Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh I see..he was just "collateral damage". No big deal here .....
IMO the son wasn't exactly the same thing but the attitude the government took is disturbing. The son as far as I know was not targeted. He was hit when he was with someone else that was and there will be times that is unavoidable.
But to basically say "too bad" shows the contempt the government has for it's citizens.
Well... the 14th grants citizens that right at the State level. The 5th grants it at the Federal level but to "any person," not just citizens.
Are you actually going to argue that the 5th applies to the battlefield? If so, we would be prohibited from even shooting at our enemies without first giving them each a trial.
I would be happy to answer as soon as you dispense with the stupid attempts at insults.
I know you're allergic to common sense on this issue, but give it a shot.
And the point we are trying to get across back is that enemy combatants don't need to be tried and convicted before we can shoot at them.
Nor their children it seems.
I didn't move any goal posts. This whole thread is bout guilty by word of mouth with no trial/jury/conviction.
You posted that people are convicted of murder without having murdered. That means trial with evidence presented "beyond a shadow of a doubt" in order to convict someone of murder when they didn't pull the trigger.
What evidence did the government have beyond internet messages and a possible phone call ?
I guess you'll just have to "trust them" as they know what's best.
IMO the son wasn't exactly the same thing but the attitude the government took is disturbing. The son as far as I know was not targeted. He was hit when he was with someone else that was and there will be times that is unavoidable.
But to basically say "too bad" shows the contempt the government has for it's citizens.
Oh... it wasn't "too bad" at all. The son had thrown in his lot with Al Qaeda. He knew what he was getting himself into, his own father was the cautionary tale to end all cautionary tales.
Oh... it wasn't "too bad" at all. The son had thrown in his lot with Al Qaeda. He knew what he was getting himself into, his own father was the cautionary tale to end all cautionary tales.
He made his choices. Choices have consequences.
See, this is the problem. There is no evidence that the son had anything to do with AQ. He was with the guy that was targeted because he wanted to go see his dad and knew who to ask for him to help find him.
It depends on whether or not their children have chosen to follow in their parent's footsteps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
I didn't move any goal posts. This whole thread is bout guilty by word of mouth with no trial/jury/conviction.
Look... if you can't follow sub-threads in a discussion, that's okay. But don't pretend that changing the subject is a response to such a line of talk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
You posted that people are convicted of murder without having murdered.
Yes... in direct response to another comment that planning a murder is not murder. If you don't understand the discussion actually underway, don't jump in. It will be less frustrating for you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
