• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Osama Bin Laden is dead

If your edit was accurate, then why the 14th amendment?

Clarification. In the begining they we speaking mostly of white land holders, but not divided by citizenship (I was a poli Sci maor for awhile).
 
Clarification. In the begining they we speaking mostly of white land holders, but not divided by citizenship (I was a poli Sci maor for awhile).



You may want to check on a refund.... The USC applies to US citizens and those within it's jurisdiction.
 
If your edit was accurate, then why the 14th amendment?

If there isn't a definitive difference between righteous killing and murder/assassination, why does the military have Rules of Engagement for enemy combatants?
 
You may want to check on a refund.... The USC applies to US citizens and those within it's jurisdiction.

What I quoted was the Declaration of Independence. It states our beliefs. We don't have the option of ignoring rule of law just because the person we're dealing with isn't a citizen.
 
Bringing%2BClosure%2Bpost.jpg
 
We don't have the option of ignoring rule of law just because the person we're dealing with isn't a citizen.

absolutely

that's why we assassinate em

think much?
 
What I quoted was the Declaration of Independence. It states our beliefs. We don't have the option of ignoring rule of law just because the person we're dealing with isn't a citizen.


See, the fundamental flaw with your interpretation of the DoI, as well as the US Constitution, is that you believe that the founders were speaking to the entirety of mankind when making that declaration. They were not, in fact they were speaking of man from the prism of being subjects of the British crown, and subjected to its strangling taxation therefore.

You don't ascribe to American exceptionalism, but when it suits your bleeding heart you want to extend the rights fought for, and blood shed for to those who would rather see our throats cut over a religious doctrine mired in the 7th century. That to me suggests a certain self loathing of ones own country as ignoble, and you display shame for being a citizen. Yet, recognizing the inherent level of living you enjoy here, you would never relocate to any other country that may more closely mirror your own view of 'how things should be'...

The fact of the matter is that extending those rights which we hold self evident are not extended, nor believed in by those individuals you wish to protect. And as an after thought, I personally think it is a despicable position you place yourself in to totally forego, the justice for the 3300 killed by this man on 9/11 so you can ease your own moral conscience.


j-mac
 
There were speaking about all of mankind, specifically all white male landholders. The language was specifically added by more liberal elements as I understand it (class was some years ago). Later this language was used as an argument to free slaves and include women. At no time have ai seen any evidence they meant only citizens.

However, I look at it differently than you do. I don't see those individuals at all. I see us as being subject to the rules. We, our people, soliders are subject to the laws and prinicples no matter who we're addressing because we are citizens. It informs us on how to behave. It's not only rights afforded, but rules of behavior.

And your poor nation esteem stuff is tiresome. By believing it our ideals in no way suggests I hate my nation. Quite the opposite. I believe in it's ideals and values. I merely want us to live up to them and not down to those ideals I see as less noble, those of the people we fight.
 
There were speaking about all of mankind, specifically all white male landholders. The language was specifically added by more liberal elements as I understand it (class was some years ago). Later this language was used as an argument to free slaves and include women. At no time have ai seen any evidence they meant only citizens.

However, I look at it differently than you do. I don't see those individuals at all. I see us as being subject to the rules. We, our people, soliders are subject to the laws and prinicples no matter who we're addressing because we are citizens. It informs us on how to behave. It's not only rights afforded, but rules of behavior.

And your poor nation esteem stuff is tiresome. By believing it our ideals in no way suggests I hate my nation. Quite the opposite. I believe in it's ideals and values. I merely want us to live up to them and not down to those ideals I see as less noble, those of the people we fight.

Well, you are intentionally misinterpeting what I am saying here, so at this time I'll leave it, and hit the pool.


j-mac
 
Well, you are intentionally misinterpeting what I am saying here, so at this time I'll leave it, and hit the pool.


j-mac

I'm reading it as best I can. If you think I made a msitake, please show me where.
 
I merely want us to live up to them and not down to those ideals I see as less noble, those of the people we fight.

you mean the assassins?

or just the detainers and wiretappers?
 
On another note.....

Have you noticed that since this happened, it's like Japan's nuclear crisis never happened?

In three months, no one will care about bin Laden either.

People's attention spans are so short these days.
while Bin Ladens death was significant to people in the western world it wasn't as significant to the people in the ME. he lost his relevancy a long time ago. millions of muslim Arabs don't give a **** about Bin Laden, they are more interested in mass uprising to get rid of dictators. recent events are testament to that.

he's dead. good riddance. there's a lot more important things going on in the world than spending months talking about a man who had become irrelevant being killed in Pakistan.
 
while Bin Ladens death was significant to people in the western world it wasn't as significant to the people in the ME. he lost his relevancy a long time ago. millions of muslim Arabs don't give a **** about Bin Laden, they are more interested in mass uprising to get rid of dictators. recent events are testament to that.

he's dead. good riddance. there's a lot more important things going on in the world than spending months talking about a man who had become irrelevant being killed in Pakistan.

So you agree with Bush then. It is though interesting to see the libs with that twinkle in their eye on how they think Obama can ride this into the election....


j-mac
 
What I quoted was the Declaration of Independence. It states our beliefs. We don't have the option of ignoring rule of law just because the person we're dealing with isn't a citizen.


The "declaration of independence" is not law. sorry.
 
Rev, this is your tactic when you misread something, or find yourself wrong. I accept your confession. :coffeepap




no dood, it's the tactic you use to deflect when you make an error. We were talking laws, you invoked the DoI, if you didn't mean to apply it to the conversation as evidence for your position, you shouldn't have referenced it.


Back to some thoughts here.

OBL=murder?

Seal team 6=murderers?



yes or no?
 
no dood, it's the tactic you use to deflect when you make an error. We were talking laws, you invoked the DoI, if you didn't mean to apply it to the conversation as evidence for your position, you shouldn't have referenced it.


Back to some thoughts here.

OBL=murder?

Seal team 6=murderers?



yes or no?

I didn't make an error, you did.

The comment was to j, and it was about our ideals and not the law. That you can't follow is not my problem.

And I've stated clearly, ask any who can read, that the SEALS are soldiers following the orders of a superior. As long as they followed those in good faith, they are not guilty of any crime IMHO. However, if the president ordered the assassination of a political leader (OBL the leader of al Quaeda, a political group), he broke the law. If OBL was not a political leader, then this was the killing of a person (Assassination by definition requires he be a political leader). That seems like murder to me if not done in a cmbat situation of some type. Excuting a person without some rule of law is a problem for me. I would think it would be a problem for most.
 
AQ is a terror group, not some political entity.

j-mac
 
I didn't make an error, you did.

The comment was to j, and it was about our ideals and not the law. That you can't follow is not my problem.

And I've stated clearly, ask any who can read, that the SEALS are soldiers following the orders of a superior. As long as they followed those in good faith, they are not guilty of any crime IMHO.

Are you familiar with the term "legal order"? seriously, "I was ordered to do it" is a good enough excuse for you?

However, if the president ordered the assassination of a political leader (OBL the leader of al Quaeda, a political group), he broke the law. If OBL was not a political leader, then this was the killing of a person (Assassination by definition requires he be a political leader). That seems like murder to me if not done in a cmbat situation of some type. Excuting a person without some rule of law is a problem for me. I would think it would be a problem for most.


So, to some it up, the killing of OBL is a problem for you....
 
AQ is a terror group, not some political entity.

j-mac

That's one opinon. But then killing him would not be an asssassination. It would be something else. I worded myself carefully above to account for this opinion.
 
Back
Top Bottom