sooooooo, someone that you believe is smarter than you and more informed and with a higher virtual rank gives you an order to 'execute' the enemy, you say "okey-dokey boss"....
BUT, someone that you believe has more $$ than you, has a higher virtual value and is more informed than you gives you an order to pay some virtual tax/interest, you say "that's more than my fair share boss"......
let me get this straight, of your own free will/choice:
you'll kill another human being in another country who has the same sovereign right to exist as a human but is considered the 'enemy' according to the 'smart folks' , for minimum wage and room and board, call yourself a hero and then complain about another sovereign human that is your neighbor that doesn't want to give you their minimum wage earned $$, because, after all it is their fair share, you know, 'for the effort' and the government is compelling them to.
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
OK... Cissy loves to fill his posts with excess words. It's so difficult to really know just what Cissy means when he elaborates so on non issues.
See what I mean? I asked a simple question about SWAT teams shooting a criminal in the commission of a murder. It seems pretty simple to me. I'll ask again... (A good day for a dentist on this board... It really is like pulling teeth.) I think this is my third try to get what could be a "YES" or "NO" answer.. or even an elaborated answer... I don't know what Cicero is afraid of... it's a pretty simple question on a basic issue: Try Try Again:
Quoted Text
SO once again, in an attempt to find out what Cicero really thinks... Is it sometimes justified and legal for a SWAT TEAM member to shoot a person, say a terrorist, to save the lives of others??? (NOT SELF DEFENSE, BUT IN THE DEFENSE OF OTHERS)
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
See what I mean? I asked a simple question about SWAT teams shooting a criminal in the commission of a murder. It seems pretty simple to me. I'll ask again... (A good day for a dentist on this board... It really is like pulling teeth.) I think this is my third try to get what could be a "YES" or "NO" answer.. or even an elaborated answer... I don't know what Cicero is afraid of... it's a pretty simple question on a basic issue: Try Try Again:
It's pretty simple box, you are changing the argument. Let's get back to the secret kill list that a US citizen was on. Then we can talk about SWAT teams and hostage situation and snipers, and any other scenarios that have nothing to do with Americans on secret kill lists.
It's pretty simple box, you are changing the argument. Let's get back to the secret kill list that a US citizen was on. Then we can talk about SWAT teams and hostage situation and snipers, and any other scenarios that have nothing to do with Americans on secret kill lists.
Why not get back to the original theme of this thread and then you can start your own vial hatred thread to discuss your moronic feelings.
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
It's pretty simple box, you are changing the argument. Let's get back to the secret kill list that a US citizen was on. Then we can talk about SWAT teams and hostage situation and snipers, and any other scenarios that have nothing to do with Americans on secret kill lists.
Cissy... I asked you a question. That's all. Simple yes or no will suffice. Are you so afraid of the answer that your fingers freeze on the keyboard??? Are you afraid of your own answer??? What is so terrifying about your reply that prevents you from answering??? This isn't about your Al Qaeda buddy... this isn't about terrorism... This is just a question: Is it legal and justified for a SWAT team to sometimes take out a killer in the commission of a murder? (By now the Cissy's teeth have all been pulled)
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Is it legal and justified for a SWAT team to sometimes take out a killer in the commission of a murder?
The answer is yes if there is a active threat in progress, if a guy is shooting up a room yes SWAT has the right to eliminate the threat. SWAT does not have a right to kill someone who is not a threat at that moment, example a drug raid and a guy is sitting on the couch unarmed, SWAT can not execute him.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
Cissy... I asked you a question. That's all. Simple yes or no will suffice. Are you so afraid of the answer that your fingers freeze on the keyboard??? Are you afraid of your own answer??? What is so terrifying about your reply that prevents you from answering??? This isn't about your Al Qaeda buddy... this isn't about terrorism... This is just a question: Is it legal and justified for a SWAT team to sometimes take out a killer in the commission of a murder? (By now the Cissy's teeth have all been pulled)
Box, I already answered yes, how many ways does it have to be said? They can if there is an immediate life threatening situation. But at the end of the day, the SWAT team still has to justify the use if force. It's legal if it is determined legal based on the evidence. The My Lai massacre was legal before it was illegal.
The My Lai massacre was legal before it was illegal.
SERIOUSLY, why do you fabricate this insulting BULLSHIT?
"...the Military Judge (Kennedy) in the Calley court-martial determined, as a matter of law, that any order received by Lieutenant Calley directing him to kill unresisting Vietnamese within his control or within the control of his troops would have been illegal."
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
SERIOUSLY, why do you fabricate this insulting BULLSHIT?
"...the Military Judge (Kennedy) in the Calley court-martial determined, as a matter of law, that any order received by Lieutenant Calley directing him to kill unresisting Vietnamese within his control or within the control of his troops would have been illegal."
Yes, very good, AFTER it was heard before a court, it was deemed ILLEGAL. But those 120 soldiers that followed Calley's order's were acting legally, until a court, and evidence was presented, to find out it was ILLEGAL. Something that hasn't happened with the extrajudicial killing of U.S. citizen Anwar Al Awlaki.
The answer is yes if there is a active threat in progress, if a guy is shooting up a room yes SWAT has the right to eliminate the threat. SWAT does not have a right to kill someone who is not a threat at that moment, example a drug raid and a guy is sitting on the couch unarmed, SWAT can not execute him.
We agree. I wonder why Cicero is having such a difficult time wrestling with this one. It seems pretty basic.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
We agree. I wonder why Cicero is having such a difficult time wrestling with this one. It seems pretty basic.
It is basic...That's why I'm waiting to see where this line of argument is going? What does it have to do with droning a U.S. citizen on a presidential kill-list, 10,000 miles away? Where are the hostages and snipers you are talking about?
Box, I already answered yes, how many ways does it have to be said? They can if there is an immediate life threatening situation. But at the end of the day, the SWAT team still has to justify the use if force.
No Cicero, you didn't answer "YES". You answered a 'qualified' YES.
I'm glad that this time you actually DID answer YES. We both agree that "in certain circumstances, lethal force is justified and legal."
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Yes, very good, AFTER it was heard before a court, it was deemed ILLEGAL. But those 120 soldiers that followed Calley's order's were acting legally, until a court, and evidence was presented, to find out it was ILLEGAL. Something that hasn't happened with the extrajudicial killing of U.S. citizen Anwar Al Awlaki.
You're getting there Joey...Little by Little...
No moron, you don't get it...he gave an illegal command and any soldier that obeyed his command obeyed an illegal command! There was nothing legal about it from the first word uttered.
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
No moron, you don't get it...he gave an illegal command and any soldier that obeyed his command obeyed an illegal command! There was nothing legal about it from the first word uttered.
Sorry, I forget, you can't keep up with the thread. Ummm...Obama gave an order to kill a U.S. citizen that is protected by the Bill of Rights, and specifically in this case, the 5th Amendment. The drone operator carried out the order. The victim hasn't had a day in court(like the victims of My Lai). The order to kill an American citizen was made in secret. If there is ever a court hearing, and the evidence is examined and questioned by the victim's attorney, the order to kill an American citizen may also be an illegal order. But, with no due process or transparency, it will just remain an extrajudicial execution of an American citizen.
See moron...evidence, cross examination, discovery, witness statements, are all the things that help find the truth. Something you seem to not understand or don't care about, when it comes to the execution of a U.S. citizen.
If the My Lai massacre never saw the light of day, and there was no hearing, then no crime.
Logged
