A civilian has rights. He must be told these rights, be given a lawyer, cannot be taken into custody without probable cause, when he is arrainged he can probably post bail, and supposedly he is innocent until proven guilty.
A soldier is guilty until proven innocent. If a major or above testifies that he saw the soldier do something wrong, that soldier is considered guilty right then and there. If he says the officer is lying, he gets hit with the charge of disrespecting an officer. When arrested, he has no right to silence, or to an attorney not provided by the military.
Answer:
Explanation:
Many attribute the escalation of ww1 and the events of the July crisis to complicated networks of alliances that were the keystone of European Diplomacy at the time. Compounded with the leaders of countries who each believed they would win the war quickly, and technological advancements since the Franco-prussian war, the conflict in the Balkans quickly escalated to a large scale war.
The difference between the Social contract theories of both was that Hobbs believed<u> c) that the </u><u>people </u><u>could </u><u>overthrow </u><u>their</u><u> ruler </u><u>if that ruler was </u><u>abusing </u><u>their </u><u>power</u><u>. </u>
<h3>Social Contract according to Locke</h3>
- Government owes citizens the right to protect their property.
- If a government was not performing, they could be removed from power.
Hobbes on the other hand, believed that the government owed nothing to the citizens and so the people could not remove it even if it wasn't performing.
In conclusion, option c is correct.
Find out more on Locke's theory at brainly.com/question/14308888.
a. <span>worship of the same gods </span>
