DaddySatyr
Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
McCain uses the immunity granted to him by standing in a Senate hearing room and calls fellow citizens vile names. He brings disgrace and indignity to high elected office. He is a war monger who cares not to know the consequences of our killing machines on other human beings. Once a war hero; now a coward.
I can only re-iterate that I don't think a person, speaking their mind, should be something we look down upon, even if we don't agree with them. If the senator was stating his opinion (that's what it sounded like), he's not stating it as fact.
Libel/slander requires two elements, if memory serves; one has to have a malicious intent to do some kind of "harm" and they have to reasonably believe or know, for a fact, that what they are saying is incorrect.
An example, if I may?
If someone asked me what I thought about VincentML and I said: "VincentML is probably right-handed, enjoys green T-Shirts, and black baseball caps", I have photographic evidence that my assertions are correct. If I said: "I think he posts some really silly crap and some of his views are way out in left field", this is still an assertion of opinion.
(ETA): If I said: "I think people that 'sit for portraits' in diners are kind of (insert a negative comment, here) ..." I still wouldn't be into slander/libel territory. (/ETA)
To relate it back to the situation, at hand: I am quite sure that the senator was asked something along the lines of: "What do you think about (the people) protesting Dr. Kissinger ...?" or, maybe even: "Talk about the (people) protesting Dr. Kissinger?". Either way, a statement about what someone thinks is not actionable.
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
Then you believe there are no just wars? How can you condone our participation in foreign interventions if all wars are criminal?
I never said I didn't believe there are just wars. I believe that people have come to expect (rather irrationally) that war is a very neat and tidy business; that the tearing apart of the flesh of the "enemy" can somehow be done in a "humane" manner.
I believe there are times when war becomes necessary. I believe wars are tragedies that will never resemble the civility of "high tea".
I don't condone a lot of our military involvement and I remind you that I am, essentially, an isolationist.
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
Courts martial do not apply to civilian leadership, Michael.
Well, then, we have an incongruity which needs to be addressed because I was taught that the president, vice president, secretary of defense, etc. were part of the chain of command. In that vein, I don't consider them to be "civillians". However, by my own admission; we have a problem, Houston.
How can a courts martial sit in judgment of they that out-rank them? Well, that is an issue. To this point (and I'm not positive it shouldn't continue, based upon what I said in my previous statement {just above}), we have used the idea that the high command should enjoy some measure of immunity. We can't charge people with our protection and then get upset with the manner in which they provide that protection as long as their manner is not outrageously inconsistent with common, accepted, practice.
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
Military power corrupts. Only nations with military power and global reach intervene in the internal affair of weaker sovereign nations. Isn't that a form of 21st Century colonialism? The weaker nations are not truly sovereign, are they? How many intervener nations are there? You can count them on one hand. No?
If you search my name and "building empire" (or words similar), you will find a few examples of my being in agreement about 21st century colonialism.
As a result of world events there are only a handful of "intervener nations" and (I think) all of them belong to the UN.
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
Check me on this. I think the last time we went to war with the approval of the UN was in Korea. Since then we have acted as a sovereign nation, meddling and trampling in foreign lands of our on volition. Don't you agree?
Without actually checking (it's late and I still have shoveling to do so I can make it to school, tomorrow), I can tell you that we went into Iraq (in 2003) because of UN resolutions.
I can tell you that our membership in the UN "obligated" us to pick up Vietnam after the French and British (BOTH, members of the UN) had a go.
I believe, even the first Gulf War was because of our foreign entanglement in that piece of shit attempt at a world government.
I really don't have time to do a search but Korea was not the last time.
Michael
< Message edited by DaddySatyr -- 2/2/2015 9:41:16 PM >
_____________________________
A Stone in My Shoe
Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?
"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"
|
RE: SHOULD HENRY KISSINGER BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR WAR ... - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread