Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2010 9:58:54 GMT -5
YES..for any minister to lie let alone the prime minister to lie and take to war on a false premise is is punishable Punishable by whom and according to what statute? it may not be writen as against the law..but certainly would not be acceptable If it's not against the law, than it comports to the law. As such it is legally acceptable. would be a case for the courts and knowingly sending troops to war without the right equipment thus causing avoidable deaths and casualties would also ..while not writen in law be a case to answer some things do not have to be on the statute book..because before blair it was inconcievable that any prime minister would act in such a manner...inconcievable that any prime minister would act against the national interests of our people to serve the interests of a foriegn power he isnt known as the poodle for nothing you know we simply have to gather the proof..and already he is being recalled to face the chilcot enquirey again..the man is a consumate actor and twister of words.. plus of course how a man in debt can suddenly be worth 20 million in two years...there are cases to be answered by anthony charles linton blair Apparently you don't like Tony Blair. You haven't, however, established his guilt under the laws of England.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Jul 15, 2010 10:05:29 GMT -5
YES..for any minister to lie let alone the prime minister to lie and take to war on a false premise is is punishable Punishable by whom and according to what statute? If it's not against the law, than it comports to the law. As such it is legally acceptable. would be a case for the courts and knowingly sending troops to war without the right equipment thus causing avoidable deaths and casualties would also ..while not writen in law be a case to answer some things do not have to be on the statute book..because before blair it was inconcievable that any prime minister would act in such a manner...inconcievable that any prime minister would act against the national interests of our people to serve the interests of a foriegn power he isnt known as the poodle for nothing you know we simply have to gather the proof..and already he is being recalled to face the chilcot enquirey again..the man is a consumate actor and twister of words.. plus of course how a man in debt can suddenly be worth 20 million in two years...there are cases to be answered by anthony charles linton blair Apparently you don't like Tony Blair. You haven't, however, established his guilt under the laws of England. It doesn't work like that, joseph. I did tell you.... Impeachment, in the British sense, is an accusation of improper conduct or crime by an elected official. In the UK, an MP can stand up in the House of Commons on a point of order and move "that the Prime Minister be impeached." If the Speaker of the House permits, a debate will be held on the officials alleged high crimes and then a vote called. Should the vote go against the Prime Minister, they will be arrested by the Serjeant-at-Arms and then handed to Black Rod in the House of Lords, who will the decide if bail will be permitted. The MP who called the impeachment debate will then go to the House of Lordsand inform peers that impeachment proceedings have begun and that the articles for impeachment will be presented "in due time". Once the articles of impeachments have been formally passed to the Upper House, peers will set a date for the trial, which would probably be held in Westminster Hall. During the trials, the Lords would act as jury and the Commons would appoint 'managers' to act as counsel for the prosecution. After all sides1 have presented their evidence, the peers would be asked whether the Prime Minister is guilty or not guilty on each article of impeachment. Should the Prime Minister be found not guilty, impeachment is dismissed. However, if a verdict of guilty is returned by the Lords, MPs in the House of Commons will decide the sentence, which will probably be the removal of the Prime Minister from office. I hope this helps to clear things up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2010 10:07:08 GMT -5
so some one is to be executed...the civilised way is to just execute as cleanly and swiftly as is possible We have already established that no executions are civilized, no matter how they're done. There is no such thing as a civilized execution. only a sadist whishes to prolong and enjoy the procedure....thus temper justice with mercy The merciful don't execute in the first place. The merciful are opposed to capital punishment. You cannot mercifully kill someone if the merciful option is to refrain from killing. there was a case a few weeks ago of a 7yr old hung for treason how much more merciful if he had to be executed to have quickly shot him rather than prolong his suffering by hanging You just don't get it, do you. If you have already decided to kill a human being to punish him for what he's done, you have already considered mercy and rejected it. An execution is an execution, whether by lethal injection or by wood chipper. It has always been that way, and always will be. justice must always be tempered by mercy in a society which endeavers to be half way civilised The civilized do not execute. Period.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2010 10:12:08 GMT -5
execution is not for the benefit of the condeming..its to get rid of the offender so he/she cannot offend again That's crap. If Americans truly believed that, they'd execute every felon. As it is we execute less than 1 percent of those who have murdered. Furthermore, we could simply put murderers into a coma without killing them, if we were that concerned with their propensities to reoffend. We don't do that either. The safety argument has always been bogus and insincere. The purpose of capital punishment isn't safety. It's retribution -- nothing more and nothing less. As such it's defensible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2010 10:21:15 GMT -5
you said to the effect if they wanted democracy they would have to work/fight for it well excatly what DO YOU think they are doing?? they are fighting..working for the freedom the choose their gov a gov elected by fraud and manipulation They're not fighting. A few are. The vast majority are obviously comfortable with Iranian theocracy as it is. they are fighting against the full resources of the state...a state which will beat you sensless for simply holding hands a state which will rape with broken bottles a state which will bring in a trumped up charge and then bring the relatives of a prisoner and torture them infront of the said prisoner..just how many can stand to watch a 5yr old being gang raped...or their mother have her breasts cut off...or their fathers raped with a hot iron and those are some of the ""nicer"" persuasions The shah had the same resources and he was overthrown in favor of Islamist government. The same 70 million can overthrow the current regime in favor of something more amenable to western sympathies -- which is obviously what YOU want. and you say glibly they have to ""want democracy"" phhfftt how very easy to insult and belittle what these people are up against...very arogant and how easy to sit at a computer and spout they are still a bright and inventive people...their standards of education is very[some subjects are not allowed] but they are fighting unbelievable odds....and paying a very high price but one day they will win through...mean while they have to fight daily...they have to have bravery and guts daily untill they finally throw off the dreadful yoke of islam and its barbaric exponants It's not the government of Iran that's the problem. The people of Iran are the problem. They claim they want democracy, but they won't give up Islam. If the Iranians are so bright and inventive, why are they still Muslim?
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jul 15, 2010 12:56:50 GMT -5
thankyou fret...nothing is getting through punishable by us the people and there doesnt have to be a staute """"Today at 2:15am, mouse wrote:it may not be writen as against the law..but certainly would not be acceptable
"""If it's not against the law, than it comports to the law. As such it is legally acceptable.""" read what fret wrote..this is not america this is ENGLAND. part of the UK
if you cannot understand the concept of merv=cy with a system which has the death penalty..then that is YOUR problem
iran..you say they are not fighting just a few are...right you of course know much better than iranians ...well done you ""The shah had the same resources and he was overthrown in favor of Islamist government."" the sha.s regime was every bit as awful as the present regime..i believe too there was american interference..which was not welcome the sha was a despot of the first order......they had hoped for better under islamic rule
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jul 15, 2010 12:59:40 GMT -5
and no i and millions do not like poodle blair...the guilt is hovering in the air...one day he will trip himself up or papers will come to light..truth will out...same with his quick riches..where did they come from
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2010 13:32:28 GMT -5
this is ENGLAND. part of the UK I imagine you cannot prosecute and punish someone who complies with the law. Even in a little country like England. if you cannot understand the concept of merv=cy with a system which has the death penalty..then that is YOUR problem I'm not the one with the problem. I defend capital punishment as what it is -- a state's most violent form of retribution upon an offending citizen or subject. The people with the problem are alleged "pros" in the United States, of which I am a citizen, who cannot make up their minds when or why to condemn someone to death -- or what to do with murderers after they've been condemned to die. There is no such thing as a "merciful" execution, but we keep pretending otherwise, which is why the death penalty is dead in the United States. We can't even execute people like Andrea Yates, who brutally murdered five innocent children. the sha.s regime was every bit as awful as the present regime Precisely my point. i believe too there was american interference..which was not welcome the sha was a despot of the first order......they had hoped for better under islamic rule And yet Islamic rule persists, notwithstanding the pronounced objections of a small Iranian minority. This minority may be right, and worthy of support, but it's still the job of this minority to convince the majority of Iranians that secular, representative government is better for the population than theocracy. So far the majority of Iranians appear most unconvinced.
|
|
|
Post by Wonder Woman on Jul 16, 2010 0:11:20 GMT -5
I defend capital punishment as what it is -- a state's most violent form of retribution upon an offending citizen or subject. It seems like most people want to sugar coat execution, like it's okay to kill them as long as we don't hurt them in the process. If it was me I'd be saying you're taking my most prized possession from me and you want to show me mercy? Tell ya what, beat the crap outa me, stone me, pull my arms out their sockets, do whatever else you want to dream up and leave me with my life and I might consider you merciful. As things stand, who the f**k do you think you're kidding?
|
|
|
Post by liberaljoe on Jul 16, 2010 1:27:17 GMT -5
Death can come cleanly or be prolonged and agonizing. A bullet in the head or crucifixion. The 'mercy' aspect comes with the delibertae avoidance of physical pain. That is why we have the concept of mercy killing. There are degrees of mercy, mercy is not an absolute concept.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jul 16, 2010 2:39:37 GMT -5
i think there is a misunderstanding...i do not wish in any way to sugar coat execution..what i am saying is that if a person is to be executed it has to be done without the executioners getting some kick out of it...or drawing the execution out for some perverse notion of revenge execute cleanly and swiftly....then there would be no need of thoughts of mercy guy falks for eg was hung drawn and quartered..a dreadful death....more civilised would have been to have used the axe.......we no longer need to make exebhitions of criminals so sugar coating has nothing to do with it
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2010 5:56:34 GMT -5
Well, of course, I do NOT support capital punishment. Like Joseph, I take the view that there IS no such thing as a civilised or humane execution and therefore for that (among other reasons) I oppose the death penalty, just as he does (although he pretends otherwise, presumably because he wishes to shock people).
On the other hand, as LJ says, there are degrees of cruelty. It is a long way from hanging or lethally injecting someone to breaking them on the wheel or burning them at the stake.
And of course Joseph's theories of jurisprudence are so bizarre (satirical?) that he would NOT punish Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot or similar murderers and yet he WOULD punish an MVS who killed her daughter's murderer, a man (Tony Martin) who killed a burglar breaking into his home.
What a thoroughly distorted idea of justice!
As so often, Joseph shows himself to be an open and ardent advocate on behalf of criminals!
|
|
|
Post by Wonder Woman on Jul 16, 2010 7:20:10 GMT -5
Death can come cleanly or be prolonged and agonizing. A bullet in the head or crucifixion. The 'mercy' aspect comes with the delibertae avoidance of physical pain. That is why we have the concept of mercy killing. There are degrees of mercy, mercy is not an absolute concept. IMO, any mercy that we show is on our own behalf and not for the benefit of those we'd kill (in the US, rare murderers). Mercy killing is a death doled at someone who'd die an excruciating death without benefit of drugs (or a gun). When we execute we aren't doing so out of kindness, we're doing it because we want to. Since death is an ending (on this spinning ball) putting a merciful spin on that is impossible.
|
|
|
Post by Wonder Woman on Jul 16, 2010 7:37:20 GMT -5
i think there is a misunderstanding...i do not wish in any way to sugar coat execution.. I wasn't necessarily referring to you specifically. We kill a few murderers in the US even if incarceration stops them from ever killing again. So, we don't do it because we kill all first degree murderers. We release most murderers, so we don't do it to prevent murderers from killing again outside prison. And, since most murderers aren't going to face the dreaded needle, we don't do it because it's just. What's perverse is pretending it's not revenge (retaliation, retribution) and nothing more we seek. If/when a society is willing/wanting to kill on behalf of the citizenry, it ought be willing to do anything less than killing, since death, no matter how nicely it's offered, is the ultimate punishment.
|
|
|
Post by Wonder Woman on Jul 16, 2010 7:44:43 GMT -5
And, you would give MVS license to kill their family member's murderer........ as long as they're otherwise nice MVS?....... is it only okay after a trial finds them guilty or is it okay for those MVS to decide on guilt?.......... and what if they get it wrong? ~ that creates another set of innocent MVS who should (according to you) be allowed to off the murdering MVS who killed their loved one.
Mob rule and 'citizen's justice'.
Why bother with laws?
Why call it murder ever? Every murderer has a reason. You just want to protect those whose reason for murder you can sympathize with.
|
|