Quote:
Originally Posted by SgtRock  What about the victims and there families? Don't they deserve justice? Do you suggest Texas turn the murderer over to Mexico? What happens when Mexico decides to purge there prison system and let this animal out on early parol? Something they do quite often. What if he murders again?
All people like you care about are the rights of criminals with no concern for the victims.
Medellin was givin a fare trial and found guilty. He took the life of two innocent girls. He should pay for his crime. To hell with the U.N. I am for abolising the U.N. all together. |
What tickles me about sentiments like this is that they have
no basis in fact whatsoever and are brought on by some mad sense that an emotional explosion will somehow win an argument on a subject in which emotion has no legitimate place whatsoever.
I defy you to point to any post in this thread where anybody said:
- The victims and their families don't deserve justice
- Texas should turn the murderer over to Mexico
- The accused should be given leave to murder anyone else
- Medellin wasn't given a fair trial
- Medellin wasn't guilty
- Medellin shouldn't pay for his crime
The fact is that
you can't, because nobody said anything of the sort. Of course, that doesn't stop you from trumpeting your straw-man argument at the (figurative) top of your (proverbial) lungs, does it?
In fact, even among those who aren't bitching and moaning about the Court's decision, I don't see a
single person saying the UN "has jurisdiction"
per se only that the UN is right to ask us to take a moment to respect international law as we have demanded others do for the past few decades.
Why do you feel it is appropriate and necessary to cheapen a legitimate argument about rights and treaties and so forth with some second-rate emotional drum-beating?
Why do you consider it a legitimate debate tactic to demonize your opponent simply because they disagree with you?
How do you feel that either practice, in any way shape or form, lends credibility to
a single solitary word that you say?
Since when did the rights of victims and the rights of the accused become
mutually exclusive? They aren't, and never have been. That is the sole purpose for which any legitimate court exists -- to make sure that the rights of
all parties involved in any dispute are respected and upheld.
Could you please,
please do everybody involved in this discussion a favor and base your arguments on
logic and respond to
what people are actually saying rather than resorting to cheap ploys, emotional appeals and straw-men?
Kthxbai.