It isn't true for one. But I think the spirit is true enough.

Is Fulham now trying to slander MLK? I wouldn't be surprised.

Yes, despite it's lack of factual accuracy it's a point worth taking: Legal =!= Right.

How about the fact that everything hitler did, he believed was right?

How were the paramilitary killings by Nazi street thugs legal, again? I'm confused.

I don't think that Hitler of his companions thought that everything they do is right, they thought that it is necessary to accomplish their goals and once that is done, history will remember only "their" truth.

I guess what I am saying is it is incumbent on us to resist what we consider to be an unjust law. Or should we obey the law no matter what?

I don't think that quote puts Hitler's government into the right point of view.

Hitler ended the rule of law in Germany by getting himself tons of emergency powers that he never gave back. What he did was "legal" in the sense that the government actually suspended the laws and gave Hitler the power to declare by himself what would be legal or illegal.

Act within the system to change the law until even that fails , then takes whatever means necessary (but not above and beyond necessary) to make the change. In the case of Hitler, assassinating him would have been fine. In the case of the present US issues, keep it within the law. But if the law gets worse and, say they pass a federal amendment that forbids same sex unions, then break the law, march on Washington... A little civil disobedience is proper when trying it through the channels becomes a wasted effort.

@ Draug, who is to be the arbitrator of when the law is to be broken?

@ Swordsman didn't they make laws at Nuremberg?

@ Swordsman didn't they make laws at Nuremberg? Should add and approved by the reichstag

@swordsman: Exactly.
A bit more accurate is: his party got voted into parliament by the people of Germany (which was strange, because Hitler became German less than 1 year before), where he made a coalition resulting him into becoming president before doing this. Soon after assuming office he declared himself the sole leader of the country, declared a state of emergency and suspended several laws.

History is to be the arbitor. Rosa Parks went to jail. Then she was viewed as a trouble maker and a subversive. Now she is a hero of the Civil Rights movement, and rightfully so. Use your conscience and when it says it is time for a little civil unrest, be unrestful. Now, violence is *never* OK, even in civil unrest. Bludgeoning an innocent truck driver to within an inch of his life because of what some asshole cops did to Rodney King is *never* OK. But staging a protest and marching on the capitol buildings of California and D.C. *is* an appropriate response to the extreme situation.

@ carpenter, can you ever envisage a situation where it is right to break the law?

Yes, but the Nuremburg laws did not encompass the "everything" that MLK is talking about. The Holocaust, for instance, was not mandated by the Reichstag or put on the books as a law.

Everything Hitler did was "legal" only in the sense that "legal" was *defined* as "whatever Hitler so orders." Germany abolished the rule of law. Hitler's orders and the law were one and the same.

MLK's statement implies that there was some sort of legal system that permitted Hitler do rule Germany in the way that he did, which is why I find it misleading. For all practical purposes the legal system of Germany ceased to exist by the 1940s.

What if I said "everything Ghengis Khan did was legal?" That would be true. It would also have no meaning, because of course there were no laws for Khan to break. MLK's observation is only slightly more informative.

@ draug is there a conflict between this - ''violence is *never* OK'' and this ''In the case of Hitler, assassinating him would have been fine''

And do you mean really mean to say that as individuals we are perfectly at liberty to act to the callings of our conscience? Should I withhold a portion of my taxes which I calculate to be supporting the war in Afghanistan/Libya, for instance?

A more specific and therefore helpful quote might be "Hitler's assumption of power was legal."

@swordsman were there laws in communist Russia? How about Franco's Spain? Or do you say that the rule of law is exclusively confined to western democracies?

@swordsman. I repeat the Nuremberg laws were passed by the Reichstag, should they still have been defied despite that because they were wrong. Should any law ever be defied because it is wrong?

Too many questions from me, I apologise. I must now state my view that laws can be wrong and it is our duty as individuals to defy them if we perceive them so to be.

It is getting late in London, but I will be interested in any responses which you might give in the morning. thank you for your attention and I apologise for the slightly hectoring tone

@fulham
"@ draug is there a conflict between this - ''violence is *never* OK'' and this ''In the case of Hitler, assassinating him would have been fine''"

Yes, a small disconnect. Assassinating Hitler as a military target would have been fine. But that isn't illegal as he is a valid military target in war just as Churchhill or Roosevelt were. Assassinating him beofre the war (which means before the attrocities against people who were different than his "master race" be they Jewish, Polish, Russian, or whatever) would *not* have been OK as it would have been violence.

But what I really meant was violence against innocents and property owned by the people. While I would abhor the violence of it, if our own president (Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, some future guy) to start exterminating people in concentration camps just because they were Muslim or whatever, then assassinating that figure head would be acceptable in my book. Killing a soldier marching in to kill a bunch of the offending innocents would also be acceptable. At that point, it becomes self defense and defense of others. But dragging a person who has nothing directly to do with the offenses out and beating them is wrong.

Oh, and fulhamish. If you wish, withhold a partion of your taxes. I doubt it will have any effect other than to get you arrested for willfully violating the tax code, but if it fits within your conscience, do it. If enough people do it so that they can't all be put in federal prison, maybe something will happen as a result. It'll become a movement and, hey, we might actually get out of the wars in question. I would consider risking it to get us out of Iraq (Afghanistan is justified in my view).

@fulham
I have no idea what you are talking about. None of that is relevant to my point about the MLK quote. I say that I don't care for the quote because it is misleading.

Everything you're saying "@swordsman" has nothing to do with my response to the thread topic, which is to say what I think about the quote. You've clearly confused my points with somebody else's. I have no idea where any of this stuff about communism and defying bad laws comes from, but it's possible somebody I muted is posting in the threat. Regardless, none of that stuff is responsive to what I've said and is only tangentially related to the MLK quote.