Post Reply
The Drone Debate
|
I don't care if the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce are done for political purposes or not.
The use of drones to kill anyone without an open unbiased court trial with a conviction by peers for a crime that has occurred for which there is an execution penalty mandated is simply murder and the chain from the operator to the man who made the decision should stand trial for premeditated murder. The is no governmental immunity written in the USA constitution. We have an elective dictatorship. |
|
|
|
|
lordseth23 wrote: What makes you think that the government is even close to being on moral high ground on the rule of law and due process? Why does it need to be hypocritical? The issue here is the president making a personal kill list and when it's OK to kill him/her with no other judicial oversight and our government becoming less and less accountable. What if he were to militarizing the war on dissent? There are lots of other tools to bring people to justice, but extra judicial killings should not be the one, for a nation which claims to be a nation of laws. |
|
|
|
|
trinkit wrote: The issue here is the president making a personal kill list and when it's OK to kill him/her with no other judicial oversight and our government becoming less and less accountable. What if he were to militarizing the war on dissent? There are lots of other tools to bring people to justice, but extra judicial killings should not be the one, for a nation which claims to be a nation of laws. Exactly, which is why the government is not even close to being on a moral high ground. The only tool that should be used to bring people to justice is language. |
|
FOR EMPATHY!!!
|
|
|
From what little I have read from this conversation, I have to statements to offer.
1. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind'' - Ghandi 2. And life isn't fair. That is all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FOR EMPATHY!!!
|
|
|
Your preferred debating tactic seems to be the construction of strawmen. Isn't this conversation about drones and the abuse of power? If you wish to discuss anarchy, shouldn't you begin another thread? |
|
|
|
|
trinkit wrote: Your preferred debating tactic seems to be the construction of strawmen. Isn't this conversation about drones and the abuse of power? If you wish to discuss anarchy, shouldn't you begin another thread? Why would there ever be a conversation about drones and the abuse of power? Why do you think it is even debatable? |
|
FOR EMPATHY!!!
|
|
|
All humans should be equally important.
|
|
Happy birthday Lyn-z Way. you goddess of a woman.
|
|
|
|
|
Nothing is true, everything is permitted.
|
|
|
they can breach anything nowadays because we the people use a minute amount of our intelligence to counter totalitarianism and a blatant breach of law. It's like back in the Vietnam days except now instead of communists we fear terrorists and that fear is self harmful because we let fucks like these people target us for national security. hahaha, fuck off.
this message was sponsored by the US department of fear. have a nice day, and please, stay in fear. |
|
|
|
|
Being smart removes the need to persuade anyone, it's too late for questions like this. The public where outsmarted years ago.
|
|
|
memento mori
|
|
|
Then why should we support a government that kills innocent people? |
|
FOR EMPATHY!!!
|
|
|
Oftentimes I wonder the same. Though how you present the question makes it a generalization that the whole of any state's population supports its government's actions, of which some states do not require consensus of its constituency or opinion derived from the populace, the United States in some parts fitting the unneeded consensus from the citizenry. |
|
MIA indefinitely until further notice.
|
|
Popular Shows |
Platforms and Devices |
Premium MembershipsLanguage
|
Support |
Crunchyroll |