| Subject: Re: The Death Penalty – the most controversial of subjects |
Author:
kat
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 17:20:50 06/11/01 Mon
In reply to:
Chuckie
's message, "Re: The Death Penalty – the most controversial of subjects" on 12:55:02 06/11/01 Mon
>What gave him that idea? He was delusional and
>deranged.
Yes he was mentally unstable. On the whole its best to shoot the sick on sight. You'll be safe then.
>Does this give him the right to refuse a warrant? I
>see the scenario now:
>
>Cop 1: Ah, damn! He's delusional.
>
>Cop 2: Oh, man. He thinks we're gonna kill him,
>doesn't he.
>
>Cop 1: Yep. Guess we'll just forget it.
Gosh, that's so funny. My goodness, all those little incinerated children must have died laughing. They were collateral damage too.
>Children did die. Who put them in the dangerous
>situation?
The people firing the guns. The people filling the building with flammable gas. The people operating the flamethrowers.
>Again, were the officers of the law supposed to just
>pack up and leave when Koresh didn't submit to a
>warrent?
No, they were supposed to carry out their duty while safeguarding the rights and lives of the occupants of the compound.
>
>So, if you're paranoid, the warrant is void? I'll be
>sure to get an Officially Paraniod card and put it in
>my wallet.
If it makes you feel safer.
> Doing your
>job badly is not always the same thing as being
>criminal.
It is, if you are ordering up tanks and explosives and are prepared to use deadly force when you know that there will be children in the line of fire.
>Agreed. I get the feeling from a lot of people - not
>just you - that not handling it at all was the best
>way to go. That, I do not agree with.
Projection, misrepresentation. (Again). I have said no such thing.
>>>I just don't agree that anarchy is a better choice.
>>
>>Neither do I! I have not advocated anarchy in any of
>>my posts.
>
>Disallowing the right of officers of the law to serve
>arrest warrants on people seems fairly anarchic to me.
I haven't made that argument.
>Reacting in a knee-jerk, "me-too" way to accusations
>of the government being a pack of criminals strikes me
>as just as ignorant.
Totally agree. Who is doing that, then?
>What can I say? I tend to look at both sides of an
>argument, even if that means I don't agree with the
>"nothing is the bad guy's fault" party line.
Don't know what party you refer to here. This all seems very woolly and not at all to the point.
>>Hmm... Ever heard of the Macarthy hearings...
>>Watergate?
>
>Yes, actually. What about them?
A couple of examples, from history, of government officials lying to serve their own agendas.
>Were there warnings issued to the rest of the
>building's inhabitants?
No, even though it was believed that the second anniversary of Waco may be the focus of a terrorist attack.
I don't know if there were or
>not. Do you know if there were? Or are you assuming
>that they skipped out without telling anyone else
>because they're government employees? Do you even
>know for sure that they skipped "en masse", or did you
>hear it from someone who thinks the Waco ATF agents
>were a "goon squad"?
There was an extensive article in a broadsheet newspaper on the evidence that Mcveigh did not act alone and on the fact that there was a post-Waco investigation unit, monitoring the fundamentalist militias which was being run from that office. The majority of those workers did not show up for work that day. I don't know why - my point all along has been that there are huge areas of investigation which have not been covered and which will now be near impossible with his death. It is more than likely that not all the culprits have been caught. It also likely that the FBI know more about this case then they have so far revealed. (Were they not forced recently to admit that they withheld nearly 1000 documents pertaining to the case from McVeigh's defence team?)
>>I'm not slandering them, just stating
>>a fact. I have accused them of nothing.
>
>You have accused them of colluding (secret agreement
>or cooperation esp. for an illegal or deceitful
>purpose) with Timothy McVeigh - who blew up a building
>full of people who were not involved with the Waco
>disaster and then refered to the dead babies as
>"collateral damage". That's an ugly line no matter
>who utters it, be they Air Force officers or
>"patriots" (she says with a great, sarcastic sneer in
>her voice) like McVeigh.
I haven't actually. What I have said is that not all that there is to be known about this awful event has yet been discovered and revealed. In the interests of the victims and to prevent a similar chain of events occurring again, would it not be better to investigate the entire picture carefully?
>That seems rather slanderous to me, and a bit
>farfetched.
Better than burying your head in the sand and imagining that with Mcveigh's death comes closure.
>Waco was a huge mess, with everyone pointing the
>finger of blame and no one willing to accept full
>responsibility. My personal opinion is that there was
>no full responsibility to be placed in any one spot,
>and that Koresh seems to be conveniently forgotten in
>the finger pointing. In a case like that, there's no
>way questions are going to be "adequately answered",
>because no matter what "answers" are put forth, there
>will be an instant and loud refrain of "LIARS!"
And yet, when government agencies are allowed to use such deadly tactics, it is more important than ever that proper judicious accounting does take place.
>The best a person can do in such a case is think for
>themselves - if they're capable of it -
I do so agree!! LOL
and decide
>what they think happened and understand that no one
>will ever truly know.
Certainly while investigations are faint hearted and there is no real commitment to the truth.
>
>I'm an American. Americans been called a few
>uncomplimentary names on this board. That makes it
>personal. I would expect anyone else to feel the same
>if they were called barbarian for being the citizen of
>whatever country they live in.
Yes, but not by me. So it is neither fair nor helpful to address my points with misplaced aggressiveness.
kat
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 