Russ Feingold: Obama Super PAC Reversal Will Lead To 'A Legalized Abramoff System'

[24601]

114. Absolutes are always wrong.... It did seem that your post had

a self-contradiction.

In one part you wrote, "The government killing people, who happen to be citizens, absent a trial, absent a presentation of charges, is always wrong, particularly when that person is riding in a jeep in the desert unarmed."

But then you added later, "This is not as if this was a person standing in front of a building with explosives strapped to his person ready to blow up a building." So this implied you were changing course and presenting the case when it's OK to kill them, absent a trial. Did you intend to carve out exceptions? If so, that negates the absolutes.

I believe that there are plenty of circumstances when the killing is justified including but not limited to being ready to blow up a building. Hold a gun, knife, glass of acid, billy club or whatever on any of my family (or likewise threaten any other person, or even our little beagle) and you're a fair target. Rob a bank and refuse to drop your gun and/or halt and you're a fair target. Reach for a gun in the vicinity of the President and you're a fair target. US citizenship or lack thereof is not a relevant factor in my view. I would argue also that even though intercepting an individual's communications is a lesser degree of force than a hellfire missile, I support the President's decision.

And just out of curiosity, how do you know anyone riding in a jeep was armed or unarmed? I'd bet a donut or apple fritter that most, if not all those in the jeep were packing. But unless you were there, we don't really know, do we?

But like I started, absolutes are always wrong. Irony of the statement is absolutely intentional.