General Discussion

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)

41. Legal doesn't mean 'right'. And while lawyers may choose to simply accept bad laws and operate

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 05:10 PM

Oct 2012

under them, we the people have no such obligation thankfully. Our duty is to speak out against that which is obviously wrong. That is the beginning of how bad laws get changed.

Drones are being sold now to other nations. What happens when THEY decide to use them against us? What happens when some Chinese equivalent of the CIA sits thousands of miles away and targets someone in the US who according to them, is an 'enemy combatant' and in the process kills innocent children and other bystanders?

It's only a matter of time before these weapons are in the hands of other countries. I hope that those who are supporting their misuse by the US will be equally supportive of their misuse by any other nation who decides to follow our example.

My position and the OP's will be the same, consistently opposed to the murder of innocents regardless of who is doing it.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

93 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Time to put an end to summary executions and drone strikes in the Middle East. [View all] Zalatix Oct 2012 OP

Yes, let's turn them against medical practices which don't take Medicare! jberryhill Oct 2012 #1

Nah, how about turning them against patients who can't afford cash-only doctors? Zalatix Oct 2012 #2

Troll? jberryhill Oct 2012 #3

Your first post was an off-topic way over the top attack based on another thread. AKA Trolling. Zalatix Oct 2012 #4

How can it be a falsehood? jberryhill Oct 2012 #5

Because it IS a falsehood. Zalatix Oct 2012 #6

Weaseling? jberryhill Oct 2012 #7

More off-topic weaseling. Zalatix Oct 2012 #9

You'd probably use drones on off-topic weasels, too! jberryhill Oct 2012 #10

Going by your troll logic, I could say you'd probably vote Republican. Zalatix Oct 2012 #11

It can be proven false quite easily jberryhill Oct 2012 #12

That's not proof of how you vote at the ballot box. It is evidence, but not proof. Zalatix Oct 2012 #13

Yeah, unfortunately, I'm a complete nincompoop about law jberryhill Oct 2012 #14

I used to support the Hiroshima bombing due to the black and white logic of Zalatix Oct 2012 #22

Well, I do not support the bombing of Hiroshima jberryhill Oct 2012 #30

As I said downthread, moral right isn't the same as legal right. Zalatix Oct 2012 #32

No. It's you who won't listen to attorneys explain to you, yet again, that what you claim is not msanthrope Oct 2012 #17

It is NOT legally accurate. You are in fact quite wrong. Zalatix Oct 2012 #23

The law requires no trial of anyone for the president to launch nukes at will jberryhill Oct 2012 #34

My post was in reference to my stand on politics, not what the President's authority is. Zalatix Oct 2012 #39

Legal doesn't mean 'right'. And while lawyers may choose to simply accept bad laws and operate sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #41

I think there is some confusion among some about my OP. Zalatix Oct 2012 #42

Um--when you conveniently forget the AUMF of 9/18/01, you indicate that you have no idea msanthrope Oct 2012 #51

Did you support Bush's invasion of Iraq? sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #18

Ha, no I did not jberryhill Oct 2012 #27

Legal authority and moral authority are two different things. Zalatix Oct 2012 #29

Okay, then you can stop going on about the "illegality" of drone strikes jberryhill Oct 2012 #36

A drone strike, on a US citizen on US soil? Zalatix Oct 2012 #40

Then you must have loved Saddam Hussein, no? sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #31

No jberryhill Oct 2012 #35

I'm not sure if you fully got the point of my OP. Zalatix Oct 2012 #43

So you agree, then, that you don't have a legal argument, but an emotional one? nt msanthrope Oct 2012 #54

My OP wasn't discussing the LEGALITY of it at all. Zalatix Oct 2012 #65

Take a look at the Gulf of Aden on a map. Now, what do you see? nt msanthrope Oct 2012 #68

I see Somalia and Pirate Alley Zalatix Oct 2012 #71

And what else? nt msanthrope Oct 2012 #74

Nothing that represents an invasion risk or an attack risk on the United States. Zalatix Oct 2012 #76

Look harder. nt msanthrope Oct 2012 #92

Ah, yes, the seafaring environmental activists of Somalia jberryhill Oct 2012 #85

If someone started dumping nuclear waste in America's waters and stealing our fish Zalatix Oct 2012 #89

People have done those things in American waters jberryhill Oct 2012 #91

"...aside to plunder resources." EX500rider Oct 2012 #72

Saddam Hussein was invaded because he planned to sell oil in Euros instead of dollars. Zalatix Oct 2012 #75

When the Euro is strong it would cost more.. EX500rider Oct 2012 #77

Yes it is an example of plundering. WE INVADED A NATION to keep oil cheap! Zalatix Oct 2012 #78

Your mistake starts at "we." JackRiddler Oct 2012 #82

I was simply applying your logic to the situation. If you DON'T support one thing, then sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #44

Wasn't there some leader of France treestar Oct 2012 #8

I am ok with that, when terrorists leaders put an end to summary executions bluestate10 Oct 2012 #15

Then you agree with the tactics of terrorists. Do we solve murders by murdering them sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #19

How is the AUMF of 9/18/01 not Constitutional? nt msanthrope Oct 2012 #21

So you support the Bush Doctrine then? sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #37

I asked you a question. What is unconstitutional about the AUMF, passed by Congress? And, no. nt msanthrope Oct 2012 #49

I didn't support the AUMF and after seeing who voted for it, they never got my support sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #60

The one of 2001, yes. The one of 2002, no. n t msanthrope Oct 2012 #61

Quote of the century. We don't beat terrorists by BECOMING terrorists. Zalatix Oct 2012 #24

I get all misty when someone uses the "T" word wtmusic Oct 2012 #69

Define Terrorist in a way that points to the Middle East's actions and not our military's... Zalatix Oct 2012 #80

I can't. wtmusic Oct 2012 #81

LOL sorry, that wasn't actually directed at YOU. It was intended to boost your point. Zalatix Oct 2012 #83

Crossing sovereign borders of countries with which we are not at war woo me with science Oct 2012 #16

I'd have been just fine with a drone strike to Bin Laden under Bush. You? nt msanthrope Oct 2012 #20

So let's say Afghanistan launches a drone to strike at American troops who killed civilians there? Zalatix Oct 2012 #25

You really think that's going to happen? nt msanthrope Oct 2012 #55

Of course not, we're the big bad global bully. Zalatix Oct 2012 #64

Your wish, and the American people's wish, to get Bin Laden woo me with science Oct 2012 #28

What justifies the drone strikes is the AUMF of 9/18/01, and the cooperation of the countries msanthrope Oct 2012 #53

My argument "fails" because you refuse to address it. woo me with science Oct 2012 #56

Woo, let's stop pretending that Pakistan isn't playing both sides of this game--- msanthrope Oct 2012 #57

+1,000! Zalatix Oct 2012 #79

Don't you know? AUMF trumps all. Gives us authority to kill at will. neverforget Oct 2012 #84

No, I would not mainly because he was never even charged with being involved in 9/11. sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #38

He was killed in Pakistan, not Afghanistan. nt msanthrope Oct 2012 #50

What has that got to do with my comment? sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #59

You wrote about Afghanistan turning him over. They didn't have him....Pakistan did. nt msanthrope Oct 2012 #62

I wrote that in response to your statement that you would have supported Bush sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #63

OBL was in Pakistan for most of the Bush presidency. But I would have supported a drone strike in msanthrope Oct 2012 #67

OBL was in Afghanistan when the Taliban made the offer to hand him over. sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #87

Wait a minute--Are you doubting that OBL did 9/11?? You don't think OBL did 9/11? msanthrope Oct 2012 #93

This message was self-deleted by its author sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #58

But..but..we're murdering them for their own good..to spread democracy and stuff. Tierra_y_Libertad Oct 2012 #26

Bingo. Zalatix Oct 2012 #33

Is there an advantage to addressing this issue now as opposed to 1 month from now? (nt) Nye Bevan Oct 2012 #45

Nope. In fact I'll be sure to address this issue at the proper time. Zalatix Oct 2012 #48

Maybe for the people who will be blown to smithereens between now and then wtmusic Oct 2012 #70

Dead children don't know how to wait until after the election? Puregonzo1188 Oct 2012 #73

Next month it will not be useful to advance the "they're all the same" thing jberryhill Oct 2012 #86

Yes, for those who will be the victims of more drone attacks between now and then. sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #88

Some Americans are expressing what you're saying, but will take louder voices, more outraged sad sally Oct 2012 #46

Code Pink! I know their donation URL almost by heart. Zalatix Oct 2012 #66

Let's just get the hell out of the ME and leave them to thier own devices. Whovian Oct 2012 #47

The drone attacks are fuking stupid. darkangel218 Oct 2012 #52

No. sagat Oct 2012 #90