|
|
 | | Re: Excellent news!
|
| (...) I see that you are rebutting my "equivocation" with a straw man. Nowhere do I claim that the murderer is blameless, but I don't equate his "blamefulness" (sorry about that malapropism) with some "right" to execute him. And the person (or (...) (19 years ago, 4-Jan-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Excellent news!
|
| --SNIP-- (...) Preserving the sanctity of life by State-sanctioned killing. Interesting argument there. Tim (19 years ago, 4-Jan-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Excellent news!
|
| (...) I reject your equivocation. In one case, the victim is an innocent, and in the other the "victim" is a coldblooded murderer. Being rendered "harmless" does in no way make a person "blameless". (...) No system is perfect. To criticize otherwise (...) (19 years ago, 4-Jan-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Excellent news!
|
| (...) Since I dragged Bruce back into this, I'll field the question for him (though he's welcome to refute or add to it, of course!) (...) Of course not! The execution of a person who has been rendered harmless is indistinguishable from coldblooded (...) (19 years ago, 4-Jan-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Excellent news!
|
| (...) So let me get this straight-- is it conditional for me to prove that everyone ever executed actually committed their crimes and then you’ll agree to the death penalty? What about the fate of a man who kills 5 women and children during a (...) (19 years ago, 4-Jan-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Excellent news!
|
| (...) Dang, my name is still being dragged into this nine months later - I've heard of a pregnant pause..... -->Bruce<-- (19 years ago, 3-Jan-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Excellent news!
|
| (...) And so was (URL) this guy,> so the point is served once more. Dave! (19 years ago, 3-Jan-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Rückkehr der Raumnazin
|
| (...) In fact, this has only "always" been the case since Dubya created the term "enemy combatant" out of the firmament. It didn't exist prior to his declaration of permanent war on terror, at least not as a supra-legal designator for "people whom (...) (19 years ago, 3-Jan-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Rückkehr der Raumnazin
|
| (...) Enemy combatants are treated differently than US citizens. This has always been the case. (...) Well, if you had Christian leaders invecting from the pulpit to incarcerate Muslims, I might be inclined to agree (which is the analogy to Mullahs (...) (19 years ago, 2-Jan-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Rückkehr der Raumnazin
|
| (...) But that's the whole problem. The only evidence we have that these detainees are terrorists is, basically, Dubya's assertion that they're terrorists. They're denied all due process and access to lawyers, and in many cases they've been held for (...) (19 years ago, 2-Jan-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
|
