|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Oct 14, 2011 15:57:56 GMT -5
Nickerson, those laws exist for a reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Oct 14, 2011 16:03:41 GMT -5
Nickerson, those laws exist for a reason. Those laws were not written to deal with situations such as this. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Oct 14, 2011 16:07:35 GMT -5
Nickerson, those laws exist for a reason. Those laws were not written to deal with situations such as this. No US policymaker or judge could ever have predicted an enemy trying to conceal their identity while acting from far away. Therefore Michelle Bachman has the right to assasinate whoever she wants, with no oversight or proof. There's no way that power will be misued! |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Oct 14, 2011 16:18:13 GMT -5
Therefore Michelle Bachman has the right to assasinate whoever she wants, with no oversight or proof. There's no way that power will be misued! There is plenty of proof. There is also oversight. The US Congress could pull funding for military actions at any time. They could also impeach Obama. I don't know about anyone else, but is someone seriously threaten to kill my family and I have a change to kill him first I will. Regardless of if they are posing a threat at that time and regardless of the laws. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Oct 14, 2011 16:35:25 GMT -5
Therefore Michelle Bachman has the right to assasinate whoever she wants, with no oversight or proof. There's no way that power will be misued! There is plenty of proof. Innocent until proven guilty. The president did it unilaterally. Pigs could also fly backwards while singing the Nyan-cat song. Don't try that trick in a country with laws, you'll spend the rest of your life behind bars, as you should. By having breakfast. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Oct 14, 2011 18:34:54 GMT -5
There is plenty of proof. Innocent until proven guilty. ....by law not reality, there is a difference. Yes, as Commander and Chief. True, but that does not change that fact that they could. Yes, but my family would be safe, that is the point. You left out regardless. So yes, while having breakfast, while sleeping, whenever. If I absolutely thought that someone was going to try and kill my family laws and morals be damned. |
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Oct 14, 2011 19:02:13 GMT -5
he's a member of al qaeda. he gave up his citizenship long ago
|
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Oct 14, 2011 19:13:22 GMT -5
This might be a bit off topic but....  |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 15, 2011 3:34:28 GMT -5
he's a member of al qaeda. he gave up his citizenship long ago Is this the same board that was incensed, INCENSED, I tell you! At Dubya for the imprisonment of US citizens at GITMO? Seems... like a lot of people are suddenly in favour of unconstitutional and internationally illegal acts now its a dude from their own team in the big chair. I am jack's sense of dissapointment. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 15, 2011 3:37:13 GMT -5
I do indeed understand the difference. However, you aren't specifying what you mean. What are your "facts" and their "beliefs" that are in conflict, specifically? You stated that they believe they are attacking and killing people who are not Innocent. They think these people are guilty of something. We know they are wrong. We also know that the people we are targeting are not Innocent. They have come right out and stated they want to kill people. We also know they are actively trying to do that. You BELIEVE the people they believe are guilty are innocent. You have different world views, however, both stances are purely subjective. And if every American citizen who came out and said they wanted to kill someone was suddenly vaporised by summary hellfire rocket justice, there'd be a hell of a lot fewerAmericans, not least approx 7/8ths of this board. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Oct 15, 2011 3:50:10 GMT -5
he's a member of al qaeda. he gave up his citizenship long ago Not quite. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Oct 15, 2011 3:56:23 GMT -5
There is plenty of proof. Innocent until proven guilty. ....by law not reality, there is a difference. The 'reality' is that law never matters when the criminal is powerful, right? And, since might makes right, there's obviously no moral or legal reason to make everyone obey the law. Monarch-in-Chief. The power of life and death is just kingly. A check and balance isn't one if it is impossible to carry out. The congresses in dictatorships generally have ceremonial powers too. Vigilante 'justice' is wrong. How many millions have been slaughtered needlessly according to that doctrine? |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Oct 15, 2011 8:29:54 GMT -5
You BELIEVE the people they believe are guilty are innocent. You have different world views, however, both stances are purely subjective. And if every American citizen who came out and said they wanted to kill someone was suddenly vaporised by summary hellfire rocket justice, there'd be a hell of a lot fewerAmericans, not least approx 7/8ths of this board. Facts are not subjective. The fact is he joined and organization who's purpose was to kill people pretty much indiscriminately. The fact is he was very vocal about his stances. You and I both know there is a big difference between what people in al qaeda say and a person just stating "I will kill you" in the heat of anger. he's a member of al qaeda. he gave up his citizenship long ago Not quite. Oh yes he did. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Oct 15, 2011 8:40:19 GMT -5
....by law not reality, there is a difference. The 'reality' is that law never matters when the criminal is powerful, right? And, since might makes right, there's obviously no moral or legal reason to make everyone obey the law. The reality is that laws are not always able to provide protection for people. In this case killing him and any other member of Al-Qaeda is right. The President has always had the power of life and death. I don't think you understand what impossible means. The checks are not being carried out because a majority of the members in congress agree that this action was right. It is not about justice, it is about protection. How many when it has been true? |
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Oct 15, 2011 11:30:05 GMT -5
The 'reality' is that law never matters when the criminal is powerful, right? And, since might makes right, there's obviously no moral or legal reason to make everyone obey the law. The reality is that laws are not always able to provide protection for people. In this case killing him and any other member of Al-Qaeda is right. So in other words, Qaida is the bad guy and USgov is the good guy? Screw the law, I'm doing what's right? What will you do when USgov isn't the good guy anymore, or whoever is the target isn't a universally recognized bad guy? Will you then still be okay with it? Independent from whether this specific assassination was justified or not, it sets a dangerous precedent. |
|
