• 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!

Should the Hutaree militia be waterboarded?

Should the Hutaree militia be waterboarded

  • I am for waterboarding Al Quaeda and Hutaree terrorists

    Votes: 7 19.4%
  • I am for waterboarding Al Quaeda terrorists but not Hutaree terrorists

    Votes: 3 8.3%
  • I am for waterboarding Hutaree terrorists but not Al Quaeda terrorists

    Votes: 2 5.6%
  • I am against waterboarding Al Quaeda and Hutaree terrorists

    Votes: 24 66.7%

  • Total voters
    36
They militia did nothing illegal, being armed and being disgruntled with the state is not a crime.

I believe plotting to kill police officers, or in fact anyone is a crime. Provided it is serious plotting and not just some drunken what if scenario
 
They militia did nothing illegal, being armed and being disgruntled with the state is not a crime.
Unless you're a "brown person" and GW is the POTUS. :mrgreen:
 
I believe plotting to kill police officers, or in fact anyone is a crime. Provided it is serious plotting and not just some drunken what if scenario

No, the people are given a right by the founding fathers to fight what they percieve as a tyranical goverment and its soldiers. Now if they actually acted, then a court and a jury of piers would judge whether the actions were warranted. Meeting and plotting against the goverment is perfectly ok based on our values.
 
No, the people are given a right by the founding fathers to fight what they percieve as a tyranical goverment and its soldiers. Now if they actually acted, then a court and a jury of piers would judge whether the actions were warranted. Meeting and plotting against the goverment is perfectly ok based on our values.

They engaged in a conspiracy to commit acts of murder, that is a crime. They were arrested for it

A court and a jury of their piers will now judge whether the actions were warranted
 
They engaged in a conspiracy to commit acts of murder, that is a crime. They were arrested for it

A court and a jury of their piers will now judge whether the actions were warranted

No they were planning to attack what they percieve as a tyranical goverment, something allowed based on founding principles. Something which created the second amendment in the first place.
 
No, the people are given a right by the founding fathers to fight what they percieve as a tyranical goverment and its soldiers.
No they aren't. They're given a right to peaceably assemble, not plot murder of cops. These guys are the real tyrants, not the govt that the Founders created. If they were in power, then you'd see what real tyranny is.

Now if they actually acted, then a court and a jury of piers would judge whether the actions were warranted.
Nope, plotting a crime is punishable by law. That's why (for example) undercover cops who seek out sex offenders on the internet can have them charged for trying to arrange sex with minors online (even if they don't actually molest a minor).

Meeting and plotting against the goverment is perfectly ok based on our values.
Or lack thereof.
 
Is this how Bush and Chaney found out about all those weapons of massssss destruction in Iraq and that Sadam Husain was responsible for 9/11, and all that other good information he had?

I guess. But I think the 'weapon of mass destruction' found in Iraq was a weee bit larger than the so-called 'WMDs' the Hutaree militia was allegedly found with.
 
No they aren't. They're given a right to peaceably assemble, not plot murder of cops. These guys are the real tyrants, not the govt that the Founders created. If they were in power, then you'd see what real tyranny is.

They might be bad people, but they did nothing illegal.


Nope, plotting a crime is punishable by law. That's why (for example) undercover cops who seek out sex offenders on the internet can have them charged for trying to arrange sex with minors online (even if they don't actually molest a minor).

No, they were planning to protect therepublic (in their mind).
 
They might be bad people, but they did nothing illegal.

No, they were planning to protect therepublic (in their mind).

What if someone (in their mind) thought you were a danger to the country and decided to take you out?

Since when is self delusion an excuse for plotting murder?
 
14th Amendment stipulates no person shall be deprived of constitutional rights regarding life, liberty, property, or due process by any state in the Union; whether they are citizens or not is irrelevant. Both residents and non-residents are entitled to all rights except those specifically reserved to citizens (aka, the vote). However, regarding foreign terrorist suspects, habeas corpus has been suspended.
 
Last edited:
14th Amendment stipulates no person shall be deprived of constitutional rights regarding life, liberty, property, or due process by any state in the Union; whether they are citizens or not is irrelevant. Both residents and non-residents are entitled to all rights except those specifically reserved to citizens (aka, the vote). However, regarding foreign terrorist suspects, habeas corpus has been suspended.

Hmmmm....If a law like this can be suspended on a whelm, what others can be suspended on yet another whelm?
 
Missiles are not "WMDs" :doh If that's your standard of WMDs then we need to invade Saudi Arabia, China, Russia, Iran, etc etc too right?

I know. Why don't they just call WMDs what they mean for it to be called: A nuke.
 
I am not in power, the goverment on the other hand should always be afraid of its people always.

The government should always be afraid of being voted out of office, not of being killed at a friends funeral.
 
Last edited:
Really. Even if said government becomes tyrannical and oppressive?


I suppose you think our police have become tyrannical and oppressive and deserves to be killed while at funerals? :doh
 
I know. Why don't they just call WMDs what they mean for it to be called: A nuke.

Because WMDs are not strictly limited to nuclear weapons. They also include chemical and biological weapons designed to kill large numbers of people.
 
You're suggesting that killing police officers is now justified?


THAT part would be pretty stupid, even if one stipulated that the government was tyrannical and needed to be opposed... which at this point is still a very dubious assertion. As long as the ballot box remains a viable option for real change, resorting to the cartridge box is premature at best.


Presumably, the disenchantment of the dissidents-come-militants is based on the actions of politicians and similar highly-placed figures... the Big Wigs, in other word. The people who actually MAKE policy and law.


As far as the Big Wigs are concerned, cops are expendable peons. Kill ten cops, kill a hundred, the Big Wigs will merely be annoyed at having lost some of what they would view as their enforcer-peons.



If they were going to actually do something that would really have an impact, assuming they had three working brain cells between them they'd target some of those Big Wigs they are actually pissed at... the ones who actually MAKE the politicies that they hate.

All of this is purely speculative of course. These people, American Citizens, have been accused of a crime of conspiracy... and we all remember "presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty", right?
 
THAT part would be pretty stupid, even if one stipulated that the government was tyrannical and needed to be opposed... which at this point is still a very dubious assertion. As long as the ballot box remains a viable option for real change, resorting to the cartridge box is premature at best.

Are you listening here hellhound?
 
Because WMDs are not strictly limited to nuclear weapons. They also include chemical and biological weapons designed to kill large numbers of people.

Excellent point. So... if the missile could have delivered said chemical and biological weapons, then it would be considered a WMD.
 
I guess. But I think the 'weapon of mass destruction' found in Iraq was a weee bit larger than the so-called 'WMDs' the Hutaree militia was allegedly found with.

Missles are not WMDs. Missiles can be delivery systems for them, but they aren't necessarily. It's the warhead - chemical, nuclear, or biological - that makes them a WMD. And none were found in Iraq.
 
Back
Top Bottom