Terrorists Should Be Treated As Enemy Combatants

There's your opportunity.

Think we should stop humouring CA, he is CA it's ridiculous calling him Des.

.

A human being typed that out!

??? When will you take your mask off and stop stirring up stuff, Hillary?

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.

__________________
Movie Reviews | Anime Reviews
Top 100 Action Movie Countdown (2015): List | Thread
"Well, at least your intentions behind the UTTERLY DEVASTATING FAULTS IN YOUR LOGIC are good." - Captain Steel

Which you'll find no evidence of.

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.

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).

How?

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

That rather depends on the context.

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.

I expected this kind of half-assed interpretation, but yes. That is, in an extremely poorly paraphrased theory, what I'm doing.

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."

Oh that's right, you copped out and accused me of making a false equivalence when I've clearly challenged your consistency.

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.

Ditto.

...and?

No.

No.

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.

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.

This is like asking me to explain how I intend to walk out my front door. I HAVE KEYS.

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.

It's a Republic.

Nope.

"I enable the government to steal from us. "

Great. Argument over then.

I am not.

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."

Thanks.

You mother****er.

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.



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.

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 before I posted it.

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.

__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.

Speaking of avatars, what’s with the semper fi in yours. You’re not in the USMC, are you?

I’m confused because this was an earlier post of yours.

https://www.movieforums.com/communit...eply&p=1809529

I didn't notice anything wrong with it.
Matey, you love words and words sure as hell adore you. Kissed by the blarney stone.

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.

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?

Garbage. A constitutional lawyer would have a field day with this silly nonsense. And anyway its entirely irrelevant as I noted.

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.

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?

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”?

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.

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

And yet you wont tell me HOW you plan to?

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…

Another dodge then?

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?

Well that’s surprising since you’ve been trying so hard to for days now.

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.


Funny, I felt the exact same way about you. Isnt that strange how that works…

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?

__________________
Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies...

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

"Land of the Free" my ass.

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.

Does Sexy know that about your ass?

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Why don't you ask him? @SexyCelebrity