Whenever someone gets down far enough to target Paul Wolfowitz, you know they've been reading from a Democrat political hit list. If there was any doubt to begin with.
A good one this week is Steve Cambone from the DoD. A real household name. People that barely even know who Bush is have been waxing all morning about Cambone like he's been on their minds for years. Cambone is tied to the charges of Rumsfield establishing a doctrine for interrogation and abuse as reported by the New Yorker this weekend.
WmB
To reply, get the HECK out of there snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net
That's what the 10+ years of appeal after appeal is for.
Ummm, Would that be the LAW?
You missed one small but important part of the definition of murder. Murder is the UNLAWFUL and premeditated taking of another human life. Lawful execution is not, well, unlawful.
" In walks the village idiot and his face is all aglow; he's been up all night listening to Mohammad's radio" W. Zevon
The definition of "murder" started getting fuzzy when the words of the original commandment was changed fro "Thou shall not murder" to "Though shall not kill".
LOL. Don't take it personally. I was actually referring to the differences between the Eastern and Western perspectives. And check with your local Al-Qaeda representative about their views on your 'civilisation'. Probably somewhat the same as your views on theirs?
I try not to.
And look at the mess it's got you into. :P But, there's only 20 million or so of us here, and most of us don't believe a word that our politicians say. And most of *them* don't listen to us. So we all get on jus' fine.
Bill, by your standards, the Nazi's execution of the Jews was not murder. It was the law in Germany at the time, so therefore, just. From our perspective, it was unjust, true - but IT WAS THE LAW! And please, no-one start a thread about the Holocaust. As I said, there's the "legal' definition and the "moral" definition.
10+ years of appeals - sometimes it takes more than 10 years for new evidence / techniques to come to light; we all know that. A dead man cannot say "See, I told you I was innocent".
I would suggest, sir, you look up the definition of "murder." What you have described fits it not.
Ed "If an enemy power is bent on conquering you, and proposed to turn all of his resources to that end, he is at war with you; and you -- unless you contemplate surrender -- are at war with him." --Barry Goldwater
Since I live in the middle of the former's hunting grounds here's my take......death......1/4 mile headstart then close the bolt, minimum 20 rounds each. And being an illegal, Malvo has no rights as far as I'm concerned. Those two should also be tried under the anti-terror laws as they certainly did terrorize the area.
And the conjugation of a hamster and a trolley car is marriage? Stretch a word far enough and it loses all meaning. The death penalty is defined by the law, so the legal niceities cannot be set aside when argiubng against it, unless you're noww making a religious argument. That's why the law has the word 'homicide'--killing of one person by another. And voluntary manslaughter--potentially pre-meditated, but mitigated. And justifiable homicide. Someone comes after you with a knife, so you cold-c*ck him with a caber (you're a strong Scotsman, let's say), hitting him on the head very hard, with exactly that intention, not caring much what effect said caber massage has on him. Justifiable homicide as self-defense. Anyway, this is about U.S. legal systems--and for that matter, Anglo-Saxon legal systems. That definition above comes straight from English common law, and is the foundation of Australian law relating to murder as much as it is U.S. Murder is what's left when all the justifications, excuses and mitigations are discarded, and all that's left is unvarnished culpability. Premeditation isn't even a test for murder--it applies only to first-degree murder, and not all first degree murders require premeditation either, e.g. felony murder (murder committed during or adjunct to the commission of another serious crime) does not always require a premeditative showing.
I still don't like the death penalty, for many of the reasons you've noted, but describing it as murder is legally inaccurate and the next thing to hysteria (believe me, I saw a lot of that in law school when students made all the arguments you're making to 'prove' to the professor that the death penalty was itself murder).
The case you cite below was not in any way pre-meditated, nor was it contributed to in any way by the actions of the driver, unless you want to count the decision to travel on the freeway at that particular time, which is not relevant. I feel for the driver and the sister and also the other motorists - but the ones to blame here are the grief-stricken parents. Why? The yard should have been fenced (maybe it was). The kids should have been told, again and again, with a bit of the strap if required, about the dangers of crossing the freeway until it sunk in. Etc, etc. Here in Qld, we've just had a blanket speed limit of 50kph enforced on all our suburban streets. Ostensibly, it's to protect the little kiddies who run out onto the roads, but it was (maybe?) just a vote getting thing for the State Govt. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a good idea, but put into place for the wrong reasons. How is it that I, a 37yo, unmarried, childless male, is made responsible for the conduct and parenting skills (or lack thereof) of every careless, unknowing SOB and his wife in the state? Because that's what it comes down to. If I run over a child on the street, it's my fault. Not the parents', who should have been looking after li'l Freddie a bit more, but mine, and I'm the one who'll do time or wear it in some other way, if only by being known as 'that bloke that run over the kid'. It seems that everything these days is someone else's fault, and no-one has the balls to own up to their mistakes anymore. :)
WmB wrote in message
Not this li'l black duck. Guilty is as guilty does.
They can make the leap to the
See above. But you're right re the leap towards guilty.
OK, I can see your point here, and agree with the 'innocent child' thing. BUT, not meaning to sound cruel, isn't the killing of someone in their 30s (eg) MORE of a crime, from a societal point of view? Think of the wasted education, the wasted health money, the wasted workplace training etc. A child, although full of potential, has not had any real effort invested in it yet, so it's no great loss, in real terms. *That's my intellectual view* - realistically, if I had to give my life to save a child (or anyone) I hope I would have the courage to be able to do so. My tolerance levels are very low when it comes to anyone needlessly losing their life.
I'm not familiar with the cases (don't watch the news much, too damn depressing). The death penalty for them? No. Life (and I do mean life!) with *useful* hard labour, certainly. But not death. Not even if they'd killed one of my nearest.
Why the exceptions for the 'accidental killers'? If I get behind the wheel of a car while I'm knowingly *non compis* (whatever the reason) and kill someone, doesn't that make it a pre-meditated act? REGARDLESS of the intention to kill a specific individual, if someone dies due to my deliberate act, then I should be held as accountable as the bloke with the rifle. I'm a scaffolder and rigger (among other things) and I have to think about these things all the time at work - if I f**k up and some dies or is injured, they come looking for me. If I'm not sure, I get a second opinion. If I don't know, or don't have the skill, I say so. I'm responsible for other's safety in my workplace, and I do my job the best I can. An old Aussie saying - 'Near enough's good enough' just don't cut the mustard in some places.
Freeway accident tale
Of course not. Some counselling and loving support from family and friends would be more indicated. Also for the parents and family of the deceased. See the start of the post.
But to be fair, I'll throw in a
He goes to jail and suffers due process. If the jury finds him not guilty, then he's free. If not, then not. I was in a similar situation at the end of my marriage - time and reason intervened, but if I had comitted a crime, I would have expected to stand for it, 'temporary insanity' notwithstanding.
Granted, pre-meditated and horrific. Granted, one size don't fit all. But I still don't believe in the death penalty. Yes, part of it's religious. Most of it though, is realistic. It's not going to bring back the person who's dead. And the person who is found guilty may still have something of value to contribute to the society they've wronged, even if it's only their muscles. And I still feel sorry for those left behind. And I know we'll never convince each other... :)
Sorry, I should have been clearer in my message. [Didn't you see my facial expression when I was writing it? If you paid more attention, these misunderstandings wouldn't happen. :)]
It is there. :) And our way is only our take on civilisation.
You can't get much simpler than an Australian government.... :)
Still, we're
We'll let you into the playground every once in a while, don't worry. Although I haven't yet consulted with the 2 guys in The Army(tm) who currently have posession of our two rusty Lee-Enfields. They may have something to say about it. :)
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.