally cool with "We have to burn down the village in order to save it."

Wasn't acceptable at the time, isn't acceptable now, wont be acceptable in the 23rd century.

And yet when a different village was threatened by Nihlus she chose to let Nihlus go rather than risk the village. It is case by case.

[General User]

Moiaussi wrote...

Getorex wrote...

Police forces have the power to detain, persuant to a crimnal investigation, anyone who is suspected of playing some role in a crime. Pretty standard (and necessary). The Asari cop wasn't doing normal US police procedure of tasering the crap out of her, cuffing her, tasering her again for good measure, and then tasering her yet again for giggles. She was being a prim and proper cop from the old fashioned ideal. And her "reward" for following normal procedure is to be threatened with death because no law applies to a Justicar?

Meh. I hate the very idea of SPECTERS for the very same reason.

They do not have the power to detain undefinately! Otherwise they would just gather up everyone they think is guilty and simply detain them. What is it with people having such strange ideas of the law anyway?

Please explain what law would be used to detain Samara indefinately, without any actual charge against her.

Indeed, if anything it was the Nos Astra Police Department that was violating asari law by detaining Samara. The nearest human equivalent I believe would be “obstruction of justice.” In any case, that Asari law provides for the death penalty for such a crime may be harsh by human standards, but both Illium and the UAR do not use human standards.

[Moiaussi]

yorkj86 wrote...

Just an aside, Moiaussi, Illium is not actually an asari world. It's an independent commercial world, run by asari corporate interests. While it's in Council space, it doesn't have to completely obey by Council rules. Due to its economic power, the Council is hands-off about the place, apart from gross violations of Council law.

Which makes the whole "OMG she'll start a war' concern even stranger. Also it means the local law is more likely to be corrupt by regular Asari standards (similar to how Noveria is compared to Council or Alliance worlds).

[Dean_the_Young]

[quote]Moiaussi wrote...

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
As I mentioned several posts ago on the piece by which this rail of argument started, by some standards of morality.

Yes, there are people who consider all lives equal. Even criminals. And they think that soldiers are psychopaths who join the military to kill without consequences.

Samara's reasons for killing any given indivual is that they are unjust, which is a horrible standard without a full system of checks and balances to base and mitigate such a wide brush. Unjust people do not deserve to be shot out of hand on the basis of crimes.[/quote]

And yet she lets Pitne For be dealt with by the conventional justice system. And yet she doesn't vow to track down any surviving mercs. You seem much quicker to judge and condem than the character you accuse.[/quote]I've never denied or contested that she lets other justice systems handle criminals they already have. That's never been contested, or asserted.

As I said pages ago, Samara's closest piece to mercy has been that she has a higher priority convict to chase. Morinth has been her priority investigation, not chasing down criminals who gave her the slip.

[quote]
And yet there is no evidence that she pursued him further. We don't know what mission Nihilus was on either. We do know that Spectres aren't all always saving the world.[/quote]Because she was pursuing Morinth.

We don't know what Nihlus's mission was, but at least Nihlus does answer to governmental oversight which directs the usage of his skills. I don't like the office of Spectres either, but they have more validity than Justicars.

 
[quote]
I am pretty sure that if the Council weren't willing to intervene in much more dire circumstances, they would be unlikely to go to war against the Asari (themselves a council race) over the actions of a single Justicar. You are really going out on a limb here.[/quote]Did you purposely ignore how I explicitly excluded war? Or are you just incapable of responding to anything but the arguments I am not making?

An incident does not equal war. Consequences do not necessicarly mean war.

[quote]
You have yet to prove any of Samara's actions have had unreasonable consequences.
[/quote]Samara succeding in killing Nihlus would have had unnecessary consequnces. She tried to do this. Samara killing a non-Asari on Illium is a incident waiting to happen. Everyone in-universe accepts that that was a threat as well.

What Samara can do, and can be obliged by her Code to do, are just concerning as what she's already a history of doing (following her code).
[quote]
You claimed she was likely to with absolutely nothing to back you up on that. [/quote]No, I did not.

[quote]
You really really don't know much about Batman at all. You should stop pretending to. He isn't into punishment. If he was, the Joker would have been long dead, probably by slow torture. [/quote]Batman is into beating criminals up and into submission. That doesn't mean he kills them, or that he's into torture.

Show me a modern interpretation of Batman where he isn't violent, and maybe we can talk batman.

[quote]
You should really stop talking about things you have no clue on. When does Batman terrorize the general public?[/quote]Criminals are a populace.
[quote]
 Or when do Justicars do so other than in your delusions?[/quote]Where did I say Justicars did?

You brought up batman. I was talking about Batman.
[quote]

Funny, you haven't started any wars either. I guess you should be incarcerated 'just in case' too.And the onus is appearantly on you to prove you never will start a war. Not sure how you would prove that, so into jail you go.[/quote]I also lack the means, the obligation, or the public credibility to start a war.

Concerns about your likely potential actions are always more valid than actions you are not capable of and have no crediblity about doing.

[quote]
The onus is on the accuser to prove risk, not on the defendant to prove lack thereof.[/quote]That's not how the world works anymore. That isn't how the world has worked for decades.

 
[quote]
Pardon? I have to prove she uses gentle force but can only use as examples situations where she doesn't? Letting regular law enforcement arrest the criminal is using lesser force. Saying only examples convenient to your arguement are valid is just trolling.[/quote]We have nothing suggesting Samara has any habit of letting regular law enforcement arrest the criminals when she starts.

 

[quote]
None of which are actually described and may actually have been reprehensible.[/quote]The fact that she does no't describe an objective standard of ruling people worthy of death is a distinct problem.


[quote]
But the descriptions that get corrected dismiss the concept of a rogue spectre. They simply claim spectres have carte blanche to do anything.[/quote]Before you even speak to Nihlus you can talk to Chakwas and Jenkins, who will talk about how rogue spectres arehandled.
[quote]
There are limits to how far Samara will go as described in her Nihilus story. She could have stopped him if she was willing to sacrifice an innocent village. She didn't. So there are obviously limits.
By her own admission.[/quote]Nowhere near enough. What she's capable, willing, and obligated to do as it comes to her attention is bad enough.

[quote]
The one that fights back and is part of the same mercs who never surrender nor cooperate with Shepard?[/quote]

Cooperation with Shepard is not a criteria for not having your throat crushed.

[quote]
I seem to recall her being pinned, but if she was let up, likely she would be 'able to harm' again.[/quote]Then restrain her.

If you're unwilling to do that, crush her shoulders and her kneecaps, preventing her from fleeing.

Killing her was not necessary.

[quote]
And yet it is an Asari world, and in the traverse, yet. One would think that enforcement of Asari contract law would be a lot more likely to start a war. Regardless, writing the Asari off as 'nutty' doesn't make them so other than by way of your own prejudices and assumptions.[/quote]I didn't write the Asari as nutty in general. Only about Justicars in particular.

There are very good reasons non-government agencies are rightly not allowed the power of capital punishment on their discretion. And very good reasons for legal systems with checks, balances, and safeguards in general to protect against abuse of convicts.

[quote]
SHE HAS NOT DONE THAT YET! [/quote]She was going to. What someone is prepared, willing, and moving forward to doing is grounds for action. It always has been.

[quote]You are suggesting that she should be arrested on the basis that if she was falsely arrested, she might break the law and therefore she should be treated like a criminal, even though she wouldn't be unless detained in the first place? Do you even hear yourself?[/quote]Yes. I also heard none of that, because I said none of that.

She very well can be temporarily detained if she is deemed a threat to others. Not forever, but that was never the claim or the fear. This does not give her the right to kill police who would stop her if she does not want to stay.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 08 novembre 2010 - 11:00 .

[Hoki]

Moiaussi wrote...

Getorex wrote...

Police forces have the power to detain, persuant to a crimnal investigation, anyone who is suspected of playing some role in a crime. Pretty standard (and necessary). The Asari cop wasn't doing normal US police procedure of tasering the crap out of her, cuffing her, tasering her again for good measure, and then tasering her yet again for giggles. She was being a prim and proper cop from the old fashioned ideal. And her "reward" for following normal procedure is to be threatened with death because no law applies to a Justicar?

Meh. I hate the very idea of SPECTERS for the very same reason.

They do not have the power to detain undefinately! Otherwise they would just gather up everyone they think is guilty and simply detain them. What is it with people having such strange ideas of the law anyway?

Please explain what law would be used to detain Samara indefinately, without any actual charge against her.

You have the strange idea of the law... A police force can detain you for a certain length of time. The length of time is decided by the government that created the police, NOT the justicar's code.

Thats where they butt heads. Justicar's code says that 24 hour detention is enough.
Justicars don't create policy whereever they go.. Thats why the police chief says she cant let Samara go.. because the chief is following lawful orders, not the justicar code.

Samara is placed into detention because Justicars have no authority in that area. Play through the mission again and pay attention where the chief is telling why she is to detain Samara, to avoid inter-species conflict. They're trying to protect Samara from intergalactic incedent as much as they are trying to protect petty criminals from Samara.

[TuringPoint]

Criminals are a populace, this is true...

So we should leave them alone so that they can better rape us. I guess that would be the most moral, or, amoral thing to do, for whichever reason you think is best. I guess your argument is that it's best to just not have any principles, or rather having principles is no different from not having principles?  

And actually, according to your logic with Morinth and snu snu with Shepard, the police, if they choose to keep the Justicar by force, are just as stupid and partially at fault for their deaths. But you present a suspiciously unbalanced argument; which is that Morinth is only minimally at fault for Shepard's stupidity but Justicar Samara is maximally at fault for killing police officers she hasn't killed yet, and which her code prevents her from killing for a reasonable amount of time to settle the issue.

So yes, that's right, in some ways Samara and Morinth are comparable in their actions. But they do what they do for different reasons. There is "honor" to what Samara does, whether or not it's nicer. Nice does not equal moral. A moral person doesn't need to be a nice person in real life.

Modifié par Alocormin, 08 novembre 2010 - 11:24 .

[General User]

@Dean_the_Young



In regards to your post stating “We don't know what Nihlus's mission was, but at least Nihlus does answer to governmental oversight which directs the usage of his skills. I don't like the office of Spectres either, but they have more validity than Justicars.”



Given the idea that the Council (to whom the Spectres answer) is a supra-national organization and not itself a sovereign state, may I ask why it is you believe their validity to operate the Spectres to be superior to that of the Justicar Order to operate the Justicars? Is it a question of the leeway Justicars are allowed vs. the Spectres who are given general assignments?



Assuming that citadel membership includes lawful treaties allowing the Spectres to operate in a member-state’s territory, I see the Spectre/Justicar comparison as having less to do with validity, than jurisdiction.

[Dean_the_Young]

General User wrote...

@Dean_the_Young

In regards to your post stating “We don't know what Nihlus's mission was, but at least Nihlus does answer to governmental oversight which directs the usage of his skills. I don't like the office of Spectres either, but they have more validity than Justicars.”

Given the idea that the Council (to whom the Spectres answer) is a supra-national organization and not itself a sovereign state, may I ask why it is you believe their validity to operate the Spectres to be superior to that of the Justicar Order to operate the Justicars? Is it a question of the leeway Justicars are allowed vs. the Spectres who are given general assignments?

The agreement of governments to commission, respect and recognize them, the big and small of it.

No government backs or controls the Justicars. No other species recognizes their place. Even the Asari deference is depicted more as cultural than legal (since the Justicars are extra-judicial).

I would be more inclined to respect the Justicars are a peculiarity of Asari law if they limited themselves solely to Asari space. They don't have such a policy. When Justicars recognize no such limits of jurisdiction and can freely talk about enforcing their code on indisputably non-Asari planets and regions like Omega and Tuchanka and anywhere else they might want, we have a problem.

Assuming that citadel membership includes lawful treaties allowing the Spectres to operate in a member-state’s territory, I see the Spectre/Justicar comparison as having less to do with validity, than jurisdiction.

Respecting the right and authorities of spectres is a condition of Citadel membership, from ME1.

Jurisdiction is a part of it. The Justicars can arguably have jurisdiction in Asari space, but I do not find their validity to pass muster. I think the Spectres are a mistake, but they have government backing.

[Moiaussi]

Hoki wrote...

You have the strange idea of the law... A police force can detain you for a certain length of time. The length of time is decided by the government that created the police, NOT the justicar's code.

Thats where they butt heads. Justicar's code says that 24 hour detention is enough.
Justicars don't create policy whereever they go.. Thats why the police chief says she cant let Samara go.. because the chief is following lawful orders, not the justicar code.

Samara is placed into detention because Justicars have no authority in that area. Play through the mission again and pay attention where the chief is telling why she is to detain Samara, to avoid inter-species conflict. They're trying to protect Samara from intergalactic incedent as much as they are trying to protect petty criminals from Samara.

"A certain specified length of time' does not equate to 'indefinately.' The officer doesn't say "I can only detain you temporarily, but I will as long as I can."

For the record, Canada's limit is 24 hours, the US is 48, Spain is 5 days, Turkey is 7 1/2 days, and the UK is 28 days, but in all cases that is for terror suspects, all without charge. That is why the US used Guantanamo, and why it was controvertial. The theory was that since it wasn't on the contenental US the rules didn't apply (and I think there were issues regarding soldiers being treated different than civilians), but as I understand it, recent supreme court rulings say the normal rules apply.

Are there areas of the world where the local law allows indefinite confinement without trial? Definately. We generally condemn those regemes, and that Sadam's regeme was like that was one of the arguements why it was good to take him down WMD's or no WMD's.

In short, yes a government can authorize that kind of law. That doesn't mean the Asari do. The Asari consider normal labour contracts 'slavery.' Why do you think that Asari law would allow indefinate detention without charge?

[TuringPoint]

EDIT:  Meh.

Modifié par Alocormin, 08 novembre 2010 - 11:45 .

[Hoki]

This is actually pretty simple to understand Moiaussi.



1) The Justicar code does not dictate the legal length of detainment.



2) Samara would leave after 24 hours anyways.



3) She was to be detained longer than 24 hours or until she left the planet.



Would you like to discuss George Bush now?

[General User]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

General User wrote...

@Dean_the_Young

In regards to your post stating “We don't know what Nihlus's mission was, but at least Nihlus does answer to governmental oversight which directs the usage of his skills. I don't like the office of Spectres either, but they have more validity than Justicars.”

Given the idea that the Council (to whom the Spectres answer) is a supra-national organization and not itself a sovereign state, may I ask why it is you believe their validity to operate the Spectres to be superior to that of the Justicar Order to operate the Justicars? Is it a question of the leeway Justicars are allowed vs. the Spectres who are given general assignments?

The agreement of governments to commission, respect and recognize them, the big and small of it.

No government backs or controls the Justicars. No other species recognizes their place. Even the Asari deference is depicted more as cultural than legal (since the Justicars are extra-judicial).

I would be more inclined to respect the Justicars are a peculiarity of Asari law if they limited themselves solely to Asari space. They don't have such a policy. When Justicars recognize no such limits of jurisdiction and can freely talk about enforcing their code on indisputably non-Asari planets and regions like Omega and Tuchanka and anywhere else they might want, we have a problem.

Assuming that citadel membership includes lawful treaties allowing the Spectres to operate in a member-state’s territory, I see the Spectre/Justicar comparison as having less to do with validity, than jurisdiction.

Respecting the right and authorities of spectres is a condition of Citadel membership, from ME1.

Jurisdiction is a part of it. The Justicars can arguably have jurisdiction in Asari space, but I do not find their validity to pass muster. I think the Spectres are a mistake, but they have government backing.

I just don’t understand why the decisions, judgments, commissions, and warrants of (FTSOA let’s call the Council) a government should automatically be any more valid or respectable than those of a group such as the Justicar Order.  I just don't get it.

[Moiaussi]

Hoki wrote...

This is actually pretty simple to understand Moiaussi.

1) The Justicar code does not dictate the legal length of detainment.
2) Samara would leave after 24 hours anyways.
3) She was to be detained longer than 24 hours or until she left the planet.

Would you like to discuss George Bush now?

What happened may be 'simple to understand,'  but that does not make it just or legal within Asari law, if they even use Asari law on a 'technically non-Asari' world.

You are simply assuming the rest. And Guantanamo was just brought up for comparative example purposes not political purposes (basicly to preempt it being used as a counterexample).

"Longer than 24 hours' does not equate to 'a fixed period of time longer than 24 hours', regardless of what the Justicar code may or may not dictate. You are simply assuming it would be a fixed duration.

[Moiaussi]

yorkj86 wrote...

Formally, Justicar jurisdiction is asari space, and it's stated as such.  Tuchanka and Omega are both technically lawless.  Why she says that she might return to Tuchanka is odd, unless she possesses knowledge that we don't, about crime originating in asari space and flowing to Tuchanka in order to take advantage of the planet's lawlessness.  Omega has no formal government, and she could return there for similar reasons. 

It is odd, though, that Samara would state a willingness to return to those places.  It seems like a writing error, in the very same way Detective Anaya accepting Samara's word as admissible evidence seems like a writing error, when Illium is not an asari territory.

I agree with you regarding Tuchanka, although we don't know that the code restricts itself to protecting Asari, as opposed to being respected as legitimate only by Asari.

Unless there is a line in the code regarding respecting jurisdiction, Justicars may well feel fine with going outside Asari borders, just only rarely feel the need to do so.

The bit about admissable evidence, however, is less likely a writing issue. Illium might not be Asari, but that does not mean it doesn't have similar law or courts.

[Getorex]

Moiaussi wrote...

Getorex wrote...

Police forces have the power to detain, persuant to a crimnal investigation, anyone who is suspected of playing some role in a crime. Pretty standard (and necessary). The Asari cop wasn't doing normal US police procedure of tasering the crap out of her, cuffing her, tasering her again for good measure, and then tasering her yet again for giggles. She was being a prim and proper cop from the old fashioned ideal. And her "reward" for following normal procedure is to be threatened with death because no law applies to a Justicar?

Meh. I hate the very idea of SPECTERS for the very same reason.

They do not have the power to detain undefinately! Otherwise they would just gather up everyone they think is guilty and simply detain them. What is it with people having such strange ideas of the law anyway?

Please explain what law would be used to detain Samara indefinately, without any actual charge against her.

Uh...I don't recall "indefinitely" coming up at all in the game. Of course indefinitely is way beyond the pale. In fact, the mere attempt to 'indefinitely detain' anyone should elicit a just attack just as Samara promised. However, it was merely the fact of being detained at all that Samara warned about. Then she amended it to the short period while Shepard and crew jaunted off on their adventure.

[In Exile]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

And the game is inconsistent with Samara. The very first interaction you can have with Samara involves the opportunity for a Paragon to contrast their ways with Samara's execution of the eclipse.

The game is inconsistent with Shepard. On some worlds being a paragon means being a boyscout and being a renegade means being a jerkass; on others paragon is by-the-rules and renegade is results-at-all costs. Never consistent.

[Moiaussi]

Getorex wrote...

Uh...I don't recall "indefinitely" coming up at all in the game. Of course indefinitely is way beyond the pale. In fact, the mere attempt to 'indefinitely detain' anyone should elicit a just attack just as Samara promised. However, it was merely the fact of being detained at all that Samara warned about. Then she amended it to the short period while Shepard and crew jaunted off on their adventure.

Then how long would they have detained her? At what point would the alleged 'risk of an international incident' be gone?

[Dean_the_Young]

General User wrote...
I just don’t understand why the decisions, judgments, commissions, and warrants of (FTSOA let’s call the Council) a government should automatically be any more valid or respectable than those of a group such as the Justicar Order.  I just don't get it.

Accountability should be a big, obvious one.

[General User]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

General User wrote...
I just don’t understand why the decisions, judgments, commissions, and warrants of (FTSOA let’s call the Council) a government should automatically be any more valid or respectable than those of a group such as the Justicar Order.  I just don't get it.

Accountability should be a big, obvious one.

That doesn’t make sense, not all governments are accountable, many don't even claim to be, and even those that do, tend to be accountable only to certain groups or interests. Cases in point: Illium, which is governed by corporate interests and the Citadel Council, whose members are chosen in a process that is ill defined at best, and the Salarian Union FTM, which has a semi-feudal system of government, with inherited positions of power.  Each of those bodies is entirely lawful and legitimate, with only limited, if any, accountability.
 
On the other side of that coin the Justicars most certainly are accountable, certainly to the Code, if not to others of their order. The fact that individual Justicars seem to be largely self policing only becomes a problem if a Justicar herself is morally deficient (in this case that would mean deviating from her Code), which is something Samara certainly isn’t.
 
Asari society seems to have a “distributed sovereignty” with the actions, and decisions of the Justicar Order and its members being at least equal, if not superior to, those of any given government or agency thereof. Human societies are not so different really, many areas of life (including law and justice) seen as the proper province of government in one society could easily be seen as belonging to family or church in another, and vice versa.  
 
This is a key point, because condemning Samara based on the fact that one has a problem with how asari society is set up is radically unfair, both to Samara and to asari in general.

Modifié par General User, 09 novembre 2010 - 04:42 .