*Its Better To Kill The Terrorists Than Bring Them To Trial*

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. Better to avoid the spectacle, just make sure they are dead before they are captured.
2. I know you can not see why, but I will explain once we get some folks slinging shit.
3. Okay let the fun begin.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[IlarMeilyr]

cheesedicknow is generally just a mental midget.

But like a stopped clock can be right twice a day, he may have made a passingly observant comment, here.

There are, of course, exceptions. SOMETIMES it is actually important to keep the filthy bastards alive long enough to extract crucial information (intel) from them.

But other than that, the death of terrorists is (generally) preferable to "trying" them for "crimes."

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

cheesedicknow is generally just a mental midget.

But like a stopped clock can be right twice a day, he may have made a passingly observant comment, here.

There are, of course, exceptions. SOMETIMES it is actually important to keep the filthy bastards alive long enough to extract crucial information (intel) from them.

But other than that, the death of terrorists is (generally) preferable to "trying" them for "crimes."

1. For once you agree with my OP, ok you can die in peace now.
2. Later.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[IlarMeilyr]

* * * *




* * * *

ok you can die in peace now* * * *


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

After you.

 

[Agit8r]

Coulda just skipped the manual manhunt, and brought in the drones...

What? People would have shit themselves? Oh, yeah, that...

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Coulda just skipped the manual manhunt, and brought in a drone...

What? People would have shit themselves? Oh, yeah, that...

Drones can either spy or be used AS weapons. The problem with the latter is that drones tend to have a pretty wide area where they do their damage. This leads to a substantial risk of inflicting so-called "collateral damage." In short, other people, presumably quite innocent people, could get killed or injured.

It hardly seems like a good idea to perform the very same kind of action on the bad guys that leads you to be hunting them down.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Coulda just skipped the manual manhunt, and brought in a drone...

What? People would have shit themselves? Oh, yeah, that...

Drones can either spy or be used AS weapons. The problem with the latter is that drones tend to have a pretty wide area where they do their damage. This leads to a substantial risk of inflicting so-called "collateral damage." In short, other people, presumably quite innocent people, could get killed or injured.

It hardly seems like a good idea to perform the very same kind of action on the bad guys that leads you to be hunting them down.

yeah agitgay isnt the brightest color in the crayola pack.....he probably wishes the guy could have wasted our money, and gotten off on a technicallity....although liberals dont mind Miranda rights not being read now......well Hot DAMN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If Obama is in charge, it's ok not to Mirandize them......and guess what I agree....although I think that no matter WHO is in charge

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Coulda just skipped the manual manhunt, and brought in a drone...

What? People would have shit themselves? Oh, yeah, that...

Drones can either spy or be used AS weapons. The problem with the latter is that drones tend to have a pretty wide area where they do their damage. This leads to a substantial risk of inflicting so-called "collateral damage." In short, other people, presumably quite innocent people, could get killed or injured.

It hardly seems like a good idea to perform the very same kind of action on the bad guys that leads you to be hunting them down.

yeah agitgay isnt the brightest color in the crayola pack.....he probably wishes the guy could have wasted our money, and gotten off on a technicallity....although liberals dont mind Miranda rights not being read now......well Hot DAMN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If Obama is in charge, it's ok not to Mirandize them......and guess what I agree....although I think that no matter WHO is in charge

The entire Miranda rule is pretty silly, frankly. That's a discussion for a different thread in a different forum.

But to the extent the legal system is stuck with the Miranda rule, and not going to be changing it, I can live with it.

However, applying the notions of fairness and due process which we deem warranted for our legal system to these unlawful enemy combatants is beyond silly. It's stupid and dangerous. WTF is wrong with us?

 

[BreezeWood]

*Its Better To Kill The Terrorists Than Bring Them To Trial*

2 US Officials Go Public, There Was No Gun Battle On Boat With Dzhokar Tsarnaev | Alternative

they should always be brought to trial - or made as the attempt, killing an unarmed person is the same whoever does it.


* and ignoring the unnecessary destruction of private property can get a little annoying as well.

 

[nitroz]

I agree, but you see. We have something that's called *The Constitution*.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Sorry bout that,


1. Better to avoid the spectacle, just make sure they are dead before they are captured.
2. I know you can not see why, but I will explain once we get some folks slinging shit.
3. Okay let the fun begin.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

No, it isn't. Because we are better than that. We are not the judge. We don't kill people because we think they are terrorists. We obey the law of the land and the courts decide whether they are guilty or not and then they get their sentence. We should not lower our standards to meet theirs. That is not the answer in my opinion.

 

[Sherry]

No, especially when the government wants to label certain groups of it's citizenry, be it military vets, tea party activists, OWS, etc., as "potential threats". If they commit a crime, bring them to trial.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Somehow, I just can't get behind selective government-sponsored assassinations. Call me weak.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I agree, but you see. We have something that's called *The Constitution*.

We do. And where it is applicable, it should be faithfully complied-with.

But, where it is not applicable, invoking the Constitution is just kind of liberal-lame plea made out of abundant ignorance.

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

I agree, but you see. We have something that's called *The Constitution*.

We do. And where it is applicable, it should be faithfully complied-with.

But, where it is not applicable, invoking the Constitution is just kind of liberal-lame plea made out of abundant ignorance.

1. I know we agree on this one topic, but can't you just go ahead and die happy we finally agreed upon something?


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. We should suspend the *Constitution* when it involves *Terrorism*.
2. The courts are too good for terror suspects.
3. Islam and Terror should be dispatched with a bullet to the head, kinda like Osama Bin Laden.
4. Double Tap to the face, should do fine.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[Agit8r]

*Its Better To Kill The Terrorists Than Bring Them To Trial*

2 US Officials Go Public, There Was No Gun Battle On Boat With Dzhokar Tsarnaev | Alternative

they should always be brought to trial - or made as the attempt, killing an unarmed person is the same whoever does it.


* and ignoring the unnecessary destruction of private property can get a little annoying as well.

I'm expecting an Allstate ad with the "Mayhem Guy" hunkered down in a boat as machine gun fire rains fiberglass particles on top of him. "If you've got cut-rate insurance, it may not cover mayhem like me"

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Sorry bout that,


1. We should suspend the *Constitution* when it involves *Terrorism*.
2. The courts are too good for terror suspects.
3. Islam and Terror should be dispatched with a bullet to the head, kinda like Osama Bin Laden.
4. Double Tap to the face, should do fine.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Puting aside our basic dislike of each other for one moment:

I respectfully suggest that we need never "put aside" the Constitution.

It applies where and when it applies.

It does NOT apply to those things which are not part of what it is designed to address.

In point of fact, the Constitution ITSELF provides some explicit instructions on when at least some of its terms may properly be suspended.

Lots of very far left-wing liberals cannot fathom that.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Sorry bout that,

I agree, but you see. We have something that's called *The Constitution*.

We do. And where it is applicable, it should be faithfully complied-with.

But, where it is not applicable, invoking the Constitution is just kind of liberal-lame plea made out of abundant ignorance.

1. I know we agree on this one topic, but can't you just go ahead and die happy we finally agreed upon something?


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Again: after you.