-
 Originally Posted by cactusboy
No I can't...just because you aren't convicted of something doesn't mean you didn't commit a crime. Goes w/ out say if you think about it.
Being convicted or not convicted would assume there was a trial of some sort...there hasn't even been a trial of any kind regarding this.
I'd say it goes without saying, in that regard, that you can't then "define" something as illegal. Your personal feelings on the issue notwithstanding.
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)
“Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you.” -- (Benjamin Franklin)
-
Originally Posted by cactusboy
It's a good question. What's it called before you're convicted of it? If I murder someone w/ many witnesses and video tape, and then commit suicide, have I not committed a crime? What do you call it then? I would say I committed a crime that I wasn't convicted of.
Not if that murder was justified.
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)
“Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you.” -- (Benjamin Franklin)
-
Scout Team
Originally Posted by redmachine
Being convicted or not convicted would assume there was a trial of some sort...there hasn't even been a trial of any kind regarding this.
I'd say it goes without saying, in that regard, that you can't then "define" something as illegal. Your personal feelings on the issue notwithstanding.
I've never said anyone was convicted. I think if enough credible and knowledgeable people agree an act is illegal, then it's probably illegal. By credible I don't mean the people that are accused or their friends/family.
-
Originally Posted by cactusboy
I've never said anyone was convicted. I think if enough credible and knowledgeable people agree an act is illegal, then it's probably illegal. By credible I don't mean the people that are accused or their friends/family.
You called Bush a "war criminal." That's the same as saying he's been convicted. He's not a war criminal because you found a quote from 2004 by Kofi Annan that you agree with. That appears to be about the sum total of your "enough credible and knowledgeable people" at this point.
Originally Posted by Warhorse
Never been on a liberal blog in my life.
-
Scout Team
Originally Posted by redmachine
Not if that murder was justified.
Do you mean like self defense? If so then it's not murder. That's why I made the distinction of saying murder. So for discussion's sake we'll go w/ it being murder or even unjustified murder if that's better. I'm not talking about Iraq. Simply that if you can commit a crime even if you were dead before convicted. Again, I would say it's clearly a crime committed but not convicted of.
-
Scout Team
Originally Posted by McKinneyTXHusker
You called Bush a "war criminal." That's the same as saying he's been convicted.
That may be how you took it, but not what I meant nor is it the same. You may not believe it, but I was aware he's never been convicted of war crimes.
update - actually I don't think I called Bush a war criminal. Although he is.
-
Originally Posted by cactusboy
That may be how you took it, but not what I meant not is it the same. You may not believe it, but I was aware he's never been convicted of war crimes.
Great, glad you've changed your mind. "War criminal" = "convicted of war crimes" so its nice to know that we now agree that's not true.
Originally Posted by Warhorse
Never been on a liberal blog in my life.
-
Scout Team
Originally Posted by McKinneyTXHusker
Great, glad you've changed your mind. "War criminal" = "convicted of war crimes" so its nice to know that we now agree that's not true.
I fixed my previous reply.
-
Originally Posted by cactusboy
I fixed my previous reply.
No, you further obfuscated your previous reply, and pretty much everyone sees it. Once again "war criminal" is equal to "convicted of war crimes" so since you can't seem to make up your mind about it, I'll just leave you to further spin in the wind. 
Originally Posted by Warhorse
Never been on a liberal blog in my life.
-
Scout Team
Originally Posted by McKinneyTXHusker
No, you further obfuscated your previous reply, and pretty much everyone sees it. Once again "war criminal" is equal to "convicted of war crimes" so since you can't seem to make up your mind about it, I'll just leave you to further spin in the wind.
I already said you can commit a crime even if you are never convicted of it. Is a suicide bombing a crime?
-
Originally Posted by cactusboy
I've never said anyone was convicted. I think if enough credible and knowledgeable people agree an act is illegal, then it's probably illegal. By credible I don't mean the people that are accused or their friends/family.
What credible and knowledgeable people agree on has no bearing on what the fact is. The fact is that no authority has deemed the invasion of Iraq to be illegal. Simply saying they are guilty does not mean they are in fact guilty. As you mentioned before, we have courts with laws and procedures to do that.
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)
“Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you.” -- (Benjamin Franklin)
-
Originally Posted by cactusboy
Do you mean like self defense? If so then it's not murder. That's why I made the distinction of saying murder. So for discussion's sake we'll go w/ it being murder or even unjustified murder if that's better. I'm not talking about Iraq. Simply that if you can commit a crime even if you were dead before convicted. Again, I would say it's clearly a crime committed but not convicted of.
Not sure why you are using the murder analogy. The United States and/or The U.K. are not "dead". They are still there to be tried and possibly convicted of supposed illegal activity. If they committed an offense, then they need to be prosecuted.
If the invasion is clearly illegal, as you have suggested, clear as to be defined as illegal, then why no prosecution? Why not even an attempt? No rebuke at all?
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)
“Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you.” -- (Benjamin Franklin)
-
Scout Team
Originally Posted by redmachine
What credible and knowledgeable people agree on has no bearing on what the fact is. The fact is that no authority has deemed the invasion of Iraq to be illegal. Simply saying they are guilty does not mean they are in fact guilty. As you mentioned before, we have courts with laws and procedures to do that.
That's what I said...there has been no conviction or even trial. Just that the UN and the Charter say it was an illegal war. We agree on this.
I go on to say a crime was committed that no one was convicted of. This can happen just as a suicide bomber commits a crime that's they are never convicted of. Although there can still be a trial/conviction on this. Don't see a trial happening considering the US's history of their veto use though.
At this point we can probably just copy and past each others' last post in reply to each other. 
-
Afghanistan is more of a "legal" war than Iraq ever will be. JIMLO.
Originally Posted by CombatTargeteer
I trust 57
Originally Posted by HuskerWeatherman
He is the messiah.
-
Scout Team
Speaking of US war crimes. Do you know what happens when the US is convicted of them? They ignore it, which is what they did when we were found guilty for our terrorism of Nicaragua.
update
This is related to the subject of the thread, but we can stop discussion on it if its considered a thread jack let me know and we can not have the discussion or make a new thread.
-
The UN charter is so great that countries like Syria are on the Human Rights committee and might rotate into the chairman role in the next few months. Oh the moral authority of that UN Charter...
"When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson
-
Scout Team
Originally Posted by FLA4NEB
The UN charter is so great that countries like Syria are on the Human Rights committee and might rotate into the chairman role in the next few months. Oh the moral authority of that UN Charter...
There are few countries that have a moral authority.
-
Originally Posted by FLA4NEB
The UN charter is so great that countries like Syria are on the Human Rights committee and might rotate into the chairman role in the next few months. Oh the moral authority of that UN Charter...
The UN has outlived its purpose. It is obsolete, JIMLO.
Originally Posted by CombatTargeteer
I trust 57
Originally Posted by HuskerWeatherman
He is the messiah.
-
Originally Posted by cactusboy
There are few countries that have a moral authority.
which ones?
"When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson
-
Originally Posted by FLA4NEB
which ones?
why, the USA, of course. 
not.
Originally Posted by CombatTargeteer
I trust 57
Originally Posted by HuskerWeatherman
He is the messiah.
|
|
Reply With Quote
