Reply #41

In the discussion thread: Time to put an end to summary executions and drone strikes in the Middle East. [View all]

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 05:10 PM

sabrina 1 (34,038 posts)

41. Legal doesn't mean 'right'. And while lawyers may choose to simply accept bad laws and operate

under them, we the people have no such obligation thankfully. Our duty is to speak out against that which is obviously wrong. That is the beginning of how bad laws get changed.

Drones are being sold now to other nations. What happens when THEY decide to use them against us? What happens when some Chinese equivalent of the CIA sits thousands of miles away and targets someone in the US who according to them, is an 'enemy combatant' and in the process kills innocent children and other bystanders?

It's only a matter of time before these weapons are in the hands of other countries. I hope that those who are supporting their misuse by the US will be equally supportive of their misuse by any other nation who decides to follow our example.

My position and the OP's will be the same, consistently opposed to the murder of innocents regardless of who is doing it.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

93 replies	Author	Time	Post
Time to put an end to summary executions and drone strikes in the Middle East. [View all]	Zalatix	Oct 2012	OP
Yes, let's turn them against medical practices which don't take Medicare!	jberryhill	Oct 2012	#1
Nah, how about turning them against patients who can't afford cash-only doctors?	Zalatix	Oct 2012	#2
Troll?	jberryhill	Oct 2012	#3
Your first post was an off-topic way over the top attack based on another thread. AKA Trolling.	Zalatix	Oct 2012	#4
How can it be a falsehood?	jberryhill	Oct 2012	#5
Because it IS a falsehood.	Zalatix	Oct 2012	#6
Weaseling?	jberryhill	Oct 2012	#7
More off-topic weaseling.	Zalatix	Oct 2012	#9
You'd probably use drones on off-topic weasels, too!	jberryhill	Oct 2012	#10
Going by your troll logic, I could say you'd probably vote Republican.	Zalatix	Oct 2012	#11
It can be proven false quite easily	jberryhill	Oct 2012	#12
That's not proof of how you vote at the ballot box. It is evidence, but not proof.	Zalatix	Oct 2012	#13
Yeah, unfortunately, I'm a complete nincompoop about law	jberryhill	Oct 2012	#14
I used to support the Hiroshima bombing due to the black and white logic of	Zalatix	Oct 2012	#22
Well, I do not support the bombing of Hiroshima	jberryhill	Oct 2012	#30
As I said downthread, moral right isn't the same as legal right.	Zalatix	Oct 2012	#32
No. It's you who won't listen to attorneys explain to you, yet again, that what you claim is not	msanthrope	Oct 2012	#17
It is NOT legally accurate. You are in fact quite wrong.	Zalatix	Oct 2012	#23
The law requires no trial of anyone for the president to launch nukes at will	jberryhill	Oct 2012	#34
My post was in reference to my stand on politics, not what the President's authority is.	Zalatix	Oct 2012	#39
Legal doesn't mean 'right'. And while lawyers may choose to simply accept bad laws and operate	sabrina 1	Oct 2012	#41
I think there is some confusion among some about my OP.	Zalatix	Oct 2012	#42
Um--when you conveniently forget the AUMF of 9/18/01, you indicate that you have no idea	msanthrope	Oct 2012	#51
Did you support Bush's invasion of Iraq?	sabrina 1	Oct 2012	#18
Ha, no I did not	jberryhill	Oct 2012	#27
Legal authority and moral authority are two different things.	Zalatix	Oct 2012	#29
Okay, then you can stop going on about the "illegality" of drone strikes	jberryhill	Oct 2012	#36
A drone strike, on a US citizen on US soil?	Zalatix	Oct 2012	#40
Then you must have loved Saddam Hussein, no?	sabrina 1	Oct 2012	#31
No	jberryhill	Oct 2012	#35
I'm not sure if you fully got the point of my OP.	Zalatix	Oct 2012	#43
So you agree, then, that you don't have a legal argument, but an emotional one? nt	msanthrope	Oct 2012	#54
My OP wasn't discussing the LEGALITY of it at all.	Zalatix	Oct 2012	#65
Take a look at the Gulf of Aden on a map. Now, what do you see? nt	msanthrope	Oct 2012	#68
I see Somalia and Pirate Alley	Zalatix	Oct 2012	#71
And what else? nt	msanthrope	Oct 2012	#74
Nothing that represents an invasion risk or an attack risk on the United States.	Zalatix	Oct 2012	#76
Look harder. nt	msanthrope	Oct 2012	#92
Ah, yes, the seafaring environmental activists of Somalia	jberryhill	Oct 2012	#85
If someone started dumping nuclear waste in America's waters and stealing our fish	Zalatix	Oct 2012	#89
People have done those things in American waters	jberryhill	Oct 2012	#91
"...aside to plunder resources."	EX500rider	Oct 2012	#72
Saddam Hussein was invaded because he planned to sell oil in Euros instead of dollars.	Zalatix	Oct 2012	#75
When the Euro is strong it would cost more..	EX500rider	Oct 2012	#77
Yes it is an example of plundering. WE INVADED A NATION to keep oil cheap!	Zalatix	Oct 2012	#78
Your mistake starts at "we."	JackRiddler	Oct 2012	#82
I was simply applying your logic to the situation. If you DON'T support one thing, then	sabrina 1	Oct 2012	#44
Wasn't there some leader of France	treestar	Oct 2012	#8
I am ok with that, when terrorists leaders put an end to summary executions	bluestate10	Oct 2012	#15
Then you agree with the tactics of terrorists. Do we solve murders by murdering them	sabrina 1	Oct 2012	#19
How is the AUMF of 9/18/01 not Constitutional? nt	msanthrope	Oct 2012	#21
So you support the Bush Doctrine then?	sabrina 1	Oct 2012	#37
I asked you a question. What is unconstitutional about the AUMF, passed by Congress? And, no. nt	msanthrope	Oct 2012	#49
I didn't support the AUMF and after seeing who voted for it, they never got my support	sabrina 1	Oct 2012	#60
The one of 2001, yes. The one of 2002, no. n t	msanthrope	Oct 2012	#61
Quote of the century. We don't beat terrorists by BECOMING terrorists.	Zalatix	Oct 2012	#24
I get all misty when someone uses the "T" word	wtmusic	Oct 2012	#69
Define Terrorist in a way that points to the Middle East's actions and not our military's...	Zalatix	Oct 2012	#80
I can't.	wtmusic	Oct 2012	#81
LOL sorry, that wasn't actually directed at YOU. It was intended to boost your point.	Zalatix	Oct 2012	#83
Crossing sovereign borders of countries with which we are not at war	woo me with science	Oct 2012	#16
I'd have been just fine with a drone strike to Bin Laden under Bush. You? nt	msanthrope	Oct 2012	#20
So let's say Afghanistan launches a drone to strike at American troops who killed civilians there?	Zalatix	Oct 2012	#25
You really think that's going to happen? nt	msanthrope	Oct 2012	#55
Of course not, we're the big bad global bully.	Zalatix	Oct 2012	#64
Your wish, and the American people's wish, to get Bin Laden	woo me with science	Oct 2012	#28
What justifies the drone strikes is the AUMF of 9/18/01, and the cooperation of the countries	msanthrope	Oct 2012	#53
My argument "fails" because you refuse to address it.	woo me with science	Oct 2012	#56
Woo, let's stop pretending that Pakistan isn't playing both sides of this game---	msanthrope	Oct 2012	#57
+1,000!	Zalatix	Oct 2012	#79
Don't you know? AUMF trumps all. Gives us authority to kill at will.	neverforget	Oct 2012	#84
No, I would not mainly because he was never even charged with being involved in 9/11.	sabrina 1	Oct 2012	#38
He was killed in Pakistan, not Afghanistan. nt	msanthrope	Oct 2012	#50
What has that got to do with my comment?	sabrina 1	Oct 2012	#59
You wrote about Afghanistan turning him over. They didn't have him....Pakistan did. nt	msanthrope	Oct 2012	#62
I wrote that in response to your statement that you would have supported Bush	sabrina 1	Oct 2012	#63
OBL was in Pakistan for most of the Bush presidency. But I would have supported a drone strike in	msanthrope	Oct 2012	#67
OBL was in Afghanistan when the Taliban made the offer to hand him over.	sabrina 1	Oct 2012	#87
Wait a minute--Are you doubting that OBL did 9/11?? You don't think OBL did 9/11?	msanthrope	Oct 2012	#93
This message was self-deleted by its author	sabrina 1	Oct 2012	#58
But..but..we're murdering them for their own good..to spread democracy and stuff.	Tierra_y_Libertad	Oct 2012	#26
Bingo.	Zalatix	Oct 2012	#33
Is there an advantage to addressing this issue now as opposed to 1 month from now? (nt)	Nye Bevan	Oct 2012	#45
Nope. In fact I'll be sure to address this issue at the proper time.	Zalatix	Oct 2012	#48
Maybe for the people who will be blown to smithereens between now and then	wtmusic	Oct 2012	#70
Dead children don't know how to wait until after the election?	Puregonzo1188	Oct 2012	#73
Next month it will not be useful to advance the "they're all the same" thing	jberryhill	Oct 2012	#86
Yes, for those who will be the victims of more drone attacks between now and then.	sabrina 1	Oct 2012	#88
Some Americans are expressing what you're saying, but will take louder voices, more outraged	sad sally	Oct 2012	#46
Code Pink! I know their donation URL almost by heart.	Zalatix	Oct 2012	#66
Let's just get the hell out of the ME and leave them to thier own devices.	Whovian	Oct 2012	#47
The drone attacks are fuking stupid.	darkangel218	Oct 2012	#52
No.	sagat	Oct 2012	#90

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.