State Department stayed out of contractors' dispute over consulate security, letters show [ournewsa.blogspot.com]
Question by thought SO.: What in the world is Aquinas talking about in the Summa Theologica? I have no idea what in the world the following means: "I answer that, As stated above (Article [1]), the law belongs to that which is a principle of human acts, because it is their rule and measure. Now as reason is a principle of human acts, so in reason itself there is something which is the principle in respect of all the rest: wherefore to this principle chiefly and mainly law must needs be referred. Now the first principle in practical matters, which are the object of the practical reason, is the last end: and the last end of human life is bliss or happiness, as stated above (Question [2], Article [7]; Question [3], Article [1]). Consequently the law must needs regard principally the relationship to happiness. Moreover, since every part is ordained to the whole, as imperfect to perfect; and since one man is a part of the perfect community, the law must needs regard properly the relationship to universal happiness. Wherefore the Philosopher, in the above definition of legal matters mentions both happiness and the body politi c: for he says (Ethic. v, 1) that we call those legal matters "just, which are adapted to produce and preserve happiness and its parts for the body politic": since the state is a perfect community, as he says in Polit. i, 1. Now in every genus, that which belongs to it chiefly is the principle of the others, and the others belong to that genus in subordination to that thing: thus fire, which is chief among hot things, is the cause of heat in mixed bodies, and these are said to be hot in so far as they have a share of fire. Consequently, since the law is chiefly ordained to the common good, any other precept in regard to some individual work, must needs be devoid of the nature of a law, save in so far as it regards the common good. Therefore every law is ordained to the common good." Best answer for What in the world is Aquinas talking about in the Summa Theologica?:
Answer by bored
the law is a rule an measure of human acts, so it is a principle part of human acts. Reason (i guess he is assuming) is also a key part of human acts. then, within reason, there is something that applies to everything and the law should be based off of that 'something', which applies to everything. in practical matters (everyday, humdrum stuff; which makes practical reasoning a necessity for this) so in these down-to-earth matters, the first key thing is the end which we are trying to achieve. and the end which we are all trying to reach is happiness. (i guess he stated this before in Q.2 A.7 and Q.3A.1) since the law acts in accordance to human matters, practical matters, the law must consider happiness in its rulings. since he apparently believes in the theory that every little man influences the big picture, universal happiness seems the purpose of the law. and i guess this philosopher (mentioned in Ethic v, 1) says that these legal matters that deal with making and continuing happiness are right. he says that the state is a perfect community, or will be. whew. okay. take a break, lemonade, anyone? now, in every kind, there is a principle of the things in the kind and those things are dependent/ inferior to the principle. for instance: fire (principle) is the principle for hot objects (kind) which are said to have fire from mixed bodies of heat (things). anyway, back to the law, the law (principle) is made for the common good (kind) which is made up ofnmany people (things). he concludes, every law that is made is for the common good. i realize that i may have missed some main points. sorry:( try to take the general consenus from what people say. good luck:)
Co'Sang - Riconoscenza [Testo]Quarta traccia dell'album Vita Bona. TESTO: Nto': Si m'affacc m'abbat c'abbasc, ma si viagg po m facc capac Rò vantagg e ma fa che randag, quas mai a disag! Assagg l'atmosfer a qualsiasi part e l'emisfer Si camp t'arrampic che nasc, t'arragg a ind e fasc Si nun t piac te avviat com i gabbian però u post nun le pigliat ind a nu depliant Inebriat a stu profum, Indebitat pe quand è profond l'impuls at fa impugnà ra na pium Tra Bovio,Di Giacomo.a vot attiggiannc, è ovvio! Istint spint re rion Crisciunt ind a ricchezz nun t'abbast Fai e scioucchez e " bam ! bam ! " sciul c'abbasc A mala vit è na calamit, nu tip e malatij can nun se mai capit indol d'eutanasia! RIT X2 Vogl ra tutt l'ammor aret Fa sapè ca t'egg amat ogni juorn e ser Me crisciut com a nu genitor over E mo t port stu regal p capì ca nun tradisc mai Vogl vennr nu milion e copij p fa e strad nov com a nu politic sincer E sper ca si nun cia facess a verè nu cambiament immorta l sta riconoscenz Luchè E' n'emozion fort quann raccont a storij e duje buon wuagliun c'abbasc Discussion c'abbasc, quann crisc c'abbasc N'ata machin re guardij, n'ata arrest c'abbasc E' na dipendenz doc e rauc com a voc ca raccont na devozion mistic e n'omm Ca abbruc com a nu carbon ind o nom e na rivoluzion Ca po s'arrvot nguoll E a stagion, scorz e mlon c'abbasc E sput ra copp e balcun c'abbasc Stamm o sicond disc e sent ancor o fischij ro vient ca abboff "e vel"! Par o backstage e scarface c'abbasc, 'na Casbah c'abbasc senza religion E pur si ...
Letters obtained exclusively by Fox News appear to show the State Department refused to get involved when the company tasked with protecting the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, raised security concerns, the latest indication that warning signs may have been ignored in the lead-up to last month's terror attack.
The letters pertain to a dispute between Blue Mountain Libya, the security license holder in Libya, and its operations partner Blue Mountain UK, which trained and provided the local guards.Â
A source with knowledge of two State Department meetings -- one in June and a second in July -- told Fox News that Blue Mountain Libya felt the security provided by the UK partner was "substandard and the situation was unworkable."Â
But according to the source, when the Libyans tried to bring in a third party -- an American contractor -- to improve security, a State Department contract officer declined to get involved.Â
"The U.S. government is not required to mediate any disagreements between the two parties of the Blue Mountain Libya partnership," contracting officer Jan Visintainer wrote on July 10 to Blue Mountain Libya, adding that to date "contract performance is satisfactory."Â
Asked about that letter Tuesday, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said the department's investigation likely would address the issue.Â
"Presumably, those kinds of questions will have to be looked at in the context of the work that we're doing," she said.Â
A representative with Blue Mountain UK has not yet responded to a request by Fox News for comment.Â
The July 10 exchange and the apparent warning that set it off are sure to be examined closely as both the State Department and Congress begin to scrutinize what may have gone wrong in the weeks and months preceding the attack, in which the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans were killed.Â
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee plans to hold a hearing Oct. 10 on security in the region before the attack. Two members of that committee, Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, fired off a letter Tuesday to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asking a string of security-related questions.Â
They detailed attacks and other security incidents in Benghazi starting in April and asked the State Department what measures it took to address the threat. Further, they claimed officials have told the committee of "repeated requests" for additional security that were turned down.Â
"Based on information provided to the committee by individuals with direct knowledge of events in Libya, the attack that claimed the ambassador's life was the latest in a long line of attacks on Western diplomats and officials in Libya in the months leading up to September 11, 2012," they wrote. "In addition, multiple U.S. federal government officials have confirmed to the committee that, prior to the September 11 attack, the U.S. mission in Libya made repeated requests for increased security in Benghazi. The mission in Libya, however, was denied these resources by officials in Washington."Â
A State Department spokeswoman said Tuesday that Clinton plans to respond to the lawmakers' questions.Â
The letter to Clinton alleges 13 incidents that showed the deteriorating security situation on the ground -- one of which included workers with Blue Mountain. Weeks before the attack, the letter said, Libyan guards employed by the Blue Mountain Group were urged by their family members to quit over rumors "of an impending attack."Â
The letter included other incidents, which have been well documented, including the June attack on a convoy carrying the British ambassador. And it said "assailants" put an explosive device at the gate of the U.S. Consulate in early June, blowing a hole in the security perimeter.Â
The State Department, meanwhile, has stood by U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice in the face of criticism and calls for her resignation. Rice came under fire for claiming repeatedly the Sunday after the attack that it was a "spontaneous" reaction to protests over an anti-Islam film. The administration now acknowledges the assault was a coordinated terror attack.
More State Department stayed out of contractors' dispute over consulate security, letters show Issues Anti Zionist Jewish Community in NY burning Israeli flag (ENG)NETUREI KARTA: www.nkusa.org Cette playlist intitulée «politic (orient-occident)» à pour intérêt d'apporter une approche objective... Il est essentiel de ne pas tomber dans le piège de « l'émotion ». Il est inutile de se faire une opinion sur une chose que nous appréhendons partiellement. Il est tout aussi inutile de se cristalliser sur une idée. Il faut toujours chercher pour comprendre les mécanismes, et ce objectivement et sereinement. Beaucoup sombrent dans le cliché délirant conspirationniste (prétendues théories complotistes). Le cas particulier ne doit pas établir la règle. Certaines pensées, idées... peuvent semblées de prime à bord néfastes ou au contraire saines. Cela dépend d'où on se place. L'essentiel (si je puis dire) est ce que le sujet en comprend et comment il l'applique... On note souvent que les points de vues sont divergents et ne « s'accordent » pas toujours. Cela entraîne une communication bloquée voir inexistante. Cela vient du fait que certains ne regardent pas la volonté réelle des personnes mais ce qu'elles sont censées représentées... Or, ce qui est intéressant c'est justement cela : la volonté, l'aspiration de ces personnes... Peu importe le « nom » de cet idéal, l'essentiel est naturellement cette volonté... Rare sont ceux capables de dépasser cela...
0 comments:
Post a Comment