NationStates Jolt Archive

Keeping the dead ('http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6249054.stm')

Russia's top court has backed a law banning the return of the bodies of those branded terrorists or suspected of terrorism to their families.

The families of two suspected Chechen rebels killed in a 2005 special forces raid had appealed to the court, hoping to secure the return of their remains.

Correspondents say the practice echoes a Soviet custom of burying convicts without telling their families.

I actually believe this is a good idea, and not a violation of human rights.

While you may demand that the state "show the body", in order for relatives to ascertain that their relative or friend is indeed dead, and I believe that they have the right to an autopsy or an investigation into the manner of death, they have no right to bury the body, or know where it will eventually be disposed.

What do you think?

Keeping the dead ('http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6249054.stm')



I actually believe this is a good idea, and not a violation of human rights.

While you may demand that the state "show the body", in order for relatives to ascertain that their relative or friend is indeed dead, and I believe that they have the right to an autopsy or an investigation into the manner of death, they have no right to bury the body, or know where it will eventually be disposed.

What do you think?

So the state should spend money acquiring land to bury people/disposing of the body in because they feel like causing additional distress to their families?

What for?

I believe that they have the right to an autopsy or an investigation into the manner of death, they have no right to bury the body, or know where it will eventually be disposed.

1) How does that make an iota of sense? They can investigate the body, have it autopsied, but can't know where it's buried, let alone bury it themselves?
What would possibly the intention of this? o_O

2) You seriously think any intelligence service in the world will hand the body over to the family to autopsy and investigate how he was killed if the law says they don't have to give the body back in the first place?

In death, people are all equal. Regardless of what that person did in their life, they still are someone's family member. Let the family mourn even if others don't agree. The family should have the right to bury their own members. A corpse cannot do anything more than it's already done. I fail to see what not returning the bodies will achieve other than foster feelings of resentment adf cynicism toward the state.

So the state should spend money acquiring land to bury people/disposing of the body in because they feel like causing additional distress to their families?

Who says they bury them?

There are plenty of pig farms.

because they feel like causing additional distress to their families?Guess that's the answer to my first question...

I might see a point if you can show me evidence that burying the bodies would actually increase terrorism.

Can the remains of convicted terrorists can send vibes of hatred from beyond the grave, turning those around them into terrorists?

I might see a point if you can show me evidence that burying the bodies would actually increase terrorism.

Can the remains of convicted terrorists can send vibes of hatred from beyond the grave, turning those around them into terrorists?

One could make the argument in some cases that certain leader's graves become rallying points for demonstrations, etc.

Who says they bury them?

There are plenty of pig farms.

Selling people's bodies for profit, that's low. And at a guess not giving the bodies back is only going to whip up hatred etc. "not only do they oppress us they defile the bodies after death"

Who says they bury them?

There are plenty of pig farms.
You use an example of suspected Chechen rebels to say that all "enemies of the state" should be fed to the pigs?

Yet you are the person who can't stop talking about how he's armed to the teeth in case his government is ever coming for him?

How lucky you don't happen to live in Russia and happen to attract the negative attention of some local head honcho loyal to Moscow...

Selling people's bodies for profit, that's low. And at a guess not giving the bodies back is only going to whip up hatred etc. "not only do they oppress us they defile the bodies after death"

Well, we don't have to tell them we ground the bodies up and dumped them at a pig farm.

One could make the argument in some cases that certain leader's graves become rallying points for demonstrations, etc.

I know, as that's what the article argued. I don't see any of the bodies in question being of leaders, but I'd like to see some evidence.

This seems to me like removing and vandalizing in the process a controversial war memorial for example because it tends to cause unrest. A bit counterproductive.

One could make the argument in some cases that certain leader's graves become rallying points for demonstrations, etc.

you don't think it will make them hate the US government more if we don't give the bodies back.

Well, we don't have to tell them we ground the bodies up and dumped them at a pig farm.

That is just sick. There are no two ways about it.

Well, we don't have to tell them we ground the bodies up and dumped them at a pig farm.

No, leaving them to make up their own mins about what you must be doing to them, which any enterprising speaker will magnify and use to gain support.

And this ladies and gentlemen is why RO is not in public relations.


Hey we managed to kill one of our enemies, here's an idea, let's really piss off the rest of them! That'll make them stop attacking us!

No, leaving them to make up their own mins about what you must be doing to them, which any enterprising speaker will magnify and use to gain support.

Right now, there are interesting rumors in Iraq amongst common Iraqis about US troops that have nothing to do with reality, and cannot be dispelled no matter what the US does or doesn't do.

For example:

The sunglasses that US troops wear are x-ray glasses so that they can see women naked.

This rumor is so common in Iraq that it's not funny - and nothing can dispel it (short of telling every US soldier to stop wearing sunglasses).

You'll have rumors no matter what.

*Buys US-Army surplus sunglasses*

Why stop there? Whenever someone is convicted of a major violent crime, the FBI should track down everyone in the convict's immediate family and kick those people in the head. Then they should tag those people with a transmitter so from time to time, they can return and kick those people in the head again. They deserve it because they are the family members of a bad bad man. *nod*

;)

*Buys US-Army surplus sunglasses*

Any thing that emitted that level of X-ray radiation would kill you fairly quick. Not to mention it would illuminate the body structure opposite of the emitter. Plus of course X-rays have really terrible resolution. All fuzzy.

Why stop there? Whenever someone is convicted of a major violent crime, the FBI should track down everyone in the convict's immediate family and kick those people in the head. Then they should tag those people with a transmitter so from time to time, they can return and kick those people in the head again. They deserve it because they are the family members of a bad bad man. *nod*

;)

Since they're probably in prison, though, what's the point of a transmitter? :confused:

Any thing that emitted that level of X-ray radiation would kill you fairly quick. Not to mention it would illuminate the body structure opposite of the emitter. Plus of course X-rays have really terrible resolution. All fuzzy.

Oh, c'mon. We all know that "X-ray" is just a familiar name, not a technical description of how they work. They probably really use quantum entanglement or something, or phase the light in an appropriate way, or reverse the polarity to the deflector grid.


--

The ";)" at the end of LG's post explains very succinctly exactly all that is wrong with irony on the internet.

The ";)" at the end of LG's post explains very succinctly exactly all that is wrong with irony on the internet.

How can something so wrong, feel oh so right? :)

Keeping the dead ('http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6249054.stm')



I actually believe this is a good idea, and not a violation of human rights.

While you may demand that the state "show the body", in order for relatives to ascertain that their relative or friend is indeed dead, and I believe that they have the right to an autopsy or an investigation into the manner of death, they have no right to bury the body, or know where it will eventually be disposed.

What do you think?

I think that they have the right to the body. I don't necessarily think they have the right to an investigation or an autotopsy because of their affiliation. Send it back so that they can do whatever ritual they follow.

How can something so wrong, feel oh so right? :)

It feels like the ";)" spoils it, because it points out that it is ironic... But if you leave it off you have loads of people being confused and taking you seriously :(

Right now, there are interesting rumors in Iraq amongst common Iraqis about US troops that have nothing to do with reality, and cannot be dispelled no matter what the US does or doesn't do.

For example:

The sunglasses that US troops wear are x-ray glasses so that they can see women naked.

This rumor is so common in Iraq that it's not funny - and nothing can dispel it (short of telling every US soldier to stop wearing sunglasses).

You'll have rumors no matter what.

So why encourage them. If you hide something, people will assume it's because you have a good reason to hide it.

It feels like the ";)" spoils it, because it points out that it is ironic... But if you leave it off you have loads of people being confused and taking you seriously :(

Perhaps. But you and I both know that I should never be taken seriously. :D

So why encourage them. If you hide something, people will assume it's because you have a good reason to hide it.

Because it's not enough to punish the terrorist, you have to punish their families too.

And let's face it Pinochet's disappearing program was all good fun right?

why can't Russia do something nice for a change?

...and Putin wonders why nobody likes him :p

The persons dead, they wont know.

To hell with giving scum back to scum, dump it in the sea.

Keeping the dead ('http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6249054.stm')



I actually believe this is a good idea, and not a violation of human rights.

While you may demand that the state "show the body", in order for relatives to ascertain that their relative or friend is indeed dead, and I believe that they have the right to an autopsy or an investigation into the manner of death, they have no right to bury the body, or know where it will eventually be disposed.

What do you think?


Why do you think it is a good idea? It's a dead body, no use to anybody ecxcept the family so that they can start the greifing procces. To deny them that seems both inhumane and petty in the extreme.

One could make the argument in some cases that certain leader's graves become rallying points for demonstrations, etc.

Right. So you let the family bury them, and then you set up surveillance on the grave.

RO, you fail (http://youfail.org)

I actually believe this is a good idea, and not a violation of human rights.

While you may demand that the state "show the body", in order for relatives to ascertain that their relative or friend is indeed dead, and I believe that they have the right to an autopsy or an investigation into the manner of death, they have no right to bury the body, or know where it will eventually be disposed.

What do you think?What a load of shit.

Families of the disappeared in Latin America STILL don't know where their loved ones are buried. It denies them closure. There is absolutely no valid reason to deny anyone the remains of a family member.

What, do they want to make sure they're not vampires or something?

That's fucking barbaric and creepy.

Well, we don't have to tell them we ground the bodies up and dumped them at a pig farm.

Getting sick of this account, DK? Feeling like it's time to flame-bait yourself into another persona?

Keeping the dead ('http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6249054.stm')



I actually believe this is a good idea, and not a violation of human rights.

While you may demand that the state "show the body", in order for relatives to ascertain that their relative or friend is indeed dead, and I believe that they have the right to an autopsy or an investigation into the manner of death, they have no right to bury the body, or know where it will eventually be disposed.

What do you think?

I think you're an authoritarian tool. That's what I think.

The persons dead, they wont know.

To hell with giving scum back to scum, dump it in the sea.

Wait...I'm starting to see your most excellent point. Really, when a person is dead, who cares what happens to the body?

I propose that all US soldiers killed in action in Iraq be burned. Shipping their corpses back to the US is a ridiculous and pointless expense, and serves no purpose. Nor does the family need to be bothered with details about where they were burned. Just a death certificate should suffice in terms of information. Think of all the money and paperwork that you'd be saving!

This ranks right up there with the smearing-bullets-in-pig's blood proposal for sheer stupidity and petty malice.

I think you're an authoritarian tool. That's what I think.

More like a tiresome troll.

Amazing that this one has managed to live through so many accounts without being DoSed like DC was...despite the fact that DC wasn't here just to troll, (as this one has admitted to being here for the sole purpose of).

Wait...I'm starting to see your most excellent point. Really, when a person is dead, who cares what happens to the body?

I propose that all US soldiers killed in action in Iraq be burned. Shipping their corpses back to the US is a ridiculous and pointless expense, and serves no purpose. Nor does the family need to be bothered with details about where they were burned. Just a death certificate should suffice in terms of information. Think of all the money and paperwork that you'd be saving!


Why even tell them? Closure is overrated. If they never know what happens, they can still believe their loved ones are alive somewhere. *nod*

Wait...I'm starting to see your most excellent point. Really, when a person is dead, who cares what happens to the body?

I propose that all US soldiers killed in action in Iraq be burned. Shipping their corpses back to the US is a ridiculous and pointless expense, and serves no purpose. Nor does the family need to be bothered with details about where they were burned. Just a death certificate should suffice in terms of information. Think of all the money and paperwork that you'd be saving!

Why wait for people to die? Why not just assume that, when people aren't within eyeshot, they are in fact dead? That way, you could continually be pleasantly surprised when the 'dearly-departed' show up at your front door. Funerals? A thing of the past. Cell phones? Dead men don't talk.

Let's make life easy on ourselves and just assume we're the only living beings in existence.

Why even tell them? Closure is overrated. If they never know what happens, they can still believe their loved ones are alive somewhere. *nod*
Good point! Then there wouldn't be this horrible slump in morale!

Why even tell them? Closure is overrated. If they never know what happens, they can still believe their loved ones are alive somewhere. *nod*

Just count all combat fatalities as MIA, or better yet AWOL. No one gave them permission to die! Think of the savings on survivor benefits!

Why wait for people to die? Why not just assume that, when people aren't within eyeshot, they are in fact dead? That way, you could continually be pleasantly surprised when the 'dearly-departed' show up at your front door. Funerals? A thing of the past. Cell phones? Dead men don't talk.

Let's make life easy on ourselves and just assume we're the only living beings in existence.

I wonder how lifechanging this perspective would be?

Although, the constant tearful reunions might get a bit tiresome :D

I wonder how lifechanging this perspective would be?

Although, the constant tearful reunions might get a bit tiresome :D

Well, that's just the point, no-one would get so much as misty-eyed at their loved ones' "passing". Business as usual. And that's the kind of sensibility that'd fit in perfectly with DK's inhuman outlook.

Come to think of it, if we all adopted this perspective, we'd probably have more in common with birds than apes.

Keeping the dead ('http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6249054.stm')



I actually believe this is a good idea, and not a violation of human rights.

While you may demand that the state "show the body", in order for relatives to ascertain that their relative or friend is indeed dead, and I believe that they have the right to an autopsy or an investigation into the manner of death, they have no right to bury the body, or know where it will eventually be disposed.

What do you think?

I have something against causing undue punishment to innocent parties, like family members. Give them the body.

i agree with this, oddly enough. its about as close to a post death punishment as you can do that might have some affect. if you are an enemy of the state and you die the state keeps your body.

i agree with this, oddly enough. its about as close to a post death punishment as you can do that might have some affect. if you are an enemy of the state and you die the state keeps your body.

You're dead though. The punishment means nothing to you. The only people who are affected are innocent relatives.

You're dead though. The punishment means nothing to you. The only people who are affected are innocent relatives.

depends on the persons thinking while they were alive. some people certainly don't like the thought of certain people owning their body after death. it is said Hitler had his bodied burnt because he did not want the allies (Russians) to have it.


and if there was a lot of honor for family they would not want their families to suffer much after their death

and if there was a lot of honor for family they would not want their families to suffer much after their death

Honour isn't the only issue here. I don't consider myself as putting too much emphasis on honour but I still wouldn't want someone keeping my relatives body.

So its the equivalent of shooting a family member in the foot (or any other harm) because of their relatives mistake?

Surely once they're dead and the body has been autopsied the only people who care what happens to the body are the family and necrophiliacs?

Honour isn't the only issue here. I don't consider myself as putting too much emphasis on honour but I still wouldn't want someone keeping my relatives body.

So its the equivalent of shooting a family member in the foot (or any other harm) because of their relatives mistake?

no its not like shooting a family member in the foot. shooting a family member in the foot is physical and emotional harm. keeping a body is at most emotional harm. some things in life just are not fair. should we release every prisoner with a child just because we don't want that child to have any emotional damage of knowing a family member did something wrong and must now pay the punishment for doing so.

no its not like shooting a family member in the foot. shooting a family member in the foot is physical and emotional harm. keeping a body is at most emotional harm. some things in life just are not fair. should we release every prisoner with a child just because we don't want that child to have any emotional damage of knowing a family member did something wrong and must now pay the punishment for doing so.

Punishment of offender trumps the emotional distress of the family member but by keeping the body you have removed the punishment of the offender bit and just kept the emotional distress of the family member part

no its not like shooting a family member in the foot. shooting a family member in the foot is physical and emotional harm. keeping a body is at most emotional harm. some things in life just are not fair. should we release every prisoner with a child just because we don't want that child to have any emotional damage of knowing a family member did something wrong and must now pay the punishment for doing so.

How are you punishing someone who's dead by refusing to release their body? They're dead, you can't do anything to them any more. Anything you try to do will only hurt their family.

1) How does that make an iota of sense? They can investigate the body, have it autopsied, but can't know where it's buried, let alone bury it themselves?
What would possibly the intention of this? o_O

2) You seriously think any intelligence service in the world will hand the body over to the family to autopsy and investigate how he was killed if the law says they don't have to give the body back in the first place?

Roflpwnt. You win the thread!

Getting sick of this account, DK? Feeling like it's time to flame-bait yourself into another persona?
You are inside my HEAD!
It feels like I have no privacy anymore!!!!

But true, he is slipping.