View Full Version : Terrorists Should Be Treated As Enemy Combatants
In the future, all terrorists should be treated as enemy combatants
As such, they should be tried by a military tribunal.
Prior to that, they need to be shipped of to Guantanamo and subjected to intense prolonged interrogation to get specific information on contacts and other, possible sleepers, in network.
These people commit crimes tantamount to war atrocities and crimes against humanity and should face the harshest consequences. Enough of political correctness, as our innocent civilians are getting slaughtered.
The rules of constitutional judicial process should not apply to war criminals, especially when they are caught in the act.
Stirchley
11-01-17, 08:21 PM
Intense prolonged interrogation? What’s that? Double speak for torture?
Intense prolonged interrogation? What’s that? Double speak for torture?
Whatever is necessary to put a stop to or diminish loss of innocent lives.
I'm sure most of your British compatriots agree with me.
After terrorist acts, humane went out the door.
The only reason that they have somewhat of an edge is that they are willing to die and become martyrs.
Let's give them what they want. Let's just make it a little less easy.
Stirchley
11-01-17, 08:31 PM
I'm sure most of your British compatriots agree with me.
Why would you think that?
It really is an endless cycle. This is the days after 9/11 all over again and what you called for in the op already happened.
Been reading alot about the Iraq War recently...man. I liked this - https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/28/dark-matters/
gandalf26
11-01-17, 08:36 PM
In the future, all terrorists should be treated as enemy combatants
As such, they should be tried by a military tribunal.
Prior to that, they need to be shipped of to Guantanamo and subjected to intense prolonged interrogation to get specific information on contacts and other, possible sleepers, in network.
These people commit crimes tantamount to war atrocities and crimes against humanity and should face the harshest consequences. Enough of political correctness, as our innocent civilians are getting slaughtered.
The rules of constitutional judicial process should not apply to war criminals, especially when they are caught in the act.
It can be argued that Guantanamo Bay, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Abu Gharrib, torture etc etc etc have led to the situation we are in now.
Also terrorists are treated as if they were a combatant and are generally shot dead, and if they are potential terrorists how do you differentiate from the general population?? Same problem the US had trying to fight the insurgency in recent wars.
Because they are tired of acts of terror, just the same as we are. And It's only escalating, so changes have to made.
The terrorists all ready chose to change rules of engagement. We just need to adapt.
Stirchley
11-01-17, 08:37 PM
It can be argued that Guantanamo Bay, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Abu Gharrib, torture etc etc etc have led to the situation we are in now.
When a man is tortured, he will eventually say anything you want him to say.
It can be argued that Guantanamo Bay, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Abu Gharrib, torture etc etc etc have led to the situation we are in now.
Also terrorists are treated as if they were a combatant and are generally shot dead, and if they are potential terrorists how do you differentiate from the general population?? Same problem the US had trying to fight the insurgency in recent wars.
I am not talking generalities. I am talking applying certain consequences to those caught in the act, not to those just suspected off it.
Stirchley
11-01-17, 08:40 PM
I am not talking generalities. I am talking applying certain consequences to those caught in the act, not to those just suspected off it.
If you know the man is guilty, what’s the point of the intense prolonged interrogation ?
When a man is tortured, he will eventually say anything you want him to say.
Where did you read that?
A skilled interrogator does not suggest an answer.
He waits for the subject to give it up and then he verifies the data.
matt72582
11-01-17, 08:41 PM
That'll stop em!
If you know the man is guilty, what’s the point of the intense prolonged interrogation ?
I think I all ready posted the answer to that.
He should be able to identify others, before he gets shot in the head.
Stirchley
11-01-17, 08:43 PM
A skilled interrogator does not suggest an answer.
LOL. That’s funny.
gandalf26
11-01-17, 08:45 PM
Where did you read that?
A skilled interrogator does not suggest an answer.
He waits for the subject to give it up and then he verifies the data.
What if there is nothing to give up, what does a lone Wolf have to give up.
The problem for security services recently is the unknown terrorist who becomes indoctrinated by watching slick propaganda (with a lot of truths I imagine) then goes and runs a load of people over. How do you ever stop that?
It's ok, you guys and gals that disagree can go on your merry walks and get slaughtered.
I exercise my right to open carry in my state.
It's your political correctness that got us here in the first place.
It's as if you live in an alternate universe.
I don't have to lose some one to come to my senses.
Stirchley
11-01-17, 08:50 PM
We’re just discussing the subject matter here. Don’t get upset if people disagree with you. You started an interesting thread.
LOL. That’s funny.
What is really funny is you questioning interrogation techniques that you are completely unfamiliar with. And yeah, if you knew what I was talking about, you would not be questioning it.
Lady, I am wasting my time with you.
Post a relevant counter argument, if you want the discussion between us to go on.
We’re just discussing the subject matter here. Don’t get upset if people disagree with you. You started an interesting thread.
What gives you the idea I am getting upset?
What is really funny is you questioning interrogation techniques that you are completely unfamiliar with. And yeah, if you knew what I was talking about, you would not be questioning it.
Lady, I am wasting my time with you.
Post a relevant counter argument, if you want the discussion between us to go on.
You've demonstrated zero familiarity with interrogation techniques or knowledge of the past 17 years. Bit rich to demand this from Stirchley.
Stirchley
11-01-17, 08:57 PM
What is really funny is you questioning interrogation techniques that you are completely unfamiliar with.
You know absolutely nothing about me. Please don’t make assumptions based on ... nothing.
gandalf26
11-01-17, 08:58 PM
It's ok, you guys and gals that disagree can go on your merry walks and get slaughtered.
I exercise my right to open carry in my state.
It's your political correctness that got us here in the first place.
It's as if you live in an alternate universe.
I don't have to lose some one to come to my senses.
I hate political correctness.
The point is what do lone wolves have to give up in interrogation, it's very likely no one else knew what they were planning.
So you are going to stop cars/trucks mowing folk down by open carrying? Good luck with that dude
Stirchley
11-01-17, 08:59 PM
What gives you the idea I am getting upset?
You said you’re wasting your time with me. That’s somewhat rude & gives me the impression that you are getting upset.
You know absolutely nothing about me. Please don’t make assumptions based on ... nothing.
I know that you are a liberal oriented older lady. I apologize if it turns out you were M of MI6.
As far as I know, till their acts have been proved in trial and they are officially convicted, they can't be called terrorists. What you are doing here is justifying the systematic torture of suspects. Newsflash: it's already happening. And it's disgusting.
Stirchley
11-01-17, 09:03 PM
I know that you are a liberal oriented older lady. I apologize if it turns out you were M of MI6.
Glad you still have a sense of humor. :)
You said you’re wasting your time with me. That’s somewhat rude & gives me the impression that you are getting upset.
Ok, let's retrace. You said that a skilled interrogator is funny. Should I call that trolling or am I just trying to be rude?
I am cool as a cucumber and know what needs to be done. Why should I be the one getting upset?
I hate political correctness.
The point is what do lone wolves have to give up in interrogation, it's very likely no one else knew what they were planning.
So you are going to stop cars/trucks mowing folk down by open carrying? Good luck with that dude
Do you even know when the phrase " Lone Wolf " was first coined?
Stirchley
11-01-17, 09:08 PM
You said that a skilled interrogator is funny.
I never said anything of the kind. I laughed at your suggestion that “A skilled interrogator does not suggest an answer.” Do you really believe that?
gandalf26
11-01-17, 09:11 PM
Do you even know when the phrase " Lone Wolf " was first coined?
Does that even matter in relation to this discussion?
As far as I know, till their acts have been proved in trial and they are officially convicted, they can't be called terrorists. What you are doing here is justifying the systematic torture of suspects. Newsflash: it's already happening. And it's disgusting.
Prove what? A guy getting caught mowing down people in a truck is not self evident proof of a crime? The same guy later claiming ties to ISIS and feeling proud that he just killed all those people? Not proof enough?
Should we just let him go or feed him for the next 60 years as he watches TV in a federal prison?
What we need is proof of others involved so that we can prevent those individuals from committing same crime.
If you don't get that, you never will.
Stirchley
11-01-17, 09:16 PM
What we need is proof of others involved so that we can prevent those individuals from committing same crime.
So you want the prisoner to give up the names of other terrorists? Is that your point?
Does that even matter in relation to this discussion?
Sure it does. You keep using the phrase, so I simply asked you to tell me if you know when it was first used in the context of a killing, or should I say a pretext to avoid insight into a conspiracy.
Lately, many have stretched the meaning to avoid breaking an 8 year silence.
Prove what? A guy getting caught mowing down people in a truck is not self evident proof of a crime? The same guy later claiming ties to ISIS and feeling proud that he just killed all those people? Not proof enough?
No, it's not proof enough. Whether it is proof enough or not should be decided in trial, not in a random internet discussion.
Claiming ties to ISIS and feeling proud, for instance, doesn't hold water in terms of proving the material responsibility of the act.
Should we just let him go or feed him for the next 60 years as he watches TV in a federal prison?
Sure, because convicted terrorists and even suspects of terrorism usually have a great time in jail. And I kindly remind that you are justifying torture to suspects, not to terrorists.
What we need is proof of others involved so that we can prevent those individuals from committing same crime.
If you don't get that, you never will.
I get that you are not worth my further attention because you have no regard for civil rights and guarantees and you have zero respect for fair trial procedures. You don't deserve to live in a democracy.
So you want the prisoner to give up the names of other terrorists? Is that your point?
Sure, otherwise I would just shoot him dead and save the tax payers some money.
However, I would not be opposed to seeing him suffer, especially someone that gloats over an act of mass killing.
Even liberals concede that it's not the certainty of getting caught but the severity of punishment that acts as a deterrent.
Just compare the death penalty states to the non death penalty states and see who has the more violent crimes.
Stirchley
11-01-17, 09:29 PM
Sure, otherwise I would just shoot him dead and save the tax payers some money.
So you’d murder someone to ease the burden of American taxpayers?
No, it's not proof enough. Whether it is proof enough or not should be decided in trial, not in a random internet discussion.
Claiming ties to ISIS and feeling proud, for instance, doesn't hold water in terms of proving the material responsibility of the act.
Sure, because convicted terrorists and even suspects of terrorism usually have a great time in jail. And I kindly remind that you are justifying torture to suspects, not to terrorists.
I get that you are not worth my further attention because you have no regard for civil rights and guarantees and you have zero respect for fair trial procedures. You don't deserve to live in a democracy.
Ha, ha, ha. Really? But you do? The democracy you so eagerly quote, very easily turns into anarchy and then you would be the first running to get my help.
And you know what? I'd probably give it to you because I am a compassionate guy ( just not for terrorists ).
Just compare the death penalty states to the non death penalty states and see who has the more violent crimes.
States without the Death Penalty have had consistently lower murder rates:
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates
Ha, ha, ha. Really? But you do? The democracy you so eagerly quote, very easily turns into anarchy and then you would be the first running to get my help.
And you know what? I'd probably give it to you because I am a compassionate guy ( just not for terrorists ).
Lol okay, better end this exchange in a comedic note. Have a good day.
So you’d murder someone to ease the burden of American taxpayers?
I would not call it murder. It would be justifiable homicide.
Stirchley
11-01-17, 09:35 PM
I would not call it murder. It would be justifiable homicide.
Only in your eyes.
Stirchley
11-01-17, 09:35 PM
States without the Death Penalty have had consistently lower murder rates:
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates
That’s right.
It's right but it's not convenient so i imagine it'll be glossed over. Funny the standard he was demanding earlier when the one fact he attempted was wrong.
Lol okay, better end this exchange in a comedic note. Have a good day.
Cool. Back to your avatar future or whatever. Happy trails! ( FIY " Have a nice day " is often used at In&Out Burger, usually in a condescending manner, after they've been told about having messed up an order )
That’s right.
Please, show me an FBI report that corroborates that.
Cool. Back to your avatar future or whatever. Happy trails! ( FIY " Have a nice day " is often used at In&Out Burger, usually in a condescending manner, after they've been told about having messed up an order )
Oh, didn't know that. I use it for almost everything, sometimes condescending, this time I'm just trying to end the conversation in a nice way because it got too heated up :)
Please, show me an FBI report that corroborates that.
Read the link:
Murder rates are from the FBI's "Crime in the United States" and are per 100,000 population.
Here's the link knock yourself out - https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s
Only in your eyes.
An act of self defense is justifiable homicide.
In Nevada, for example, you are justified in killing someone that breaks into your home.
Ironically, if you just wound them and maim them, you can leave yourself open to a civil suit.
Oh, didn't know that. I use it for almost everything, sometimes condescending, this time I'm just trying to end the conversation in a nice way because it got too heated up :)
We differ, but we are cool. I like your avatar.:)
Stirchley
11-01-17, 09:47 PM
An act of self defense is justifiable homicide.
The man is your hypothetical prisoner. Where’s the self-defense?
You Republicans better elect me Speaker Of The House, after all this.
Not a single one of you came forward but that's cool, I'll represent.
The man is your hypothetical prisoner. Where’s the self-defense?
Hypothetical prisoner? We haven't got that far yet.
I just saw him mowing down a bunch of people and I took my gun out and shot him in the head.
Not only would I be justifiable but Trump would probably give me a medal.
Stirchley
11-01-17, 09:53 PM
You Republicans better elect me Speaker Of The House, after all this.
Not a single one of you came forward but that's cool, I'll represent.
So you know everyone’s political affiliation here?
So you know everyone’s political affiliation here?
Gee, now that would be really hard to figure out.:rolleyes:
One thing is for sure, if you have not posted, then I am clueless.
Stirchley
11-01-17, 10:06 PM
I took my gun out and shot him in the head.
But in your OP, you said you wanted intense prolonged interrogation.
But in your OP, you said you wanted intense prolonged interrogation.
God, you make it hard. This is after the guy's all ready been caught: and the next step should be?
Or do you think that I would shoot him while he was handcuffed?
We have all ready determined that he committed an act of terrorism.
What we don't know is if he is aware of more attacks and if/when they are scheduled to happen. Who is his direct handler?
For the answers to those questions Guantanamo is best suited. It's not on US soil and there is no attorney present. It's time sensitive and needs resolution as quick as possible.
Liberals would argue that the terrorist has rights, just like any one else accused of a crime.
I am saying that he gave up any rights once he was caught in the act of committing terror.
Congress should enact an amendment that states that any time an act of terrorism is committed on US soil, the President has the right to invoke a state of emergency, which would suspend and override constitutional rights ( which should not apply to a terrorist, anyway )
Captain Steel
11-02-17, 12:19 AM
God, you make it hard. This is after the guy's all ready been caught: and the next step should be?
Or do you think that I would shoot him while he was handcuffed?
We have all ready determined that he committed an act of terrorism.
What we don't know is if he is aware of more attacks and if/when they are scheduled to happen. Who is his direct handler?
For the answers to those questions Guantanamo is best suited. It's not on US soil and there is no attorney present. It's time sensitive and needs resolution as quick as possible.
Liberals would argue that the terrorist has rights, just like any one else accused of a crime.
I am saying that he gave up any rights once he was caught in the act of committing terror.
Congress should enact an amendment that states that any time an act of terrorism is committed on US soil, the President has the right to invoke a state of emergency, which would suspend and override constitutional rights ( which should not apply to a terrorist, anyway )
What's interesting is President Obama had American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki assassinated without regard to his civil rights entitled to him as an actual American citizen!
al-Awlaki was born in Las Cruces, New Mexico. He was never arrested, read any Miranda rights, charged, provided or allowed to obtain counsel, provided a hearing, a trial, his "day in court," or given due process. He was simply murdered by a direct order from the President of the United States, along with his 16 year-old son who was also an American citizen while they were having breakfast.
However, few liberals, Democrats or Obama supporters had any problem with the President of the United States murdering a U.S. citizen who was not charged with a crime or given any due process whatsoever.
As most here know, I have no love for terrorist recruiters like al-Awlaki, but I do support the Constitution, so it's kind of ironic that some people cry out for civil rights for immigrant terrorists in the U.S. who commit terrorist acts against Americans, but few people of that same mindset had a problem with the President murdering an American citizen (along with a minor who was also a citizen) without any due process, and who didn't carry out any terrorist acts himself, but was merely an agitator & motivator.
Most on the left had no problem with it as long as it was Obama doing it (but should a Republican President advocate advanced interrogation techniques for enemy combatants in extreme emergency situations - oh my, the double standard will rear its ugly head).
Personally, I'm not advocating either, just pointing out the PC double standard where it's okay for a Democrat President to have American citizens and their children murdered, but it's outrageous if a Republican President simply says they would leave all options on the table regarding interrogation techniques if it meant SAVING American lives.
Omnizoa
11-02-17, 12:40 AM
Prior to that, they need to be shipped of to Guantanamo
If I have any objections here it's mainly:
1.) Find a facility you're not renting.
2.) Only detain those with charges against them.
3.) Those charges must withstand scrutiny in a court of law.
Beyond that, we're talking about what, people like the Boston Bomber? Yeah, interrogate, torture, execute, I don't care.
What's with these crazy generalizations Captain? I think what you mean is rampant Obama supporters didn't say anything about it, that certainly doesn't encompass the left. Just as blind Trump defenders don't encompass the right as members like Yoda and seanc here show. Plenty of leftists criticized that when it happened and plenty of leftists don't like Obama. I sure didn't think he did much positive.
Omnizoa
11-02-17, 12:50 AM
I am saying that he gave up any rights once he was caught in the act of committing terror.We've already determined that it's appropriate to suspend specific rights under certain conditions, else you couldn't arrest them. If you mean that any and all rights such as those granted by the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments should be suspended, I'm afraid you're ignoring the hard lesson we've learned throughout history about granting adjudicators too much power. Your haste will get innocent people killed.
We've already determined that it's appropriate to suspend specific rights under certain conditions, else you couldn't arrest them. If you mean that any and all rights such as those granted by the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments should be suspended, I'm afraid you're ignoring the hard lesson we've learned throughout history about granting adjudicators too much power. Your haste will get innocent people killed.
Haste? Innocent?
I am merely suggesting that an act of terrorism, which claims multiple lives on American soil gives the President the right to declare state of emergency.
If terrorism becomes an everyday thing, than an amendment to the constitution could be made to specifically deal with terrorists.
In situations where terrorists are caught in the act, and only in those situations, there would be no need for a criminal trial.
It would be handled by the military, as the perpetrators would be considered enemy combatants.
In situations of state emergency, constitutional rights clearly do not apply.
What part of that didn't you understand?
What's interesting is President Obama had American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki assassinated without regard to his civil rights entitled to him as an actual American citizen!
al-Awlaki was born in Las Cruces, New Mexico. He was never arrested, read any Miranda rights, charged, provided or allowed to obtain counsel, provided a hearing, a trial, his "day in court," or given due process. He was simply murdered by a direct order from the President of the United States, along with his 16 year-old son who was also an American citizen while they were having breakfast.
However, few liberals, Democrats or Obama supporters had any problem with the President of the United States murdering a U.S. citizen who was not charged with a crime or given any due process whatsoever.
As most here know, I have no love for terrorist recruiters like al-Awlaki, but I do support the Constitution, so it's kind of ironic that some people cry out for civil rights for immigrant terrorists in the U.S. who commit terrorist acts against Americans, but few people of that same mindset had a problem with the President murdering an American citizen (along with a minor who was also a citizen) without any due process, and who didn't carry out any terrorist acts himself, but was merely an agitator & motivator.
Most on the left had no problem with it as long as it was Obama doing it (but should a Republican President advocate advanced interrogation techniques for enemy combatants in extreme emergency situations - oh my, the double standard will rear its ugly head).
Personally, I'm not advocating either, just pointing out the PC double standard where it's okay for a Democrat President to have American citizens and their children murdered, but it's outrageous if a Republican President simply says they would leave all options on the table regarding interrogation techniques if it meant SAVING American lives.
It really does not matter who the president is.
If America is to survive, those that govern should make sure that acts of terrorism will not be tolerated and will be dealt with severely.
Democrats and Republicans should unite in this matter.
When will they realize that terrorism is an act of war?
Too many people are concerned about democracy and rights and they stated that on this thread.
A few of them are not even American.
The majority of Americans do not want open borders and do not want to find themselves in the situation that most European countries are in right now.
Some one from Spain was preaching to me about democracy.
Is that the same democracy that allowed Catalonia to secede from Spain.
We fought our civil war all ready to keep that from happening.
All these little parceled out countries are nothing now.
Independence and separation does not equal prosperity.
Only unity does that.
Germany could not rule the word but they found a way to still rule a significant part of it,
They created the European Union but first they had to destabilize and allow for other European countries to fragmentize..
Former Checkoslovakia and Yugoslavia are just such examples.
Of course, The Soviet Union was first to fall apart.
While everybody else was separating, Germany became united and then they took over the European Union.
They consolidated power, but now those same open borders have come back to haunt them.
Americans should learn something from all of this and seal their borders before diversity devours us from within.
Omnizoa
11-02-17, 05:41 AM
Haste? Innocent?
I am merely suggesting that an act of terrorism, which claims multiple lives on American soil gives the President the right to declare state of emergency.
If terrorism becomes an everyday thing, than an amendment to the constitution could be made to specifically deal with terrorists.
In situations where terrorists are caught in the act, and only in those situations, there would be no need for a criminal trial.
It would be handled by the military, as the perpetrators would be considered enemy combatants.
In situations of state emergency, constitutional rights clearly do not apply.
What part of that didn't you understand?
I do understand it, which is why my objection still stands. You've said that a state of emerency allows the president to override constitutional rights, yet how many people does it take to justify setting the entire country on high alert? One person getting stabbed? Or a plane flying into a high-profile building?
Also, "catching someone in the act" is precisely the grounds on which innocent people can be executed. What are you talking about, one alleged witness? That's enough to justify foregoing a court trial, casting the entire country into a state of emergency and condemning someone to interrogation, torture, and/or execution? You're talking about handing judicial control to the military and suspending due process based on fallible evidence. Of course I would object. That's just one rationalization away from a police state.
It never fails to amaze me that certain people are so eager to reduce themselves to the level of terrorists any opportunity they get. Someone commits a terrorist attack? Torture them and kill them! Nevermind that torture doesnt work. And nevermind that killing them is EXACTLY what the attacker wants. Do you think he ran around the street after he hit that bus brandishing a paint gun because he figured he would paint his way out of the situation and get away? No he was wondering where the heck is a cop so he can shoot me. Look I have a gun! But much to his annoyance he survived the shooting. No martyrdom. No going out in a blaze of glory like ISIS instructs their followers to do. And you want to kill him AFTER hes caught and in custody? AND you want to have martial law put in place after a terrorist attack? ISIS loves people like you. You play right into their hands. They want to inspire us to fear and overreaction. They want to limit our freedoms. They want to create a divide between muslims and non-muslims. And you play right into that with this kind of reaction. Want to know how to defeat terrorist ideology? Prove yourself better then them. Dont torture or kill for revenge. Maintain freedoms. Embrace citizens of all faiths including Islam. And go about your life just as you had yesterday. Thats how you dry up support for a group like ISIS who thrives on division and feels they have achieved victory when they force us to get rid of our own freedoms just like they would if they were in power. Dont be an agent for ISIS.
Omnizoa
11-02-17, 11:44 AM
It never fails to amaze me that certain people are so eager to reduce themselves to the level of terrorists any opportunity they get. Someone commits a terrorist attack? Torture them and kill them!
The first is an attempt to press a political ideology onto a populace through fear of violence.
The second is killing the first because they have violated the social contract ensuring peace in your society.
If shooting up a strip mall isn't a sufficient justification to stop someone with lethal force, you might as well disarm cops and arm the military with plastic ties.
And if your immediate response to this is to say "but they're already in custody, there's no need to stop them with lethal force", then ask I you to pay for their prison term in full because no one guilty of that sort of atrocity deserves a penny of my hard-earned money to give them food and shelter when I have to pay for rent and necessities out of my own pocket.
nevermind that killing them is EXACTLY what the attacker wants.
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-HWhiVyURA_U/UhKgrb3lf2I/AAAAAAAAOp8/hKRmSL9BgCM/s640/kenobi-guiness-starwars.jpg
Obi-Wan was bluffing too.
No martyrdom. No going out in a blaze of glory like ISIS instructs their followers to do. And you want to kill him AFTER hes caught and in custody?
You act like dead people care that they're dead.
The first is an attempt to press a political ideology onto a populace through fear of violence.
The second is killing the first because they have violated the social contract ensuring peace in your society.
Are you wanting to have a debate about capital punishment or about killing terrorists in police custody? Because they are two different things. Will gladly have the capital punishment discussion with you in another thread if you like but I wasn’t even addressing it here. Im addressing the concept of endorsing the killing of people in custody who are no longer an immediate threat to the public. Do you really want to do that? Do you really want to give the government that kind of power? Not capital punishment after full trial and proper representation, but signing off on the state killing citizens completely at their own discretion. That’s really a good idea to you? Because theres no chance at all at any kind of slippery slope with that at all right?
pay for their prison term in full because no one guilty of that sort of atrocity deserves a penny of my hard-earned money to give them food and shelter when I have to pay for rent and necessities out of my own pocket.
Ah the old kill them because it costs me money argument. Well you do know that our current death penalty system is far more expensive per prisoner then the average cost of keeping a prisoner in jail for life right? So if you are just worried about saving yourself a few pennies then you should be all FOR keeping him alive. But my guess is its not about that after all. Its about revenge for you and Des in the end. It doesn’t matter if it costs more money. It doesn’t matter if it plays into the hands of the terrorists. At least you get to feel smug about having him die. Because smugness is how we measure our success in dealing with enemies in the world right?
Obi-Wan was bluffing too.
I’d say it worked out pretty well for Obi-Wan. His death inspired a young gifted kid from a backwater part of the galaxy to join up with rebel terrorists and engage in attacks against the mighty Empire and, despite all odds, overthrow them in put their own government in its place. But eh, at least Darth could feel good about killing Obi right?
You act like dead people care that they're dead.
Come again?
matt72582
11-02-17, 12:54 PM
It's ok, you guys and gals that disagree can go on your merry walks and get slaughtered.
I exercise my right to open carry in my state.
It's your political correctness that got us here in the first place.
It's as if you live in an alternate universe.
I don't have to lose some one to come to my senses.
98% of what you say is baloney.
des why do you type what you say like a poem?
Omnizoa
11-02-17, 01:10 PM
Are you wanting to have a debate about capital punishment or about killing terrorists in police custody? Because they are two different things. Will gladly have the capital punishment discussion with you in another thread if you like but I wasn’t even addressing it here. Im addressing the concept of endorsing the killing of people in custody who are no longer an immediate threat to the public. Do you really want to do that? Do you really want to give the government that kind of power? Not capital punishment after full trial and proper representation, but signing off on the state killing citizens completely at their own discretion. That’s really a good idea to you? Because theres no chance at all at any kind of slippery slope with that at all right?
"You're talking about handing judicial control to the military and suspending due process based on fallible evidence. Of course I would object. That's just one rationalization away from a police state."
Ah the old kill them because it costs me money argument.
Please refute it.
Well you do know that our current death penalty system is far more expensive per prisoner then the average cost of keeping a prisoner in jail for life right?
Much of our government is in dire need of reform.
So if you are just worried about saving yourself a few pennies then you should be all FOR keeping him alive.
It only costs a bullet to kill someone. If you wanted to be frugal you could hang them or drown them instead. Death is cheap. That the United States' bureaucracy might inexplicably manage to blow away so much money that killing someone is more expensive that sustaining them for several dozen years is only a testament to it's abysmal failure.
But my guess is its not about that after all. Its about revenge for you and Des in the end.
Revenge isn't implicitly practical, though it can be. Acknowledging that much should be enough to dismiss your psycho-analysis. Leaving the threat of death as a deterrent to others, you're talking about an active and present threat to your society. If you refuse to remove them from your society then you burden that society with your moral qualms with killing a man who's shown no such consideration in turn. My position is just pragmatic: There are some people society would simply be better off without.
It doesn’t matter if it costs more money.
That obviously does matter to me.
It doesn’t matter if it plays into the hands of the terrorists.
If a terrorist wants to die then it's win-win. Honestly, this is one of the funniest arguments I've ever heard against killing someone. If you care about their lives so much, why don't you care about their interests? What, it isn't ethical to kill them, but it's ethical to keep them alive against their will? A literal punishment worse than death? I thought you were against torture.
At least you get to feel smug about having him die. Because smugness is how we measure our success in dealing with enemies in the world right?
It's so strange having people talk down to me about ethics when it comes to the death penalty when they almost certainly endorse an industry that slaughters animals by the billions. Suddenly I'm like some sort of merchant of death, sitting over here with my hummus and soymilk goin' "they killed like 500 people, bro, why do you care?"
I’d say it worked out pretty well for Obi-Wan. His death inspired a young gifted kid from a backwater part of the galaxy to join up with rebel terrorists and engage in attacks against the mighty Empire and, despite all odds, overthrow them in put their own government in its place. But eh, at least Darth could feel good about killing Obi right?
Maybe if Darth built a bigger shield the Jedi would take their crummy old religion and go back to sand planet they came from.
98% of what you say is baloney.
Ha ha. You just proved you are no statistics major. Troll comment, most likely.
des why do you type what you say like a poem?
It's my soul shining through, bro!
I do understand it, which is why my objection still stands. You've said that a state of emerency allows the president to override constitutional rights, yet how many people does it take to justify setting the entire country on high alert? One person getting stabbed? Or a plane flying into a high-profile building?
Also, "catching someone in the act" is precisely the grounds on which innocent people can be executed. What are you talking about, one alleged witness? That's enough to justify foregoing a court trial, casting the entire country into a state of emergency and condemning someone to interrogation, torture, and/or execution? You're talking about handing judicial control to the military and suspending due process based on fallible evidence. Of course I would object. That's just one rationalization away from a police state.
I can see in your debate with another that you agree with some of my talking points.
I clearly stated that a state of emergency should be invoked after " mass " terrorist killings.
To a large degree, after 9/11 through out the USA all law enforcement agencies were placed on high alert, to the point were guys off duty and on vacation were being recalled to duty and were on stand by.
I understand your concern for "due process".
There is no doubt that multiple witnesses saw the NY truck-batterer mow down a number of cyclists and pedestrians. More than one person saw him get out of his truck, after collision with school bus, and shout " Allahu Agbar ", the cry of Islamic Jihadists, meaning God Is Greater ( Our God is greater, enabling us to kill you).
That same Uzbeki Jihadist proudly confessed that he enjoyed killing infidels.
He is a perfect example of a militant person caught in the act of killing and not deserving of a civilian constitutional trial.
By trying to ignore and minimizing terrorists ( other than a few symbolic gestures) during his 8 years, Obama brought about the escalation of terrorism in the USA.
Roughly, they are occurring once every 2 to 3 months, now
Soon, they will be about 1 every month and by the time they start occurring once every week, unless extraordinary measures are taken now, our way of life will have become very altered.
The need for extra-ordinary measures was required YESTERDAY!
Those of you who live in your little protected bubbles will soon change your tune when those bubbles burst.
So you appear to be under several misconceptions here. The first being that I have a problem with someone committing a murderous act being taken out with lethal force DURING the confrontation between authorities and said individual. Wont catch me losing any sleep there. What I do have a problem with is your notion that they should die AFTER they are no longer an immediate threat and in the hands of the authorities. These are two FUNDEMENTALLY different things of course. The first I can live with, the second is a terrible terrible idea.
Second, you cant make arguments about how you oppose a “police state” and then turn around and say we should kill these people once they are in custody. And that the current way we handle capital punishment is too costly and we should strip people of their rights to eliminate all that costly trial stuff to save money. Could you explain to me how you can manage to hold both opinions at once please?
Leaving the threat of death as a deterrent to others
Which doesn’t work of course. Especially not on suicidal terrorists. But ok, that aside…
My position is just pragmatic: There are some people society would simply be better off without.
Ignoring, of course, that they are no longer a part of society once they are imprisoned away FROM society, if what you say is how you feel then get on board with the long costly process of applying the death penalty to its citizens. Because its all you got right now. Then of course youll need to decide if the state killing them because we would be "better off" somehow is more important then the extra money it costs you to do it. And no its not just the cost of the bullet... its the cost of many trials,constitutional representation and the construction, staffing and operating the separate facilities needed to deal with the hand full of folks who make it onto death row.Then there is, of course, the incalculable cost of killing innocent people which this guy ISNT but is a statistical guarantee if you have a policy where the state gets to decide which of its citizens gets to live or die. But, again, thats getting into a capital punishment discussion which Im not trying to have here.
If a terrorist wants to die then it's win-win. Honestly, this is one of the funniest arguments I've ever heard against killing someone.
Its funny not to kill someone who may have knowledge of other criminal activity? Im sure the FBI would disagree. Its funny not to kill someone when killing them would make the organization they are serving stronger which would in turn lead to more killing? Sorry. Don’t see the humor in any of that.
If you care about their lives so much, why don't you care about their interests?
I don’t care about their lives. I care about MY life and the lives of my loved ones and all the great innocent citizens I share this country with and don’t want to allow the act of one terrible person to give the government the impetus and the unchecked power to dispose of people THEY deem deserving of death. Careful what you wish for.
What, it isn't ethical to kill them, but it's ethical to keep them alive against their will? A literal punishment worse than death? I thought you were against torture.
Not my problem if their particular brain washing isn’t compatible with an act of compassion and rationality. But then if you really believed living was torture then youd be for it in this case. But we both know you dont. You want them dead no matter what the consequences.
It's so strange having people talk down to me about ethics when it comes to the death penalty when they almost certainly endorse an industry that slaughters animals by the billions. Suddenly I'm like some sort of merchant of death, sitting over here with my hummus and soymilk goin' "they killed like 500 people, bro, why do you care?"
Your vegetarianism has zero to do with endorsing the state killing people in custody (and certainly doesnt give you the moral authority to!). It makes you look like an enormous hypocrite, sure, (unless you are actually a pig or a cow. THEN your stance would be consistent and understandable!) but its got nothing to do with it. So set aside the straw man.
Omnizoa
11-03-17, 01:11 AM
That same Uzbeki Jihadist proudly confessed that he enjoyed killing infidels.
He is a perfect example of a militant person caught in the act of killing and not deserving of a civilian constitutional trial.
Let me try to simplify this:
Persuade me that this person you claim deserves to die did what they did.
If you can do that without securing and presenting publicly a preponderance of evidence as a prerequsite to kill/torture them and without asking me to put blind faith in the military to carry out justice on captives, then I'll concede the argument.
Let me try to simplify this:
Persuade me that this person you claim deserves to die did what they did.
If you can do that without securing and presenting publicly a preponderance of evidence as a prerequsite to kill/torture them and without asking me to put blind faith in the military to carry out justice on captives, then I'll concede the argument.
If you argue a point, you need to keep up with what came out in the media.
There is film footage of him running over innocent civilians and exiting the truck, while brandishing fake weapons and yelling Alluah Agbar.
The proof is not even an issue.
He killed 8 innocent civilians in the name of ISIS, all the while bragging to authorities how good it felt ( upon being successfully treated for his wounds, in the hospital ).
Of course he deserves to die. Had I been the cop that shot him, it would have been a head shot.
Center mass first and up into the head.
People talking about life imprisonment???
Why should he be rewarded with life, after taking eight lives himself?
Hell, it's not even an eye for an eye.
You just keep giving the other cheek and I'll just keep erasing them.
Omnizoa
11-03-17, 03:12 AM
So you appear to be under several misconceptions here. The first being that I have a problem with someone committing a murderous act being taken out with lethal force DURING the confrontation between authorities and said individual. Wont catch me losing any sleep there. What I do have a problem with is your notion that they should die AFTER they are no longer an immediate threat and in the hands of the authorities. These are two FUNDEMENTALLY different things of course. The first I can live with, the second is a terrible terrible idea.
By all means, tell me why.
Second, you cant make arguments about how you oppose a “police state” and then turn around and say we should kill these people once they are in custody.
I sure can. You've already affording law enforcement the right to kill, we're just quibbling over when it's justified.
And that the current way we handle capital punishment is too costly and we should strip people of their rights to eliminate all that costly trial stuff to save money.
No one has a positive right to life. If you have a philosphical argument in defense of one then make it.
Could you explain to me how you can manage to hold both opinions at once please?
It's very simple: Prisons subsist on taxes, to authorize the state to run a prison complex is to give the state the power to take from you and give to people who have already taken from you.
Even provided a libertarian tax reform which eliminates infringement on an individual's entitlement to the product of their labor, it remains unjust, because as I've explained, a prison system entails affording food and shelter to people who haven't earned it, functionally rewarding crime on some level.
Which doesn’t work of course.Like prison.
Ignoring, of course, that they are no longer a part of society once they are imprisoned away FROM society,
False, they subsist on taxpayers and there exist peoples' whose job it is to interact with prisoners. They are an objective presence in society with a tangible effect on other people directly as well as the economy indirectly.
if what you say is how you feel then get on board with the long costly process of applying the death penalty to its citizens. Because its all you got right now.
You're mistaken if you believe any given thing I advocate must be of utmost priority and isolated entirely from any legal predicates. I told you already; much of the gov is in need of reform.
Then of course youll need to decide if the state killing them because we would be "better off" somehow is more important then the extra money it costs you to do it.
[quote=I. Rex]But, again, thats getting into a capital punishment discussion which Im not trying to have here.
If that's your way of saying "I'm not going to make any moral arguments", then you've effectively handicapped yourself.
Its funny not to kill someone who may have knowledge of other criminal activity?
You accuse me of strawmanning you later in this post after you've given me this? Security-critical knowledge was never specified in your argument until now.
No, I think it's funny that "what the terrorist wants" is in and of itself a justification not to kill them.
Im sure the FBI would disagree. Its funny not to kill someone when killing them would make the organization they are serving stronger which would in turn lead to more killing?
Mmmm, yes, we wouldn't want to encourage criminals by punishing criminals. Dude, anyone persuaded to become a suicide bomber because another dumbass was caught and executed was already an unstable threat to your society.
I don’t care about their lives. I care about MY life and the lives of my loved ones and all the great innocent citizens I share this country with and don’t want to allow the act of one terrible person to give the government the impetus and the unchecked power
Pardon?
to dispose of people THEY deem deserving of death.
Or life.
Careful what you wish for.
I wish for due process of law to quickly, efficiently, accurately, and transparently remove threats to society from society, not sequester them away in a cozy cell to spend the rest of contemptable lives leeching off the blood, sweat, and tears of hardworking peaceful people. What part of that is objectionable?
Not my problem if their particular brain washing isn’t compatible with an act of compassion and rationality.
Then your compassion is wasted on them, turn some of that concern on your fellow taxpayers who you burden with feeding and sheltering terrorists.
But then if you really believed living was torture then youd be for it in this case.
Further evidence that revenge is not a motivating factor in my decision.
But we both know you dont.
Don't backpedal now.
You want them dead no matter what the consequences.
I've just given you a laundry list of consequentialist arguments, you're the one stuck up on the cost of excution for no reason whatsoever. If you were hoping to nail me for a partisan you're out of luck.
Your vegetarianism
*flips table* WHAT'D YOU CALL ME!?
has zero to do with endorsing the state killing people in custody (and certainly doesnt give you the moral authority to!).
Of course it doesn't.
It makes you look like an enormous hypocrite, sure, (unless you are actually a pig or a cow. THEN your stance would be consistent and understandable!) but its got nothing to do with it. So set aside the straw man.
I have no idea what you're talking about now.
Omnizoa
11-03-17, 03:29 AM
If you argue a point, you need to keep up with what came out in the media.
There is film footage of him running over innocent civilians and exiting the truck, while brandishing fake weapons and yelling Alluah Agbar.
The proof is not even an issue.
He killed 8 innocent civilians in the name of ISIS, all the while bragging to authorities how good it felt ( upon being successfully treated for his wounds, in the hospital ).
Of course he deserves to die. Had I been the cop that shot him, it would have been a head shot.
Center mass first and up into the head.
People talking about life imprisonment???
Why should he be rewarded with life, after taking eight lives himself?
Hell, it's not even an eye for an eye.
You just keep giving the other cheek and I'll just keep erasing them.
Funny how one person here thinks I'm "turning the other cheek" and the other thinks I want revenge and damn the consequences.
Des, I don't put blind faith in the media either, I don't even put it in our justice system. But at least the state justice system is required on part of the citizens it exists to serve to catalog all available information, cross-examine it, and reach a verdict via a method as relatively close to our collective ability to ascertain absolute truth as possible.
I've seen the media spread fake terror attacks, it got a couple missiles shot at Syria for it's efforts, I don't trust the media to carry out justice any more than the military.
If you have virtually infallible video evidence of the perpetrator committing the crime then great, you should have a speedy prosecution.
Omnizoa
11-03-17, 03:38 AM
Des I should also draw your attention to the fact that you acknowledge that the media will turn lies into truth in the eyes of the public conciousness:
He may very well be an ethno-nationalist but the vast majority of the media perceive him as Neo Nazi and it's all about perception, isn't it.
If the media says X is a racist, he must be.
If the media says X is a terrorist, he must be.
You are advocating that we kill people on these grounds.
Funny how one person here thinks I'm "turning the other cheek" and the other thinks I want revenge and damn the consequences.
Des, I don't put blind faith in the media either, I don't even put it in our justice system. But at least the state justice system is required on part of the citizens it exists to serve to catalog all available information, cross-examine it, and reach a verdict via a method as relatively close to our collective ability to ascertain absolute truth as possible.
I've seen the media spread fake terror attacks, it got a couple missiles shot at Syria for it's efforts, I don't trust the media to carry out justice any more than the military.
If you have virtually infallible video evidence of the perpetrator committing the crime then great, you should have a speedy prosecution.
Let's start with this:
https://youtu.be/eoN4IcbG5NE
Des I should also draw your attention to the fact that you acknowledge that the media will turn lies into truth in the eyes of the public conciousness:
If the media says X is a racist, he must be.
If the media says X is a terrorist, he must be.
You are advocating that we kill people on these grounds.
No, you are. But you are just debating for the sake of debate. What's your point?
You don't need to teach me about misinformation and the media's role in it.
Goebel's Nazi Germany is proof enough.
But, you should have some common sense and be able to read between the lines.
I am talking about this particular case and other similar cases where it's clear that nothing is fabricated, as all the differing media's agree on that in their reports.
This is a case of our democracy at work.
Now, go back to reversing your position, and argue some more with I, Rex. I am tired and sleepy.
Kissintel
11-03-17, 04:56 AM
Democracy as defined by Webster is: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.
It has been pointed out in leaked information and government sources that Clinton and the DNC squeezed out Sanders, and Trump was elected with the help of Russia.
In situations of state emergency, constitutional rights clearly do not apply.
And you think that also applies to the right to a fair trial. I dont think I have ever seen anything quite like that in my day on social media. Good job. Unfortunately you really do believe your own sticky putty of words in that. Let me break it to you gently - weekend warriors do not get to speak for the justice system.
Omnizoa
11-03-17, 07:36 AM
No, you are.
http://replygif.net/thumbnail/770.gif
What's your point?
I thought I'd been eminently clear; investigation and due process in a court of law is the means by which we ascertain the guilt of suspected criminals and mete out justice. You're suggesting we cede this authority to the military and the media. My point is that is a disasterous precedent to set.
I am talking about this particular case and other similar cases where it's clear that nothing is fabricated,
Clear to whom? One of the purposes of a trial is to test and demonstrate the veritability of claims made against the defendent's good standing in society. That you want to strip this procedure away, one of the means by which we check the government's power, suggests to me that you want to reserve the right to kill suspected terrorists behind closed doors if it satisfies the military's or media's consensus of what constitutes "obvious guilt". That's absolutely unacceptable.
all the differing media's agree on that in their reports.
If you learned anything from studying propaganda, you should have learned that consensus of belief only affects the projected liklihood of a given statement being true, not the actual liklihood of a given statement being true. Argumentum Ad Populum would be rightly shot down in court by any remotely competant attorney because it is a plainly fallacious argument.
Sadly, Amercians are generally thick individuals (in more ways than one) and find it easier to go with the flow than seek the truth by questioning what the corporate mass media bombs them with from every direction. Because THEY KNOW. You hear the same thing a hundred times and you're liable to believe it. The pragmatic move in this case is to simply accept truth at face value: a series of interdependent truisms wrapped up in plausible packaging with a bow on top for emphasis. Nevermind why it is that you're receiving a Christmas present on the first Thursday of May, it's a present and the sort of high that a surprise gift ellicits, building your expectation and fueling your imagination, is the same which fuels the torches carried by mob justice.
"It's right because all the different media organizations agreed that it's right", not that it conforms any developed method of ascertaining truth.
You keep treating guilt as if it's a given and prescribing we, on that basis, legislate away the means by which we determine that guilt in the first place. You've said earlier in this thread that failure to interrogate people by adhering to due process could squander time sensitive information. I say again: Your haste will get innocent people killed.
This is a case of our democracy at work.
Consensus is not democracy, and the sooner people realize that the sooner otherwise reasonable people will stop defending a fallacy.
I mostly agree with the Mofos in the thread who are saying this man should be tried in our federal court. Question though, that I am not sure I completely know how I would answer myself. If we did have an official declaration of war on ISIS, would you feel the same way or would you then believe he should be tried in a military court and be treated as a POW?
Stirchley
11-03-17, 03:07 PM
It's not on US soil and there is no attorney present.
I presume you approve of rendition?
Stirchley
11-03-17, 03:12 PM
I am tired and sleepy.
It’s exhausting being you, I would imagine.
Your seem to be trying to have it both ways which is impossible on this issue. Either that or you just want to argue irrelevant of how ridiculously contradictory your statements are. Hope its not that because that would just be sad.
By all means, tell me why.
Why it’s a terrible idea? Because they haven’t been tried and found guilty by a jury of their peers and allowing the state to kill whenever they decide doing so is “best for society” WITHOUT first allowing the accused to have their constitutionally mandated right to trial is the sheer definition of totalitarianism. And it means they can kill you or me or our loved ones or anyone they choose for no cause whatsoever if they just say theres cause. Terrible idea.
I sure can. You've already affording law enforcement the right to kill, we're just quibbling over when it's justified.
No. You cant. If you are giving the state full authority to kill people at will YOU HAVE A POLICE STATE. My only justification for killing a person is if they are deemed to be a current and immediate threat to members of the public at that time because, for example, they have a weapon they may use on innocent civilians. Once they are incapacitated and taken into custody they are no longer an immediate threat and should be accorded their constitutional right to representation.
No one has a positive right to life. If you have a philosphical argument in defense of one then make it.
Welcome to America where we have a Constitution that gives us the right to life and liberty.
“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
So unless your argument is that the Constitution is wrong and should be thrown out then your ‘philosophy’ about killing people whenever you say so is irrelevant. And if that is your argument then once again welcome to the Police State.
It's very simple: Prisons subsist on taxes, to authorize the state to run a prison complex is to give the state the power to take from you and give to people who have already taken from you.
So are you advocating killing anyone that commits a crime so that you don’t have to be burdened with funding their existence in prison? Or not jailing them? Or what? And no this doesn’t explain how you can hold both opinions at the same time.
a prison system entails affording food and shelter to people who haven't earned it, functionally rewarding crime on some level.
So you think this guy ran over people so he could earn the “reward” of eating meals in jail for the rest of his life? Or you think allowing him to eat in prison will make him believe he is being rewarded for what he did? I think you are just attempting to wrap yourself in knots to basically say that it bothers you that your tax money in some way goes to the feeding and housing of people who have committed crimes. Its an understandable resentment to have certainly but where do you draw the line exactly on who is worthy of your “hard earned” taxes? Bank robbery? Rape? 2nd degree murder?
If that's your way of saying "I'm not going to make any moral arguments", then you've effectively handicapped yourself.
Its my way of saying this topic isn’t a discussion of capital punishment. Simple as that. As already noted, Im happy to engage in one if you want to start a separate thread on it.
You accuse me of strawmanning you later in this post after you've given me this? Security-critical knowledge was never specified in your argument until now.
Wait I have to pre-check my points with you from the beginning before I get into a discussion? Nice dodge. And how is that statement a straw man statement exactly? It’s a relevant truth. Criminals (especially terrorists) could have knowledge or connections with others that could prove helpful to investigators in dealing with pending or future terrorist incidents. Why is that such a strange thing to say exactly? And killing them because they are a dirty dog who clearly killed people would severely limit our ability to obtain any such information. Is that not true?
No, I think it's funny that "what the terrorist wants" is in and of itself a justification not to kill them.
If that were what I was saying then I wouldn’t be in favor of using necessary lethal force against them during the incident now would I? So stop trying to twist my words and avoid the point. It seems to be your modus operandi. Not wanting to create a situation that leads to more attacks is justification not to kill them. Among other things Ive also mentioned.
Dude, anyone persuaded to become a suicide bomber because another dumbass was caught and executed was already an unstable threat to your society.
So your argument is that anyone who has been inspired to join a terrorist group and commit terrorist acts would have done it without inspiration anyway? Really?
I wish for due process of law to quickly, efficiently, accurately, and transparently remove threats to society from society, not sequester them away in a cozy cell to spend the rest of contemptable lives leeching off the blood, sweat, and tears of hardworking peaceful people.
Ah here we have some progress finally! And what exactly is your proposal to accomplish this and still be Constitutionally sound? How do you propose to allow the authority the right to kill nasty people as they see fit, quickly and without expense, and still have it work within the specific confines of our constitutional democracy?
turn some of that concern on your fellow taxpayers who you burden with feeding and sheltering terrorists.
Its my tax money too remember not just yours. And I am perfectly fine with my government using it to keep dangerous people confined in a place where they cant run over bikers with trucks ever again. Money well spent in my opinion. If you don’t approve, you can always seek out a country where they don’t waste your precious money on things like housing prisoners. My guess is that in any place that either doesn’t house their prisoners or just shoots them on site, how they spend your tax money is going to be the LEAST of your worries. But by all means look into it.
I've just given you a laundry list of consequentialist arguments, you're the one stuck up on the cost of excution for no reason whatsoever.
What laundry list? You mentioned over and over how the fact that they are using your precious money to house prisoners is a big issue for you. I have simply responded with what actually is the cost of dealing with criminals in our current system and the even higher cost of allowing the state to take away lives of its citizens in a way that ignores our Constitutional rights.
*flips table* WHAT'D YOU CALL ME!?
Oh is it vegan then? Well either way.
It’s exhausting being you, I would imagine.
First gem from you, so far!
http://replygif.net/thumbnail/770.gif
Sadly, Amercians are generally thick individuals (in more ways than one)
Consensus is not democracy, and the sooner people realize that the sooner otherwise reasonable people will stop defending a fallacy.
I take it you are not American.
Why do you even keep talking about our democracy?
I never said that consensus implies democracy.
For the purposes of this discussion, democracy refers to the rule of the majority through freedom of choice.
Views such as yours just further enforce my wish for the Monroe Doctrine.
Stirchley
11-03-17, 04:53 PM
I take it you are not American.
Why do you even keep talking about our democracy?
God forbid a non-American should chime in here. And he could be American, for all you know.
God forbid a non-American should chime in here. And he could be American, for all you know.
What, finished with needlepoint all ready?
God forbid a non-American should chime in here. And he could be American, for all you know.
He's american. What does that have to do with the price of fish in china? You're not American.
Miss Vicky
11-03-17, 05:11 PM
He's american. What does that have to do with the price of fish in china? You're not American.
Stirchley lives in the U.S.
Don't know about citizenship status though.
Just to be clear.
I started this thread primarily for Americans living in America, because of a recent event that occurred on American soil.
Foreigners are entitled to their opinion but are irrelevant as to what they can do about our problem.
You have enough problems of your own, but when you start chiming in on how we should handle our business, I need to point out it's none of your business until of course it becomes specifically yours.
I find it odd that some people fly their national flag in their avatars, but make statements and questions contrary to their government's position.
I'm a patriot and my party happens to be in power here. My opinions do not negate theirs. You may not like it and you may differ with it, but for now, it is what it is, and until the next elections you can cry all you want but there is nothing you can do about it.
It's high time for democrats and liberals to accept that fact and stop trying to undermine this presidency.
Stirchley lives in the U.S.
Don't know about citizenship status though.
Judging by her avatar, it's no different than some individuals of Mexican heritage flying Mexican flags at out national sports events, such as boxing events that include Mexican fighters ( what makes it even worse is that they are American citizens )
America first, love it or leave it.
It's high time for democrats and liberals to accept that fact and stop trying to undermine this presidency.
Man, wait until I tell you about this guy who spent lots of his time trying to undermine the last President! He decided to run for public office shortly afterwards, as I recall.
Judging by her avatar, it's no different than some individuals of Mexican heritage flying Mexican flags at out national sports events, such as boxing events that include Mexican fighters ( what makes it even worse is that they are American citizens )
"Judging by her avatar," you're coming to a judgment you cannot possibly come to simply by looking at an avatar.
America first, love it or leave it.
Try actually explaining what you mean by this. Does it mean people should not criticize the government? If not, then what does it mean?
I'm an American, and I find this all bullocks. Of course my opinion of what constitutes bullocks will shift over the course of this thread's life as other posters post posts pointing to considerations that I have not considered. I will then declare i, where i=bullocks ++i for each new iteration or inclusion of other ideas. Because I am shifty like that. And I like to make sure my foundation of any argument is fluid and mobile.
*EDIT*
yeah. I'm sure I wrote that terribly wrong. if you get it, then you got it. that's good enough for me.
Man, wait until I tell you about this guy who spent lots of his time trying to undermine the last President! He decided to run for public office shortly afterwards, as I recall.
That's a strange comment coming from a conservative.
If I am not mistaken, it is precisely the attitude of the former president that brought about events leading to this thread.
You may not like Trump ( and I don't support every thing he says ) but you can not deny that he has brought us to a better economic place and is in the process of bringing us to a better political one as well.
The threats are only getting bigger and some one has to put a stop to them.
I'm sure you recognize how close we are to a nuclear holocaust.
"Judging by her avatar," you're coming to a judgment you cannot possibly come to simply by looking at an avatar.
Try actually explaining what you mean by this. Does it mean people should not criticize the government? If not, then what does it mean?
Criticizing the government does not mean that one is not patriotic. Flying a foreign flag on American soil, does.
Stirchley
11-03-17, 05:49 PM
What, finished with needlepoint all ready?
You’re getting upset again.
You're not American.
Actually, I am. I have dual nationality.
I find it odd that some people fly their national flag in their avatars, but make statements and questions contrary to their government's position.
So now you’re the avatar police?
I'm an American, and I find this all bullocks. Of course my opinion of what constitutes bullocks will shift over the course of this thread's life as other posters post posts pointing to considerations that I have not considered. I will then declare i, where i=bullocks ++i for each new iteration or inclusion of other ideas. Because I am shifty like that. And I like to make sure my foundation of any argument is fluid and mobile.
*EDIT*
yeah. I'm sure I wrote that terribly wrong. if you get it, then you got it. that's good enough for me.
I don't know if you are just trying to be sarcastic but " bullocks " is a British colloquialism and not a word that Americans usually use.
That's a strange comment coming from a conservative.
It's strange for a conservative to point out a relevant fact? How so?
You may not like Trump ( and I don't support every thing he says ) but you can not deny that he has brought us to a better economic place and is in the process of bringing us to a better political one as well.
Whether this is true or not, it's irrelevant to the point. You said people shouldn't undermine the President, yet Trump did exactly that, repeatedly.
So, one of two things must be true:
1) Trump was behaving very badly when he did that.
2) You don't actually believe people shouldn't undermine the President, and this is a fake standard of decorum that's only invoked when you happen to already like whoever's in office.
Which is it?
Criticizing the government does not mean that one is not patriotic.
Ah, cool. So you can, in fact, not "love" what America is doing without having to "leave" it?
Flying a foreign flag on American soil, does.
Well, thankfully, I haven't installed any plugin that plants avatars in soil.
1) Trump was behaving very badly when he did that.
2) You don't actually believe people shouldn't undermine the President, and this is a fake standard of decorum that's only invoked when you happen to already like whoever's in office.
Which is it?
Im guessing both
You’re getting upset again.
Actually, I am. I have dual nationality.
So now you’re the avatar police?
" avatar police ", now that's funny. I did not know you had it in you.
Dual nationality, I get it but you chose to live here, yet you still fly the British flag, so I can only deduct where your priorities lie.
Don't get me wrong. I like Brits, Aussies, too. They are our allies.
Stirchley
11-03-17, 05:56 PM
I don't know if you are just trying to be sarcastic but " bullocks " is a British colloquialism and not a word that Americans usually use.
You’re getting your words mixed up. Bullocks are steers. Bollocks is vulgar Brit slang for testicles.
Stirchley
11-03-17, 05:59 PM
Well, thankfully, I haven't installed any plugin that plants avatars in soil.
Thankful for that.
I like Brits, Aussies, too. They are our allies.
Then don’t act like a Neanderthal when you’re conversing with a Brit.
Ah, cool. So you can, in fact, not "love" what America is doing without having to "leave" it?
.
That comment only applies to those that trash this country yet continue to reap the benefits of it's protection.
Regimes come and go but the flag stays the same and should be respected.
That comment only applies to those that trash this country yet continue to reap the benefits of it's protection.
All citizens "reap the benefits of it's [sic] protection." So...how is this different from saying people shouldn't criticize the government?
Thankful for that.
Then don’t act like a Neanderthal when you’re conversing with a Brit.
Sadly, you do not represent Britain ( judging by your comments ).
Perhaps you might use Webster's to look up meaning of " Neanderthal ".
If I really was one, I would probably by clubbing you and dragging you by your hair.
I am clearly not doing that.
If questioning your questions makes me a " Neanderthal" , than what does that make you?
All citizens "reap the benefits of it's [sic] protection." So...how is this different from saying people shouldn't criticize the government?
All citizens do not conduct themselves as such ( especially not in a law abiding manner ).
All citizens do not conduct themselves as such ( especially not in a law abiding manner ).
What is "as such"? That's something you say when you're referring to some preexisting thing.
Are you drawing a distinction between criticism and "trashing"? If so, how much criticism is someone allowed before they should "love it or leave it"?
Stirchley
11-03-17, 06:14 PM
Sadly, you do not represent Britain ( judging by your comments ).
Perhaps you might use Webster's to look up meaning of " Neanderthal ".
If I really was one, I would probably by clubbing you and dragging you by your hair.
I am clearly not doing that.
If questioning your questions makes me a " Neanderthal" , than what does that make you?
Not trying to represent Britain. I know the meaning of Neanderthal; I don’t use words unless I know their meaning.
Try to be respectful of other people’s views without working yourself into a tizzy.
The people who love America are allowed to criticize it. Didn't anyone here ever get criticized by people who love them? I don't know anybody who tells their relatives, friends, teachers, etc. to leave the country for not loving them. Politics seems to make everybody crazy.
What is "as such"? That's something you say when you're referring to some preexisting thing.
Are you drawing a distinction between criticism and "trashing"? If so, how much criticism is someone allowed before they should "love it or leave it"?
Look, I suspect that you and I believe in the same cause.
Our wording may be different.
And I do understand your need to protect those that don't need protecting.
Not trying to represent Britain. I know the meaning of Neanderthal; I don’t use words unless I know their meaning.
Try to be respectful of other people’s views without working yourself into a tizzy.
That's psychology 101, where you try to provoke some one by telling them that they are working themselves into a tizzy, or getting angry, when clearly they are not.
It might work on your grandchildren.
As for me, I just rather ignore you.:D
The people who love America are allowed to criticize it. Didn't anyone here ever get criticized by people who love them? I don't know anybody who tells their relatives, friends, teachers, etc. to leave the country for not loving them. Politics seems to make everybody crazy.
Look Mark, there is a clear distinction between criticizing some thing and trashing it.
I don't need a PHD to be able to make that distinction and neither do you.
Stirchley
11-03-17, 06:24 PM
As for me, I just rather ignore you.:D
But you don’t. Every time I poke you with a stick you get upset.
Don't you all just get tired of hearing people whine how bad this country is, how badly they are treated, how nothing here is right?
If I had that same feeling, I would have left a long time a go and found somewhere better.
Captain Steel
11-03-17, 06:34 PM
If people didn’t complain, they’d be bored. Who really wants to be happy all the time? Surely this forum doesn’t exist to give raving reviews of movies all the time.
Are you sure about that, SC?
Slappydavis
11-03-17, 06:42 PM
Don't take this as saying what's going on here is bad debate, but there's an IQ2 debate from 6-7 years ago on this exact subject:
https://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/treat-terrorists-enemy-combatants-not-criminals
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIPS_o1Hu_g
You could probably guess which side I'm on, but I still think it's worth a listen.
Look Mark, there is a clear distinction between criticizing some thing and trashing it.
I asked about that preemptively earlier:
Are you drawing a distinction between criticism and "trashing"? If so, how much criticism is someone allowed before they should "love it or leave it"?
And since I'm re-upping questions that weren't answered, I'd still like to know which of these two explanations are applicable:
You said people shouldn't undermine the President, yet Trump did exactly that, repeatedly.
So, one of two things must be true:
1) Trump was behaving very badly when he did that.
2) You don't actually believe people shouldn't undermine the President, and this is a fake standard of decorum that's only invoked when you happen to already like whoever's in office.
Which is it?
Don't you all just get tired of hearing people whine how bad this country is, how badly they are treated, how nothing here is right?
If you hate people whining about how badly they're treated, just wait until I tell you about this guy who et cetera et cetera spoiler it's Trump again.
If people didn’t complain, they’d be bored. Who really wants to be happy all the time? Surely this forum doesn’t exist to give raving reviews of movies all the time.
Sure wish I was capable of giving raving reviews, but alas, I'm reduced to making poor choices of relevant topics.
I guess that leaves me in the love me or hate me category.
Wish it was the former, but I surmise I am in the latter.:frustrated:
If you hate people whining about how badly they're treated, just wait until I tell you about this guy who et cetera et cetera spoiler it's Trump again.
I concur, whining is not one of Trump's strong points, neither is Twitter.
I asked about that preemptively earlier:
Are you drawing a distinction between criticism and "trashing"? If so, how much criticism is someone allowed before they should "love it or leave it"?
And since I'm re-upping questions that weren't answered, I'd still like to know which of these two explanations are applicable:
No. 1 bad behavior. Should have followed Bush Jnr's lead.
Don't take this as saying what's going on here is bad debate, but there's an IQ2 debate from 6-7 years ago on this exact subject:
https://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/treat-terrorists-enemy-combatants-not-criminals
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIPS_o1Hu_g
You could probably guess which side I'm on, but I still think it's worth a listen.
Thanks for the link. It is a long debate, but I am listening to it as I make my scrambled eggs ( wifey not home ).
Stirchley
11-03-17, 09:02 PM
as I make my scrambled eggs
Scrambled eggs? That sounds rather wimpy for a warrior such as yourself. I picture you chowing down on a slab of raw beef washed down with a pint of moonshine.
God i hate eggs. I hate them almost as much as Des loves America.
Ok, I've finished listening to the topic: Should terrorists be treated as enemy combatants on www.intelligencesquaredus.com or should I say non intelligence squared.
Both sides made compelling arguments but the audience mostly got swayed by the lawyers, even though I thought that the more compelling argument was made by the pro side ( you need to keep in mind that this debate took place in 2010, prior to the outing of Guantanamo.)
Some notable statements:
Con ( lawyers) United States is not a battlefield ( tell that to the thousands who lost lives in
terrorist attacks on US soil ).
It is the responsibility of US government to defend the constitution rather
than the people ( say what? )
It is better to let 100 guilty people go free than convict one innocent man,
In light of that it is ok to suffer a major attack if it means not using enhanced
interrogation techniques. ( I guess that one innocent man = 10, 000 other
innocents )
Americans seem to think that their lives matter more ( ??? )
There can not be two different sets of justice { talking about the difference
between military tribunals and criminal justice system } ( there sure were,
there are, and there can be ).
The United States needs to have a moral high ground ( when it applies to
terrorists ??? )
Pro ( General Hayden, who has flipped flopped since then ):
We are a nation at war, both abroad and domestically ( Agreed )
What part of war do you not understand? ( a question I often ask )
Terrorism violates the rules of war, so why should we give terrorists
more rights { like the right to be tried like other criminals } ( I don't think
terrorists are entitled to rights )
Based on the gist of this debate, in an after poll, 20% more of the audience voted con,
which left me scratching my head and questioning my understanding of the English language.
ash_is_the_gal
11-03-17, 09:49 PM
Don't you all just get tired of hearing people whine how bad this country is, how badly they are treated, how nothing here is right?
If I had that same feeling, I would have left a long time a go and found somewhere better.
I know, but they are entitled to think we need to Make America Great Again if they want to
Captain Steel
11-03-17, 11:37 PM
Don't you all just get tired of hearing people whine how bad this country is, how badly they are treated, how nothing here is right?
If I had that same feeling, I would have left a long time a go and found somewhere better.
It reminds me of how, after every Islamic terror attack these days, instead of a unified condemnation of terrorism and the ideology behind it by Americans, there's all these arguments, rationalizations, apologetics, name calling of people who want to stop or prevent it and saying those who oppose terrorist ideologies suffer from a mental disorder, attacks on philosophies or religions that have nothing to do with it, arguments of moral relativism, and criticisms of the United States or other countries being attacked (basically the old blame the victim tactic).
I know there was no social media in 1941, but from the accounts I've heard, very few Americans were making rationalizations for the Japanese and the Axis powers after December 7th, or criticizing America for the foreign policies that led it to be attacked.
I know there was no social media in 1941, but from the accounts I've heard, very few Americans were making rationalizations for the Japanese and the Axis powers after December 7th, or criticizing America for the foreign policies that led it to be attacked.
...which led to the internment of many American citizens. So you may have just inadvertently made a pretty strong argument against your own position, because as wrong as many of the apologists may be, it's entirely possible that they act as a counterbalance against that sort of thing, given where we've seen it go when unchecked.
Omnizoa
11-04-17, 10:03 AM
I mostly agree with the Mofos in the thread who are saying this man should be tried in our federal court. Question though, that I am not sure I completely know how I would answer myself. If we did have an official declaration of war on ISIS, would you feel the same way or would you then believe he should be tried in a military court and be treated as a POW?
What purpose do separate courts serve?
Your seem to be trying to have it both ways which is impossible on this issue.
It's entirely possible, and that's evidenced by the fact that you, Des, and I are engaging on separate points. Unlike you, I am in favor of punishment proportional to the crime committed, up to and including death, however, unlike Des, I do not agree that the means by which we deduce guilt should be sacrificed to that end. I am addressing different contentions with both of you, there's nothing contradictory whatsoever with my position.
Either that or you just want to argue irrelevant of how ridiculously contradictory your statements are.
Explain how they are contradictory, my arguments against Des are not the same arguments I've used against you. If any of my arguments are internally inconsistent, please identify the inconsistency.
Why it’s a terrible idea? Because they haven’t been tried and found guilty by a jury of their peers
You are in NO position to challenge the consistency of my arguments when you haven't even read them. This is not my position.
and allowing the state to kill whenever they decide doing so is “best for society” WITHOUT first allowing the accused to have their constitutionally mandated right to trial is the sheer definition of totalitarianism.
https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=37509&stc=1&d=1509794951
And it means they can kill you or me or our loved ones or anyone they choose for no cause whatsoever if they just say theres cause. Terrible idea.
Cool, then you agree with me.
No. You cant. If you are giving the state full authority to kill people at will YOU HAVE A POLICE STATE.
I've said this 3 times now, Rex, you've no excuse whatsoever to be accusing me of this:
"You're talking about handing judicial control to the military and suspending due process based on fallible evidence. Of course I would object. That's just one rationalization away from a police state."
Welcome to America where we have a Constitution that gives us the right to life and liberty.
There is no law, let alone codified in the Constitution, which guarantees a positive right to life. If it did, then we'dve had Universal Healthcare a long time ago.
“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life,
Exactly, that's a negative right, not a positive right. My statement stands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights
So unless your argument is that the Constitution is wrong and should be thrown out then your ‘philosophy’ about killing people whenever you say so is irrelevant. And if that is your argument then once again welcome to the Police State.
without due process of law;
So are you advocating killing anyone that commits a crime so that you don’t have to be burdened with funding their existence in prison?
No.
Or not jailing them?
No.
Or what?
Or, all things considered, they are a net negative impact on society and have sacrificed their own rights by violating the rights of others, and therefor do not deserve to continue to usurp the rights of those in society (such as the entitlement of one to the product of his or her labor) because killing them makes you feel bad.
So you think this guy ran over people so he could earn the “reward” of eating meals in jail for the rest of his life?
No. And I'm not going to elaborate on each of these blind shots in the dark because you continue to offer me less charity than I've offered you.
Or you think allowing him to eat in prison will make him believe
No, once again, what the terrorist wants or believes is 100% completely beside the point I am making, which I've unilaterally stated is a pragmatic concern for the rights of the people whom you impose upon by imprisoning them.
he is being rewarded for what he did? I think you are just attempting to wrap yourself in knots to basically say that it bothers you that your tax money in some way goes to the feeding and housing of people who have committed crimes.
No knots are needed, this is pretty much exactly what I've been saying this entire time.
Its an understandable resentment to have certainly but where do you draw the line exactly on who is worthy of your “hard earned” taxes?
NOW maybe we're getting somewhere. "Hard earned taxes" imply an income tax, that being a tax levied on income derived from the product of your labor. I am against income taxes, the product of your labor belongs to you and you alone.
Bank robbery? Rape? 2nd degree murder?
I would object to any income tax, payroll tax, sales tax, estate tax, foreign tax, value-added tax, or any other tax levied on the product of one's labor. Period. I dually object to that money being spent on giving prisoners products earned through the labor of others.
Its my way of saying this topic isn’t a discussion of capital punishment. Simple as that. As already noted, Im happy to engage in one if you want to start a separate thread on it.
My arguments are much the same and you've yet to understand them in this thread, so there wouldn't be much point.
Wait I have to pre-check my points with you from the beginning before I get into a discussion? Nice dodge.
Are you seriously suggesting it's dodging to ask you to clarify your points instead of risking your own arguments coming across as overly-simplistic?
And how is that statement a straw man statement exactly?
You're suggesting that my position is one that presumes to contradict a point you've only just disclosed. You can't hold that against me unless you also want to accuse me of being a mindreader and yet inexplicably too dumb to divine a reasonable argument despite that.
If that were what I was saying then I wouldn’t be in favor of using necessary lethal force against them during the incident now would I?
One would think, but I believe you're mistaken regardless. This point is clear to me now that you've actually told me, so we can move on.
So stop trying to twist my words and avoid the point.
There were no words to twist, you hadn't specified any justification beyond "that's exactly what the terrorist wants". Now that you've supported this position with an appeal to security-critical intelligence, it sounds much more reasonable.
It seems to be your modus operandi.
I've advised against psycho-analyzing me, you're quite bad at it.
Not wanting to create a situation that leads to more attacks is justification not to kill them.
I've addressed this already, which you immediately respond to below:
So your argument is that anyone who has been inspired to join a terrorist group and commit terrorist acts would have done it without inspiration anyway? Really?
No. That is not what I said. What I said is that they were already an unstable threat, be it as a result of a radical ideology or otherwise. If killing mass murderers incites more mass murderers, no amount of sitting on your hands for fear of retaliation will prevent the mass murderers who acted regardless.
Let me put it this way:
If 1 person kills 100 people, and killing that person will provoke another person to kill 100 people, then I have no qualms killing that second person. If you think I'm going to feel guilty for provoking that second person, I won't.
I don't care if their justification is god or hurt feelings, I will put them down and society will be better for their absence. I will not spare whatever rod it is you arbitrarily object to on the grounds that punishing criminals incites criminality. As I said; by that logic you might as well disband your police and military and let everybody walk all over you.
Ah here we have some progress finally!
It took you a while.
And what exactly is your proposal to accomplish this and still be Constitutionally sound?
Capital punishment is already constitutionally sound. What I've been objecting to is your claim that mass murdering terrorists should be imprisoned and Des's claim that we should supervene due process.
You can observe due process, kill captives, and remain constitutionally consistent. We've done it before.
How do you propose to allow the authority the right to kill nasty people as they see fit, quickly and without expense, and still have it work within the specific confines of our constitutional democracy?
Well that rather begs the question: Do you not already believe that our current system of law works within the confines of the Constitution and democracy? If not, I can sympathize, and as I've stated, I believe the government is in need of reform as it is.
Its my tax money too remember not just yours.
I'll say it again: Then pay for it yourself. If it were to come down to a vote as to whether the government (whom you claim shouldn't be given undue power) should be empowered to take from me and give to our country's worst criminals, I will vote against you every time.
And I am perfectly fine with my government using it to keep dangerous people confined in a place where they cant run over bikers with trucks ever again.
Hell?
No but seriously, I've addressed this twice already: Killing them is cheaper and doesn't come at the explicit cost of the people you are trying to protect. Your only objection to this has been to repeat the same tired line about how executions have ridiculously inflated costs, which I've already stated should be changed.
The question here is: Following an extensive reform which renders executions as relatively cheap to perform legally as they are illegally (leaving aside court costs), what THEN is your objection to executing mass murderers who would otherwise subsist on the hard work of their intended victims?
Money well spent in my opinion.
An absolute waste in mine. The government is good at wasting money and convincing people it's well spent.
If you don’t approve, you can always seek out a country where they don’t waste your precious money on things like housing prisoners.
Or you can advocate reform. You know, like someone who cares.
My guess is that in any place that either doesn’t house their prisoners or just shoots them on site, how they spend your tax money is going to be the LEAST of your worries. But by all means look into it.
I've long since resigned myself to the fact that the vast majority of humanity operates on bad ideas. Instead of running away as you suggest, I have arguments like these and try to persuade people into accepting what I consider to be better ideas.
What laundry list?
The one made of straw.
You mentioned over and over how the fact that they are using your precious money to house prisoners is a big issue for you. I have simply responded with what actually is the cost of dealing with criminals in our current system
Which I've addressed.
and the even higher cost of allowing the state to take away lives of its citizens in a way that ignores our Constitutional rights.
Which is not my position.
Omnizoa
11-04-17, 10:36 AM
I take it you are not American.
It would be more accurate to say I am not biased.
Why do you even keep talking about our democracy?
I never said that consensus implies democracy.
Not explicitly, but implicitly.
I find it odd that some people fly their national flag in their avatars, but make statements and questions contrary to their government's position.
*hacking cough* Like I said, not biased.
I'm a patriot
Biased.
It's high time for democrats and liberals to accept that fact and stop trying to undermine this presidency.
You will undermine the very people the government exists to protect with your suggestions.
I'm an American, and I find this all bullocks.
You bloody wot, mate?
That's a strange comment coming from a conservative.
You aren't doing yourself any favors by filtering everything people say through the "faction" you perceive them to be in. It's an observation anyone could have made. Should Yoda being conservative obligate him to recuse himself of making comments which undermine another supposed conservative? The un-biased answer would be "no".
Criticizing the government does not mean that one is not patriotic.Then why did you say "I find it odd that some people fly their national flag in their avatars, but make statements and questions contrary to their government's position." if not to suggest that holding contrary views to your government belies any nationalism they may have?
Don't get me wrong. I like Brits, Aussies, too. They are our allies.
That's funny.
Look Mark, there is a clear distinction between criticizing some thing and trashing it.
You're not a fan of burning flags are you?
I'm a big fan.
Don't you all just get tired of hearing people whine how bad this country is, how badly they are treated, how nothing here is right?
If I had that same feeling, I would have left a long time a go and found somewhere better.
Sometimes the best sucks.
If you hate people whining about how badly they're treated, just wait until I tell you about this guy who et cetera et cetera spoiler it's Trump again.
https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=37510&stc=1&d=1509802304
Ok, I've finished listening to the topic: Should terrorists be treated as enemy combatants on www.intelligencesquaredus.com (http://www.intelligencesquaredus.com) or should I say non intelligence squared.
Hey, I got this movie I think you'd like. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443453/)
*bull
That was kinda the point with emphasis.
What purpose do separate courts serve?
It's entirely possible, and that's evidenced by the fact that you, Des, and I are engaging on separate points. Unlike you, I am in favor of punishment proportional to the crime committed, up to and including death, however, unlike Des, I do not agree that the means by which we deduce guilt should be sacrificed to that end. I am addressing different contentions with both of you, there's nothing contradictory whatsoever with my position.
Explain how they are contradictory, my arguments against Des are not the same arguments I've used against you. If any of my arguments are internally inconsistent, please identify the inconsistency.
You are in NO position to challenge the consistency of my arguments when you haven't even read them. This is not my position.
https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=37509&stc=1&d=1509794951
Cool, then you agree with me.
I've said this 3 times now, Rex, you've no excuse whatsoever to be accusing me of this:
"You're talking about handing judicial control to the military and suspending due process based on fallible evidence. Of course I would object. That's just one rationalization away from a police state."
There is no law, let alone codified in the Constitution, which guarantees a positive right to life. If it did, then we'dve had Universal Healthcare a long time ago.
Exactly, that's a negative right, not a positive right. My statement stands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights
without due process of law;
No.
No.
Or, all things considered, they are a net negative impact on society and have sacrificed their own rights by violating the rights of others, and therefor do not deserve to continue to usurp the rights of those in society (such as the entitlement of one to the product of his or her labor) because killing them makes you feel bad.
No. And I'm not going to elaborate on each of these blind shots in the dark because you continue to offer me less charity than I've offered you.
No, once again, what the terrorist wants or believes is 100% completely beside the point I am making, which I've unilaterally stated is a pragmatic concern for the rights of the people whom you impose upon by imprisoning them.
No knots are needed, this is pretty much exactly what I've been saying this entire time.
NOW maybe we're getting somewhere. "Hard earned taxes" imply an income tax, that being a tax levied on income derived from the product of your labor. I am against income taxes, the product of your labor belongs to you and you alone.
I would object to any income tax, payroll tax, sales tax, estate tax, foreign tax, value-added tax, or any other tax levied on the product of one's labor. Period. I dually object to that money being spent on giving prisoners products earned through the labor of others.
My arguments are much the same and you've yet to understand them in this thread, so there wouldn't be much point.
Are you seriously suggesting it's dodging to ask you to clarify your points instead of risking your own arguments coming across as overly-simplistic?
You're suggesting that my position is one that presumes to contradict a point you've only just disclosed. You can't hold that against me unless you also want to accuse me of being a mindreader and yet inexplicably too dumb to divine a reasonable argument despite that.
One would think, but I believe you're mistaken regardless. This point is clear to me now that you've actually told me, so we can move on.
There were no words to twist, you hadn't specified any justification beyond "that's exactly what the terrorist wants". Now that you've supported this position with an appeal to security-critical intelligence, it sounds much more reasonable.
I've advised against psycho-analyzing me, you're quite bad at it.
I've addressed this already, which you immediately respond to below:
No. That is not what I said. What I said is that they were already an unstable threat, be it as a result of a radical ideology or otherwise. If killing mass murderers incites more mass murderers, no amount of sitting on your hands for fear of retaliation will prevent the mass murderers who acted regardless.
Let me put it this way:
If 1 person kills 100 people, and killing that person will provoke another person to kill 100 people, then I have no qualms killing that second person. If you think I'm going to feel guilty for provoking that second person, I won't.
I don't care if their justification is god or hurt feelings, I will put them down and society will be better for their absence. I will not spare whatever rod it is you arbitrarily object to on the grounds that punishing criminals incites criminality. As I said; by that logic you might as well disband your police and military and let everybody walk all over you.
It took you a while.
Capital punishment is already constitutionally sound. What I've been objecting to is your claim that mass murdering terrorists should be imprisoned and Des's claim that we should supervene due process.
You can observe due process, kill captives, and remain constitutionally consistent. We've done it before.
Well that rather begs the question: Do you not already believe that our current system of law works within the confines of the Constitution and democracy? If not, I can sympathize, and as I've stated, I believe the government is in need of reform as it is.
I'll say it again: Then pay for it yourself. If it were to come down to a vote as to whether the government (whom you claim shouldn't be given undue power) should be empowered to take from me and give to our country's worst criminals, I will vote against you every time.
Hell?
No but seriously, I've addressed this twice already: Killing them is cheaper and doesn't come at the explicit cost of the people you are trying to protect. Your only objection to this has been to repeat the same tired line about how executions have ridiculously inflated costs, which I've already stated should be changed.
The question here is: Following an extensive reform which renders executions as relatively cheap to perform legally as they are illegally (leaving aside court costs), what THEN is your objection to executing mass murderers who would otherwise subsist on the hard work of their intended victims?
An absolute waste in mine. The government is good at wasting money and convincing people it's well spent.
Or you can advocate reform. You know, like someone who cares.
I've long since resigned myself to the fact that the vast majority of humanity operates on bad ideas. Instead of running away as you suggest, I have arguments like these and try to persuade people into accepting what I consider to be better ideas.
The one made of straw.
Which I've addressed.
Which is not my position.
People have frequently been observed non stop rambling on to themselves in Bedlam:D
It's entirely possible, and that's evidenced by the fact that you, Des, and I are engaging on separate points. Unlike you, I am in favor of punishment proportional to the crime committed, up to and including death, however, unlike Des, I do not agree that the means by which we deduce guilt should be sacrificed to that end. I am addressing different contentions with both of you, there's nothing contradictory whatsoever with my position.
The fact is that you’ve either changed your dialogue with me or just chosen to be purposefully enigmatic for the fun of it. When you started this discussion, you said you wanted guys like this who were obviously guilty killed “while they are in custody”. That, to me, sounds fundamentally unconstitutional. Now you are saying oh no you would still want it done in a constitutional way with trial and representation and the whole nine yards but cheaper and much faster so that it wouldn’t cost you a cent. Well why not make your point of view clear from the beginning and spit out exactly what you mean rather than either baiting and switching your positions or shrouding them with language that seems clearly inconsistent with someone who believes in our Constitutional rights?
There is no law, let alone codified in the Constitution, which guarantees a positive right to life.
What kind of double talk nonsense is that? I just quoted you the part of the Constitution where it mentions our “right to life”. And no where in the Constitution does it divide rights into “positive” or negative” so spare me your theoretical libertarian gobbledygook.
If it did, then we'dve had Universal Healthcare a long time ago.
So as stupid as this line of reasoning is, Im just curious how you explain publicly funded education, social security, medicare and medicaid and unemployment benefits if we have no “positive” rights in our Constitution or laws? And how actively killing someone isn’t a violation of someones “negative” rights? Or were you just planning on letting them starve to death? Not that any of that matters. But just paint me curious...
because killing them makes you feel bad.
Why do you continue to choose to ignore that my point of view isn’t about emotion but about what I feel is best for society? Just like you say yours is.
If 1 person kills 100 people, and killing that person will provoke another person to kill 100 people, then I have no qualms killing that second person. If you think I'm going to feel guilty for provoking that second person, I won't.
So you are admitting to choosing to kill 1 person over keeping 100 innocent people alive. Taking this line of thinking to its logical conclusion, you realize youre eventually going to run out of people right? But killing all those single terrorists is still somehow better for society even though it would result in the deaths of all members of that society according to the math in your example. Glad you don’t run things. Or teach math.
by that logic you might as well disband your police and military and let everybody walk all over you.
Because putting criminals in jail is the same as letting them “walk all over you”. :rolleyes:
Capital punishment is already constitutionally sound. What I've been objecting to is your claim that mass murdering terrorists should be imprisoned
You’ve ALSO been objecting to how we currently carry out our particular brand of capital punishment. And who exactly should be killed. Are you now saying you are fine with how our system works and would accept that process as long as it results in a potential death sentence for them? And that its ONLY for "mass murdering terrorists"?
You can observe due process, kill captives, and remain constitutionally consistent. We've done it before.
HOW? Why do you keep dodging that question? What is your proposal to accomplish this? And don’t give me this “reform the government” nonsense. That’s not an answer. I want to know how you see the process of killing criminals in custody, step by step, such that it stays within Constitutional boundaries AND is satisfactory to your desire not to provide any public funding to the process at all?
I'll say it again: Then pay for it yourself. If it were to come down to a vote as to whether the government (whom you claim shouldn't be given undue power) should be empowered to take from me and give to our country's worst criminals, I will vote against you every time.
But it does come down to a vote. For our elected officials, remember? It’s a democracy. And that’s fine that you would vote that way but need I remind you what percentage of the vote libertarian candidates get generally? So you’ve had your vote and you’ve lost. You can sit down now. Oh and you can keep paying your taxes too. ;)
The question here is: Following an extensive reform which renders executions as relatively cheap to perform legally as they are illegally (leaving aside court costs), what THEN is your objection to executing mass murderers who would otherwise subsist on the hard work of their intended victims?
So you are once again shrugging off the HOW question and just basically saying “theoretically if execution was super cheap AND Constitutional…”? That’s fine. But at that point, as Ive stated, it becomes simply a discussion about capital punishment. Again, Im happy to have that discussion with you but not in the context of a discussion where doing so would let you ignore the paramount issue of explaining to me how things would work out Constitutionally under your plan. Because if it cant be done Constitutionally (nevermind all the other arguments) then its pointless to talk about it.
I've long since resigned myself to the fact that the vast majority of humanity operates on bad ideas. Instead of running away as you suggest, I have arguments like these and try to persuade people into accepting what I consider to be better ideas.
Not sure if arguing with people on a movie message board will ever turn the tide in this country from its current path to the one you want, my friend. And I learned long ago you cant argue someones mind into changing. That’s not how human psychology works. They’ll only see your ideas as more and more ill informed because it contrasts with their beliefs. If you really want to change minds, you have to get on their side first. Then you can potentially have some influence. But nobody seems to do that anymore.
Mr Minio
11-04-17, 11:05 PM
I wish people had such verbose discussions on movies here...
I wish people had such verbose discussions on movies here...
There's your opportunity.
States without the Death Penalty have had consistently lower murder rates:
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates
Think we should stop humouring CA, he is CA it's ridiculous calling him Des.
His most recent, Snowden, was about 15% quality, but 85% mediocrity.
He definitely has seen better days.
.
.
A human being typed that out!
Think we should stop humouring CA, he is CA it's ridiculous calling him Des.
??? When will you take your mask off and stop stirring up stuff, Hillary?
Omnizoa
11-06-17, 12:55 PM
People have frequently been observed non stop rambling on to themselves in Bedlam:D
It's called deconstruction. If I think you are wrong, I will tell you each and every way that you are wrong because most fallible positions are based on fallible predicates. You won't find out why the ship detonated on launch until you look at the details, oftentimes it's something you didn't consider thoroughly that causes you to make big mistakes.
If your response to seeing your arguments meticulously picked apart is functionally "wall of text lol", then you forfeit the debate. And if your response to THIS is functionally "this isn't a game lol", then you misrepresent my intentions. I'm not here to "win debates", I'm here to voice my dissent. You're pitching an idea, I'm criticizing it, that's how these sorts of discussion threads work. If my criticisms exhaust you, perhaps it's because you don't have rebuttals for them.
Omnizoa
11-06-17, 03:57 PM
The fact is that you’ve either changed your dialogue with me
Which you'll find no evidence of.
or just chosen to be purposefully enigmatic for the fun of it.
No, you've simply assumed that I agree with Des in suspending due process to persecute terrorists when I don't. I've never even suggested this.
When you started this discussion, you said you wanted guys like this who were obviously guilty killed “while they are in custody”.
What do you think "custody" means? Awaiting trial? We use "custody" to refer to whom people are safekept by. A government may maintain custody of somebody throughout a trial, after the death sentence has been passed, and until they are killed. The government loses custody when they're dead (unless you want to afford the term "custody" to the safekeeping of corpses too).
That, to me, sounds fundamentally unconstitutional.
How?
Now you are saying oh no you would still want it done in a constitutional way with trial and representation and the whole nine yards but cheaper and much faster so that it wouldn’t cost you a cent.
All of that involves work, work requires money. I expect those involved to be compensated for their work, preferably in a way mindful to avoid potential conflicts of interest.
Well why not make your point of view clear from the beginning and spit out exactly what you mean rather than either baiting and switching your positions or shrouding them with language that seems clearly inconsistent with someone who believes in our Constitutional rights?
Fourth time now:
"You're talking about handing judicial control to the military and suspending due process based on fallible evidence. Of course I would object. That's just one rationalization away from a police state."
What kind of double talk nonsense is that? I just quoted you the part of the Constitution where it mentions our “right to life”. And no where in the Constitution does it divide rights into “positive” or negative” so spare me your theoretical libertarian gobbledygook.
Had you bothered to read the link I gave you, the point I'm making here should be crystal clear. The Constitution establishes the mode in which those rights are exercised; whether they are something to be given (positive rights) or not to be taken away (negative rights). Let's read your own quote again:
“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
These are not things the Constitution grants you, these are things the Constitutions ensures can't be taken away, at least not without "due process of law". A "right to life" can be connotated in two ways:
1.) As a negative right: You have a life, and actions which jeopardize your life violate your right to life.
2.) As a positive right: You have a life, and actions which fail to preserve your life violate your right to life.
Leaving aside the condition that these rights are ultimately subordinate to that which we call "due process", which destroys your argument already anyway, the point I'm making here is that DESPITE THAT, the Constitution establishes Americans a negative right to life, meaning the government is under no obligation to prevent you from dying, and that includes sustaining you in prison.
So as stupid as this line of reasoning is, Im just curious how you explain publicly funded education, social security, medicare and medicaid and unemployment benefits if we have no “positive” rights in our Constitution or laws?
I didn't say we have no legal positive rights, I said we have no "positive right to life". And besides, a piece of legislation which gives you a thing is not the same as saying you have a right to it. Let alone a positive right to it. Doubly let alone a constitutional right to it, which by definition is a right which supercedes other rights.
And again, even were I to accept that there is a legal precedent for positive rights guaranteeing Americans education, social security, medicare, etc. I would reject them. The topic is about what should be done, not what can currently legally can be done.
And how actively killing someone isn’t a violation of someones “negative” rights?
It is, however, AGAIN, as I've told you, the Constitution, in the very paragraph you cite that explicitly says:
“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
You are, quite frankly, WILDLY mistaken if you believe merely killing people is unconstitutional.
I'm making a point to bold, size up, redden, and underline these points because we've gone over them multiple times now and it seems as though you've never read them.
Or were you just planning on letting them starve to death?
That rather depends on the context.
Why do you continue to choose to ignore that my point of view isn’t about emotion but about what I feel is best for society? Just like you say yours is.
My initial response to this quote was pretty derogatory. I'll just say this:
Personally, I think it more charitable to assume ignorance over malice, but provided how many times I've had to correct your casual dismissals and misrepresentation of my arguments, it's not looking very probable.
So you are admitting to choosing to kill 1 person over keeping 100 innocent people alive.
I expected this kind of half-assed interpretation, but yes. That is, in an extremely poorly paraphrased theory, what I'm doing.
Taking this line of thinking to its logical conclusion, you realize youre eventually going to run out of people right?
This is assuming that at least 1 person killed for every 100 people they kill will produce another such person. I don't assume this and neither should you, least of which without evidence. This is a terrible analogy to how Islamic martyrdom is propagated for multiple reasons, but I made it to emphasize a distinction:
Even if killing that one person fails to deter another such person from committing the same crime, killing that person eliminates a person that has proven they will commit said crime. Net reduction in terrorists: 1.
Your argument here appears to be that reducing the number of terrorists paradoxically increases the number of terrorists.
How much credit do you TRULY believe I should give that claim? How many different ways do you think I can pick apart that claim leaving aside the complete lack of evidence for it?
You seem to be favorable towards taking things to their logical conclusion, so what did you say when I asked?:
"by that logic you might as well disband your police and military and let everybody walk all over you."
Because putting criminals in jail is the same as letting them “walk all over you”. :rolleyes:
Oh that's right, you copped out and accused me of making a false equivalence when I've clearly challenged your consistency.
But killing all those single terrorists is still somehow better for society even though it would result in the deaths of all members of that society according to the math in your example.
The "math" demonstrating a rough cross-section of the logic you are using to rationalize the existence of viral martyrdom. A conclusion I have not accepted, but have faithfully recreated to demonstrate why.
Glad you don’t run things. Or teach math.
Ditto.
You’ve ALSO been objecting to how we currently carry out our particular brand of capital punishment.
...and?
And who exactly should be killed. Are you now saying you are fine with how our system works
No.
and would accept that process as long as it results in a potential death
No.
sentence for them? And that its ONLY for "mass murdering terrorists"?
No.
I don't know how you get any of that from the claim that capital punishment is constitutional or that we're only talking about mass murdering terrorists... because that's the topic.
HOW? Why do you keep dodging that question?
Excuse me? How do we do THIS?:
"You can observe due process, kill captives, and remain constitutionally consistent."
I'm not dodging the question, it is LITERALLY constitutional to kill people following due process, it is LITERALLY in the same friggen' paragraph you posted:
“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
I keep pointing at this over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again and you still don't get it, I will spell it out for you as absolutely clear as anyone could conceivably be:
"nor shall any state deprive any person of life, [...] without due process of law;"
There are two parts here:
"nor shall any state deprive any person of life,"
This is what you can't do.
"without due process of law;"
This is why you can't do it.
This establishes a condition under which you can't do a thing. It is not saying that you can't kill people PERIOD... it is saying you can't kill people without due process of law. Implying, by process of elimination, that you can kill people with due process of law.
I seriously don't know how I can make this any clearer.
What is your proposal to accomplish this?
This is like asking me to explain how I intend to walk out my front door. I HAVE KEYS.
And don’t give me this “reform the government” nonsense. That’s not an answer. I want to know how you see the process of killing criminals in custody, step by step, such that it stays within Constitutional boundaries AND is satisfactory to your desire not to provide any public funding to the process at all?
I'm not against public funding of courts, I'm against prison systems and taxes upon the product of one's labor. There's a big difference.
But it does come down to a vote. For our elected officials, remember? It’s a democracy.
It's a Republic.
And that’s fine that you would vote that way but need I remind you what percentage of the vote libertarian candidates get generally?
Nope.
So you’ve had your vote and you’ve lost. You can sit down now. Oh and you can keep paying your taxes too. ;)
"I enable the government to steal from us. ;)"
So you are once again shrugging off the HOW question and just basically saying “theoretically if execution was super cheap AND Constitutional…”? That’s fine.
Great. Argument over then.
But at that point, as Ive stated, it becomes simply a discussion about capital punishment. Again, Im happy to have that discussion with you
I am not.
but not in the context of a discussion where doing so would let you ignore the paramount issue of explaining to me how things would work out Constitutionally under your plan.
I'm just imagining you putting all this crazy emphasis on a non-existent conflict in a hyper mundane context:
"How can you sit without your butt touching the floor using a chair?"
"I dunno, Rex, it's a real brain teaser."
Not sure if arguing with people on a movie message board will ever turn the tide in this country from its current path to the one you want, my friend.
Thanks.
And I learned long ago you cant argue someones mind into changing.
You mother****er.
That’s not how human psychology works.
That's the last thing I want to hear at the end of an argument, that's literally admitting you aren't receptive to facts or logic, that I've been talking to a wall this entire ****ing time, you're just talking for the sake of talking.
I wasted all this time explaining my criticisms in detail only for you to go:
"Why didn't you just TELL ME your argument was exactly what you said it was three times already? Your opinions are unpopular so they don't matter, I'm going to continue enabling this country to rob hardworking people like you *winky face*. Oh BTW I've been ignoring your arguments this entire discussion because minds don't change lol."
Brilliant.
https://78.media.tumblr.com/c7c91d77aaf71181bdd94e86850fd55b/tumblr_o9936dOlV71rfd7lko1_400.gif
They’ll only see your ideas as more and more ill informed because it contrasts with their beliefs. If you really want to change minds, you have to get on their side first. Then you can potentially have some influence. But nobody seems to do that anymore.
I hazard to imagine how certain people avoid wandering into traffic.
I have to ask, when are psychotics not treated as enemy combatantare you even interested in movies? You reminde of the last guy who posted nothing but terrorism. Soon gets pretty obvious you have no interest in anything else. And are you always an angry Yosemite Sam waving your guns above your head and stomping
Never mind that. OMG a super model male nurse just walked into my hospital cell block. Died and went to heaven.
Omnizoa
11-06-17, 04:29 PM
I'd like to state, for the record, that I am aware of the tone of my last post and was aware of the New Rules for Controversial Topics (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=49561) before I posted it.
Stirchley
11-06-17, 05:05 PM
Judging by her avatar, it's no different than some individuals of Mexican heritage flying Mexican flags at out national sports events, such as boxing events that include Mexican fighters ( what makes it even worse is that they are American )
You need to read The U.S. Flag Code. Any resident of the United States can fly a foreign flag on their own property without also flying the American flag. If both flags fly on the same flagpole, the American flag must fly on top. If the flags each have their own flagpole, the foreign flag must fly to the left of the American flag. Both flags can fly at the top of their respective flagpoles, but the American flag can never fly lower than the foreign flag.
I was horrified by the behavior of this woman a few years back.
https://youtu.be/vi7SyO4cvC8
Stirchley
11-06-17, 05:07 PM
Judging by her avatar ...
Speaking of avatars, what’s with the semper fi in yours. You’re not in the USMC, are you?
Stirchley
11-06-17, 05:14 PM
I started this thread primarily for Americans living in America, because of a recent event that occurred on American soil.
I’m confused because this was an earlier post of yours.
I am very Italian ....
https://www.movieforums.com/community/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1809529
I'd like to state, for the record, that I am aware of the tone of my last post and was aware of the New Rules for Controversial Topics (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=49561) before I posted it.
I didn't notice anything wrong with it.
Matey, you love words and words sure as hell adore you. Kissed by the blarney stone.
A government may maintain custody of somebody throughout a trial, after the death sentence has been passed, and until they are killed.
So why not specify that you are in favor of the death penalty after a trial, the way it is now? Rather than you are in favor of killing them “in custody” because you don’t like the current system. Do you really think those come off as sounding exactly the same? Again, playing with words for the fun of it? You probably wouldn’t have gotten a reaction out of me at all if you had simply said the former from the start.
Fourth time now:
"You're talking about handing judicial control to the military and suspending due process based on fallible evidence. Of course I would object. That's just one rationalization away from a police state."
Why do you keep responding with what you said to Des and not what you said to me exactly if my point is you have been inconsistent TO ME?
Constitution establishes Americans a negative right to life, meaning the government is under no obligation to prevent you from dying, and that includes sustaining you in prison.
Garbage. A constitutional lawyer would have a field day with this silly nonsense. And anyway its entirely irrelevant as I noted.
And again, even were I to accept that there is a legal precedent for positive rights guaranteeing Americans education, social security, medicare, etc. I would reject them.
Clearly. Because you would willingly reject whats best for the country and society even though you declare the whole argument for killing people is “whats best for society”. Cant have it both ways.
You are, quite frankly, WILDLY mistaken if you believe merely killing people is unconstitutional.
No I believe killing people outside the dictates of the Constitution is unconstitutional. Since I still don’t know how you propose to change the current death penalty process while remaining within Constitutional boundaries I cant yet say if what you suggest is Constitutional or not. Capiche?
Personally, I think it more charitable to assume ignorance over malice
So is this how I should handle your unwillingness to answer my question about HOW you intend to alter the current death penalty system to meet your demands and still remain Constitutional after repeated requests? Or should I assume that’s “not looking very probable”? :p
Your argument here appears to be that reducing the number of terrorists paradoxically increases the number of terrorists.
How much credit do you TRULY believe I should give that claim? How many different ways do you think I can pick apart that claim leaving aside the complete lack of evidence for it?
Theres plenty of evidence for it. Ask the CIA. And all I responded to was your notion that you feel killing 1 terrorist is more important then keeping 100 innocent civilians alive. I believe your exact words were “If 1 person kills 100 people, and killing that person will provoke another person to kill 100 people, then I have no qualms killing that second person. If you think I'm going to feel guilty for provoking that second person, I won't.” You didn’t say “I reject the notion that others would be killed”. You made it clear that YOU DON’T CARE about any civilian deaths resulting from your killing of 1 terrorist in custody. And you expect me to take ANYTHING you say seriously after that? Nevermind numbers and evidence and real world dynamics, the philosophy you are reflecting with that statement is more than enough to make it clear you are either fully disingenuous or entirely irrational. And either way you shouldn’t be taken seriously in regards to this.
Oh that's right, you copped out and accused me of making a false equivalence when I've clearly challenged your consistency.
Wait how is saying putting criminals in jail isn’t “walking all over you” copping out exactly? It’s a direct response to the silly statement you made. You implied that anything short of killing a criminal is tantamount to giving them freedom since “only” putting them in jail forever is no better then disbanding the police. Once again :rolleyes:
"You can observe due process, kill captives, and remain constitutionally consistent."
And yet you wont tell me HOW you plan to?
I'm not dodging the question, it is LITERALLY constitutional to kill people following due process
So I ask you how you can observe due process, kill captives, and remain constitutionally consistent in a way that’s satisfactory TO YOU since you don’t accept the current system and your answer is “by observing due process”? And you wonder why you get accused of being avoidant. If your answer is “I don’t have the specifics!” then just say that. But it would of course limit our ability to discuss the ‘Omnizoa Death Penalty’ since we don’t know what it is…
This is like asking me to explain how I intend to walk out my front door. I HAVE KEYS.
Another dodge then?
I'm not against public funding of courts, I'm against prison systems and taxes upon the product of one's labor. There's a big difference.
So AGAIN does this imply that you would banish all prisons and kill ANYONE convicted of any crime? Or is the term “prison systems” another word shell game like the others?
I am not.
Well that’s surprising since you’ve been trying so hard to for days now. :p
That's the last thing I want to hear at the end of an argument, that's literally admitting you aren't receptive to facts or logic, that I've been talking to a wall this entire ****ing time
Oh im plenty receptive to facts but not misinformed opinions, irrationality, gobbledygook, and refusals to answer questions. And anyway my only point in that advice was not referencing ME specifically but reflecting on how humans in general work and how the psychology of persuasion works and doesn’t work. Its nothing novel really.
you're just talking for the sake of talking.
Funny, I felt the exact same way about you. Isnt that strange how that works…
"Why didn't you just TELL ME your argument was exactly what you said it was three times already? Your opinions are unpopular so they don't matter, I'm going to continue enabling this country to rob hardworking people like you *winky face*. Oh BTW I've been ignoring your arguments this entire discussion because minds don't change lol."
Ooh! My turn to truncate, distort and misrepresent everything you’ve said in the course of this ‘discussion’:
Des: WE SHOULD BURN THE CONSTITUTION, ROUND UP THOSE PEOPLE, TORTURE THEM AND KILL THEM!
I Rex to Des: DON’T RESORT TO THROWING AWAY OUR FREEDOMS AND ACTING LIKE THEM BY LETTING THE STATE COMMIT MURDER!
Omnizoa to I Rex for some reason: but they deserve death and I don’t like paying taxes. And killing is cheaper then not killing. And Im conveniently and cheekily going to tack on this comment in response to your comment to the UNCONSTITUTIONAL killing suggested by Des.
I Rex: Are you talking about Capital Punishment or killing prisoners because you feel like it? Because Capital Punishment isn’t cheaper. And anything else is unconstitutional.
Omnizoa: Im not going to answer this really essential question, Im instead going to copy and paste something I said to Des and then turn around and grumble something about the government needing a complete overhall and that there are WAYS to kill people cheaply… he he he…
I Rex: why didn’t you answer that? It seems like you are implying something sinister and unconstitutional.
Omnizoa: am not! Because <copy paste>. See? Now step aside while I make irrelevant remarks about eating stuff.
I Rex: You still haven’t answered it but you seem to be wanting to have it both ways. Do I have that right? Why not just give me an answer?
Omnizoa: Im going to ignore that once again and say I want to have them killed long before they normally would be executed under the current laws. And Im specifically not going to specify if that means something unconstitutional so that when you ask about it again I can copy and paste and say WHATS WRONG WITH YOU! CANT YOU SEE HOW MY DEBATE WITH DES FOUR PAGES AGO PROVIDES ME A GET OUT OF JAIL CARD ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL THING NO MATTER WHAT CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS I MAKE AFTER?!
I Rex: so… does that mean you want to overturn the current capital punishment system in favor of something else where you get to kill people right away for next to nothing? would this be constitutional?
Omnizoa: <COPY PASTE>! Ha ha!
I Rex: Im still under the impression that youre hinting at something dubious on a constitutional level so Im going to mention how we have a right to life in the Constitution.
Ominzoa: NO WE DON’T! NEGATIVE LIFE IS FULLY WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF MURDERING CRIMINALS BECAUSE WE HAVE NO HEALTH CARE!! AND KILLING TERRORISTS IS MORE IMPORTANT THEN KEEPING CIVILIANS ALIVE!
I Rex: No idea what you are talking about or why you think its relevant at all. But now im wondering why arguing against our right to life in response to me asking you repeatedly is your death penalty system constitutional shouldn’t make me think youre continuing to make obfuscations rather than just saying, you know, "yes my concept WOULD BE constitutional and heres how…"
Omnizoa: I CANT HAVE THIS DISCUSSION WITH YOU IF YOU CANT FIGURE OUT WHATS IN MY HEAD BY MY COPYING AND PASTING! IT DOESN’T MATTER IF I REFUSE TO GIVE SPECIFICS OR DIRECTLY ANSWER QUESTIONS! JUST SAYING “DUE PROCESS” IN RESPONSE TO THE WORD “HOW” IS MORE THAN SUFFICIENT!
I Rex: Ok you have no idea how to do it do you. You have no actual plan. Youll never convince me with that line of reasoning.
Omnizoa: ARRGH! BUT BY NEVER EXPLAINING HOW MY SYSTEM WORKS IVE BEEN TRYING SO HARD TO GET YOU TO EMBRACE THE CONCPET OF AN UNSPECIFIED METHOD OF KILLING PRISONERS THAT RESULTS IN CIVILIAN DEATHS! AND NOW YOU TELL ME YOU WONT CHANGE YOUR MIND!? WHY!! WHY!! WHY!!!!
There do I have that about right? Give or take a few exasperated phrases and pointless references and dubious examples?
Can you guys take it outside the house please. I got RSI scrolling through those war and peace novelas. It's not a wooooooooooop competition to see who posts the epicest post you know leave that to angry guy Des
Omnizoa
11-07-17, 12:29 AM
You need to read The U.S. Flag Code. Any resident of the United States can fly a foreign flag on their own property without also flying the American flag.
"Land of the Free" my ass.
Omnizoa
11-07-17, 12:45 AM
There do I have that about right?
Nope, you just wasted your time. "Karma's a bitch" and all that.
Welp, that looks to be about the end of my involvement in this thread.
"Land of the Free" my ass.
Does Sexy know that about your ass? :cool:
Omnizoa
11-07-17, 01:00 AM
"Land of the Free" my ass.
Does Sexy know that about your ass? :cool:
Why don't you ask him? @SexyCelebrity
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.