Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Russ Feingold: Obama Super PAC Reversal Will Lead To 'A Legalized Abramoff System' [View all]FedUp_Queer
(975 posts)What I was pointing out was that the person standing in front of the building example might be justified (I was using that example to contrast chasing a car with two men in the desert who posed no imminent threat). However, I think killing is always wrong. There are ways to incapacitate people without killing them. Finally, as for the guy being unarmed in the jeep in the desert, the reports were that the men in the jeep were unarmed. Either way, even if they had guns, they posed nobody any imminent threat. So...I'm a purist when it comes to due process. In the same way we afforded due process to the NAZI High Command at Nuremberg, that Milosevic received due process, that Manson received due process, that Eichmann received due process, I think, when any government (or entity, such as the ICC) accuses someone of a crime, that person should receive due process consistent with international law, as currently codified in Article 66 of the Rome Statute (or Municipal Law as in the U.S. or State Constitution). Does that mean bin Laden? Yep. Does that mean Saddam Hussein? Yep. Does that mean George Bush? Yep. Does that mean Charles Taylor? Yep. That even means Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Don Rumsfeld or Doug Feith.