Look, I don't even know why we're debating this. The guy was responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people. Men, women and children. Little babies. He did not deny this – hell, he reveled in it. Wore it as a badge of honor. Dude was guilty as sin. And some whiny bitches are wringing their hands whining and bitching about giving the dude a trial? Give me a break. Putting him on trial would take forever, give him a platform, stir up the crazies... and there's always the non-zero probability he could be found innocent. A trial is fruitlessly pro forma in a case like this.
Obviously – painfully so – George W. Bush should be summarily executed.
Oh boy.
ReplyDeleteYou sure like a brawl, which is to your credit. Still, I worry.
Oops, didn't read the last line. What about Obama though. He's quite the murderer himself.
ReplyDeleteSo you DO believe in the Death Penalty! Libertarian FAKER!!!
ReplyDelete;)
Bravo, Charles, for making it painfully clear to all the Winston Smiths of the world why deviating from the rule of law unravels into absurdity.
ReplyDeletePortmanteur, libertarians do not necessarily deny the right to execute criminals. What they do deny is a right to commit aggression, and homicide is not necessarily an occasion of aggression.
ReplyDeleteFor example, if you vote for some bleeding hearts, and the bleeding hearts encourage cops to go to someone's house to shake down the owners or occupants for a contribution to the bleeding hearts' favorite charities, it is not aggression to fight back. If there is no way to ward off the aggression but by killing the cops, then the death penalty is justified and may be imposed on the cops at the time of their aggression.
The only exception of which I am aware to the rule is to recover ill-gotten gain.
Charles, I suppose that forming an unbiased jury would be difficult to do given that most people are barbarous; they do most of their thinking with the portions of their genomes that they have in common with nonhuman primates. Even worse, many of them use a mere question as a license for a spasm of rage. As for the actions of GWB, many of the aforementioned barbarians are prejudiced by preconceived beliefs about GWB that were not arrived at through careful deliberation.
ReplyDeleteStill, why don't you prepare an indictment? Don't neglect evidence for charges such as conspiracy, assault, battery, malicious destruction of property, and illicit conversion of property to GWB's own use. It would not be necessary to convict him of homicide or murder, though I suppose that making a fetish of these charges would be emotionally gratifying. I think that you would have an easier time convicting him of malicious destruction of property, however, given that you don't need to produce a body, to attach a name to it, or to show that its owner was indeed killed by the attack carried out by the armed forces of the USA or those acting in league with them.
The property I have first in mind is buildings and moveable items that are not themselves alive. There is plenty of video evidence to substantiate the accusation here. The destruction of human bodies by the military forces of USA certainly counts as malicious, but these acts would be separate counts not to be confused with the destruction of houses, autos, etc. On occasion it might be possible to obtain video evidence of attacks that were cases of battery or murder. For example, Wikileaks published the video “Collateral Murder”. You may not be able to identify the chopper pilot or intermediate commanders in the chain of command, but we know who the identity of the commander in chief at the time of the assault, battery, malicious destruction of property, and the murder.
The charge concerning conversion is a reference to using the treasury, the borrowing power of government, and the taxing power to finance the aggression.
[To be continued.]
I just want to say that you are in fine form these days dearest Charles. Good to have you back at it.
ReplyDeleteOn second thought, Portmanteur, an attempt to recover ill-gotten gain is not an act of aggression at all and so does not count as an exception to the rule prohibiting aggression. But such a recovery is not what the bleeding hearts of my example would be doing, though I'm sure they'd be quick to rationalize their aggression as such.
ReplyDeleteCharles, I suppose that forming an unbiased jury would be difficult to do given that most people are barbarous; they do most of their thinking with the portions of their genomes that they have in common with nonhuman primates. Even worse, many of them use a mere question as a license for a spasm of rage. As for the actions of GWB, many of the aforementioned barbarians are prejudiced by preconceived beliefs about GWB that were not arrived at through careful deliberation.
ReplyDeleteStill, why don't you prepare an indictment? Don't neglect evidence for charges such as conspiracy, assault, battery, malicious destruction of property, and illicit conversion of property to GWB's own use. It would not be necessary to convict him of homicide or murder to convict him of these, though I suppose that making a fetish of these charges would be emotionally gratifying. I think that you would have an easier time convicting him of malicious destruction of property, however, given that you don't need to produce a body, to attach a name to it, or to show that its owner was indeed killed by the attack carried out by the armed forces of the USA or those acting in league with them.
The property I have first in mind is buildings and moveable items that are not themselves alive. There is plenty of video evidence to substantiate the accusation here. Now, the destruction of human bodies by the military forces of USA certainly counts as malicious, but these acts would be separate counts not to be confused with the destruction of houses, autos, etc. On occasion it might be possible to obtain video evidence of particular attacks that were cases of battery or murder. For example, Wikileaks published the video “Collateral Murder” showing these very crimes carried out by a helicopter pilot. You may not be able to identify the pilot or intermediate commanders in the chain of command, but we know who the identity of the commander in chief at the time of the assault, battery, malicious destruction of property, and the murder.
The charge concerning conversion is a reference to using the treasury, the borrowing power of government, and the taxing power to finance the aggression.
[To be continued.]
Charles, you deleted my other comments, which contradicted your cravings for the immediate gratification of your malice.
ReplyDeleteWhy did you do that?
Dear "Liberal",
ReplyDeleteI did not delete your comments; I have received copies of them via email, but they are not appearing on the site, so I'm assuming the problem's with Blogger (it's been happening all week).
I would point out, however, satire.
Perhaps I'm just a slow southerner, but I'm disgusted by the reaction to the OBL assassination. I can't take joy in killing anyone. Did bin laden deserve to die? Hell yeah! Is it wrong for the state to kill someone without a trial? Hell yeah x2! Due process is one the things that make us better. The constitution protects our rights. These rights are not bestowed, but are ours because of being born. They do not end at our borders. The only thing that does is our ability to protect and enforce those rights. So that means we must put Obushma and co on trial before their execution.
ReplyDeleteAnd from a slow northerner, I'm appalled, too. The days of 'liberty and justice for all' seem to be a quaint relic of the past. Now all we seem to stand for is, torture, execution, and undeclared war.
ReplyDeleteHow much longer before the rest of the world gets really, really tired of that and decides to do something about it? They may not have to. We might just spend our way to extinction before too much longer.
¿Satire? ¿Really? ¡I missed it entirely!
ReplyDeleteWell, no.
Speaking of your shallow thought and your sophomoric sense of humor, you wrote:
"Charles Davis: An independent journalist working from an undisclosed location." This statement you affirm every day from a Nicaraguan town called "San Juan del Sur", or so you claim.
¡Qué gracioso! Har har, funny man.
Now, why don't you get a parttime job in a little mercado in San Juan del Sur hauling heavy, wet vegetables, fish, and so on? It's an antidote indicated for your pseudintellectualism. Unfortunately, you might find yourself in company with other workshy intellectuals who are basically just like you but who lack your sharpened wit and refined skill for clever wordsmithing, at least in English, anyway.
Liberal,
ReplyDeleteYour writing ability is on par with your reading comprehension.
-- Charles
Chomsky stole your joke! Maybe you should sue.
ReplyDeleteChomsky stole your joke! Maybe you should sue.
ReplyDeleteAll my best material is stolen. Usually by me.