|
MrUnderwood -> RE: The Paul Filibuster (3/6/2013 9:30:41 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: muhly22222
I would prefer to see it done without the need for active-duty military personnel involved, on the basis of establishing a precedent, but I'm not opposed to it in a pinch. Like I said before, if a person or group was posing an imminent threat to others, they need to be stopped. It's no different than a police officer shooting a man who is pointing a gun at his ex-wife. A person or group has broken the laws, and they cannot be stopped from hurting others without being killed. At that point, law enforcement has a duty to society to take the necessary step(s).
I love it. It is all so cut and dry when we throw our Constitutional Rights, indeed, our human rights, out the window. Prefer dis-establishing a precedent, do you? Yes, by all means reiterate how, in a pinch, when some insane ex-wife allows herself to be disarmed by me, when some undercover asshole, "certain" he has his man, puts his gun in my face and I assert my Second Amendmentality; it is "ok" for your UAV (in preference to active duty military) to whip out the beat down stick, instead of - oh, I don't know, say some sort of "enforce due process" solution.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Level
One last hypothetical: if we could have scrambled fighters to shoot down the planes that hit the Twin Towers, would that be acceptable?
If we scrambled the fighters, it clearly would be acceptable, what is that called, Ouid pro quo? We did it so we must approve it, kind of thing. If the President scrambled the fighters upon his personal assessment, that would likely have been challenged as over extension of power. Consider: if the planes had been prevented from hitting the targets, there would have been no crime and the innocent would have been sacrificed. Relatives would scream murder. "you killed them over a hijacking?!?!" You think RealOne's conspiracies are bad now, here is the real chiller: is an administration that is capable of stopping the attack also capable of deducing the above paragraph within the time frame that would have been required to prevent 9/11? Would you or any president kill all those people, certain it could never be proven you had stopped a bigger attack? I doubt it.
|
|
|
|
