Justifiable assassination of evildoers

“LONDON, England (AP) -- Maverick Member of Parliament George Galloway has said it would be "morally justified" for an assassin to target Prime Minister Tony Blair, but he said he was not advocating an attempt, according to a magazine interview published Friday.

Galloway was quoted as saying an attack on Blair that caused no other casualties would be a justifiable response to Britain's support for the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

"It would be entirely logical and explicable -- and morally equivalent to ordering the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq as Blair did," the monthly GQ magazine quoted Galloway as saying.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/05/26/galloway.blair.ap/index.html


Feel free to use your imagination with Dubya.”

“That's way beyond the bounds of reason and morality. I was pretty stunned when I heard an MP said that. I'd like to think he was mis-quoted.

Beyond the issues of reason and morality, in Democratic societies there are lots of other ways the people can rule on the actions of their leaders. Assassination of a leader in a democratic society is inherently anti-democratic.”

“Would the supreme court be?”

“Assassination of a leader in a democratic society is inherently anti-democratic.
pedxing

It's not about democracy. It's about morals. On your judgment day, do you want to stand in front of your God and explain why you supported the murder of thousands of innocent Iraqi women and children? Or are you going to ask God to rationalize those deaths in the name of Democracy?”

“It's not about democracy. It's about morals. On your judgment day, do you want to stand in front of your God and explain why you supported the murder of thousands of innocent Iraqi women and children? Or are you going to ask God to rationalize those deaths in the name of Democracy?

God won't ask you that. He'll ask you if you put your full faith and trust in Jesus Christ the Savior.”

“So Sarge, are you saying that as long as I'm a believer, I won't be held accountable for my actions? That just doesn't make any sense to me.”

“This is a killer discussion.”

“So Sarge, are you saying that as long as I'm a believer, I won't be held accountable for my actions? That just doesn't make any sense to me. - hobbit

The paragraph was about "judgment" day, not about your role in Heaven. Those that are unsaved will be judged. Those that are saved will not. That is how I understand the Bible. hobbit, if you read something different, please let me know. I'd consider it seriously. Thanks.”

“hobbit - I glanced through this, and agree with what I've read here:

http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/judgment.htm

Specifically, I agree with this biblical proof:Because we are born in sin and therefore cannot live up to God's righteous standards, condemnation (damnation, the older synonym, has other connotations today) hangs over our heads like the sword of Damocles (II Pet. 2:3; Rom. 1:18; Eph. 5:5-6; Col. 3:5-6). God himself is the one who condemns (Job 10:2; Jer. 42:18; John 12:48). His condemnation is based on his justice, and such condemnation is deserved (I Kings 8:32; Rom. 3:8; Gal. 1:8-9). Condemnation comes to the wicked and unrepentant (Matt. 12:41-42; Luke 11:31-32; John 5:29; Rom. 5:16, 18; II Thess. 2:12; Rev. 19:2) and results in eternal punishment (Matt. 23:33), but no OT believer who trusted in God (Ps. 34:22) or NT believer who trusts in Christ (John 3:18; 5:24) will be condemned. Jesus came to save rather than to condemn (John 3:17), and he frees us from final condemnation (Rom. 8:1-2). ”

“Sarge is god.you are sick dude.”

“I would also like to point out that Bush is the commander-in-chief and totally responsible for the actions of these Marines he sent to Iraq who killed women and children in cold blood. To anyone who might say Bush is not responsible for the murders is the moral equivalent of saying Osama bin Lauden is not responsible for the murders of 9/11.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/26/iraq/main1660359.shtml

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/26/marines.probe.ap/index.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Investigators believe that their criminal investigation into the deaths of about two dozen Iraqi civilians points toward a conclusion that Marines committed unprovoked murders, a senior defense official said Friday.

The Marine Corps initially reported (LIED) that the deaths were caused by a roadside bomb and ensuing firefight with insurgents.

The official, who discussed the matter on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the yet-to-be-completed investigation, said the evidence strongly indicates the killings last November were unjustified.

According to a congressional aide, lawmakers were told in a briefing Thursday that it appears as many as two dozen civilians (WOMEN AND CHILDREN) were killed (executed / assassination style). And they were told that the investigation will find that "it will be clear that this was not the result of an accident or a normal combat situation."”
last edited: 5/27/06 5:40:54 PM”

““I would also like to point out that Bush is the commander-in-chief and totally responsible for the actions of these Marines he sent to Iraq who killed women and children in cold blood."

USA, What did, or did not, happen, in Iraq can be debated/discussed for years to come. Your inference is that GW, and the troops, intentionally killed innocents in cold blood.

However, for you (USA) to have any degree of credibility, you need acknowledge that GW, or Tony Blair... or anyone in a senior position directly ORDERED the death of civilians.

Do you have any proof of this... or is this just more of the socialist, anti-USA rhetoric we've come to expect from you?”

“USA... Do you have a proof that anyone directly ordered the death / execution of innocent folks?

That seems to have been your claim in your previous post... so... where's the proof? We'd all like to know!”

“USA - You make two big logical misteps here.

You respond to me with "do you want to stand in front of your God and explain why you supported the murder of thousands of innocent Iraqi women and children?"

Saying it would be immoral to assassinate Bush is not the same as supporting him ior the war in Iraq - you make an incredibly big and indefensible leap there. You also make an unjustifiable leap from supporting thge war to supporting murders that may have taken place in Iraq.

Secondly you make an analogy between Osama Bin Laden's responsibility for the 9/11 attacks and Bush's responses to the alleged murders. Osama Bin Laden appears to have directly approved the 9/11 attacks, I doubt Bush wanted anyone to deliberately kill civilians - so your analogy fails. Direct approval, perhaps even direct ordering of deaths is not equivalent to setting in motion an unpredicatable chain of events which happens to have these deaths as a consequence.

When you use these bizarre equivalencies you simply sound shrill.
last edited: 5/27/06 9:11:53 PM”

“Bush is responsible for the atrocities in Iraq, everything from all the torture that he approved, to the most recent executions of women and children by the Marines. He is just as responsible as Saddam Hussein was for the same crimes. Nothing has changed in Iraq, same atrocities, just that Bush is now the ring-leader instead of Saddam.

And when you, pedxing, talk about "murders that may have taken place" as if there was some doubt, then you have taken the government propaganda hook, line, and sinker.”

“However, for you (USA) to have any degree of credibility, you need acknowledge that GW, or Tony Blair... or anyone in a senior position directly ORDERED the death of civilians. Do you have any proof of this... or is this just more of the socialist, anti-USA rhetoric we've come to expect from you?”


Hey USA... are you going to make some feeble attempt at responding to legitimate inquiries...or... are you just going to continue with your baseless BS attacks against those with whom you disagree,”

“(S)He seems to be making claims that GW and Tony Blair DIRECTLY ordered the deaths of innocent folks.

That's a pretty strong accusation... I'm just wondering... do you have any proof?”

“Did you know that No-Charge mental health counseling is available to ANY US resident in severe need?

Just thought you'd be interested in this little bit of info re National Healthcare!

This applies to people way out-of-balance....”

“And when you, pedxing, talk about "murders that may have taken place" as if there was some doubt, then you have taken the government propaganda hook, line, and sinker.”
USA
10:28:44 PM
5/27/06

Another bizarre equation. Not jumping to an conclusion is the same as completely swallowing a line.”

“is that realy true wanderer?”

“Always the lefty, socialist, commie name calling when ever truth stops the swirling spin of the white house weenies.”

“Not jumping to a conclusion? Jesus, pedxing, please by all means do not jump to the conclusion that women and children with close range gun shots to the head were not murdered execution style by the US military. Definitely you should believe the lies that the Marines put out that these innocent lives were taken by an IED.

And wanderer you should continue to believe that innocent prisoners who were tortured to death were just due to a rogue soldier acting without orders from the White House. Yes, definitely. Wouldn't want to hurt your mental health over that possibility. Just keep telling yourself that what's happening in Iraq is not real for you. Hate to tell you this wanderer, but people are held accountable and responsible every day with convictions for the deaths of others even if they did not intend to cause someone's death.”

“Now that's funny Salebored!

There is some truth to what you say, but the irony is rich.
last edited: 5/28/06 4:50:39 PM”

“USA you again equate believing one side with not having made a firm conclusion.

Based on the news stories, it looks like there there is strong evidence that some Marines could be reasonably charged with murder. I'll wait for the evidence and, if warranted, the trial.”

“If they are guilty of murder will some on here be screaming for the death penalty?”

“USA since you want to go back and forth between threads, would you be willing to own the following sentence:

"But what kind of people could cause so much torment to these guys to make them do that? They must have been absolute hell to deal with.””

“Death penalty would be nuts, BM. An IED had killed one of their men, presumably they suspected that the bomb was set with at least the tacit consent of the locals. Perhaps they even did hear shots.”

“Also USA, with regard to my caution about murder - please note that there is a criminal category below murder that might apply should the killings have been found to have taken place as indicated by your links.

"What is voluntary manslaughter?

Voluntary manslaughter occurs when a person intentionally kills another person after "adequate provocation"; that is, there has been action that was sufficient to incite an "ordinary person" to "sudden and intense passion" such that s/he loses self control. It should be noted that the time between provocation and the killing should not be long enough for the passion to have cooled off."

http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/violent_crimes/voluntary_manslaughter.htm

In most states, "adequate provocation" is defined to be only situations in which there is a threat of deadly force, or in which a person finds his/her spouse in bed with another person. Verbal threats are usually not considered adequate provocation.”

“No excuse for execution of civillians.”

“No. But the law, justifiably, discriminates between several levels of unjustifiable homicide.”

“execution of civillians by soldiers is murder. Period. If they executed Children then I say give 'em to the Iraqi's.”

“Execution implies cold blood. If these were guys freaked out by yet another IED killing someone, and even more if they were in hot and, perhaps, panicked pursuit - it's not execution.

Anyway - like I said, I'm keeping an open mind. Too many ifs here for me to say what should be done, other than more investigation.”

“Yeah, I've been feeling judgemental mood fo awhile. Are you saying they were not trained properly for the psychological aspects of this war?

Same defense could be used for prison guards, no?

As Mai Lai goes so does this?”

“It's not an exculptory defense. Sentences for voluntary manslaughter can be steep. It's just one notch below second degree murder. The usual ladder goes First degree murder, Second Degree, Voluntary Manslaughter (see the definition I pasted on an earlier post), Involuntary Mansluaghter.


In Kansas (says my research) Invluntary Manslaughter gives you a minimum of 55 months in jail to a max of 247 months (roughly 4.5 years to 20.5 years).

Voluntary Manslaughter is the intentional killing of a human being upon a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion or upon the unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force.

The sentencing guidelines provide a range of sentence from a minimum of 55 months imprisonment to a maximum prison term of 247 months. ”

“It happened last November, it has been investigated ever since. You sound like Bush, if you don't like the results of the scientific evidence, demand more investigation. Investigate it ad nauseam until everyone forgets about it.

It was cold-blooded execution of children per Congressman Murtha, someone who should know.”

“John Kerry illegally killed innocent children. He said so.”

“Does a way exist to kill children legally?”

“Yes. Abortion.”

“A favorite concept?”

“A dodge?”

“Child:
Infant (baby) (ages 0 - 1.5)
Neonate (newborn) in the first month of life
Toddler (ages 1.5 - 4)
busfrö (ages 2 - 4)Often referred to as difficult (Swedish reference)
Middle childhood (schoolchild (or schoolboy or schoolgirl)) - Primary school/ Elementary school age (ages 4 - 11)
prepubescence, a subset of the above (ages 10 - 11, approximately)
Preadolescence (preteen, or late childhood) - in America, middle school age (ages 11 - 12, approximately. Note overlap with prepubesent stage of middle childhood.)
Adolescence and puberty (teenager) (13-20)
Young adult (18-25)
Adult (starts at age 18-21 or older; exact minimum age may vary)
Early adulthood (21-39)
Middle age (40-59)
Advanced adult/Senior citizen (60+)
Death (occurs at various ages depending on person)

A fetus is a developing mammal after the embryonic stage and before birth. The plural is fetuses or very rarely, foeti.


You can abort a fetus but not a child.”

“An abortion is the removal or expulsion from the uterus of an embryo or fetus, resulting in or caused by its death. This can occur spontaneously as a miscarriage, or be artificially induced through chemical, surgical or other means. Commonly, "abortion" refers to an induced abortion procedure at any point in the pregnancy; medically, it is defined as a miscarriage or induced termination before twenty weeks gestation, which is considered nonviable”

“same thing”

“LOL I love this....how about this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II

the numbers of DEAD are horribly underestimated.


Guys, it is called WAR...'k. I wonder what would have happened in 1974 when the Communists in N Vietnam had broken the peace treaty and invaded (SORRY VIOLIN< UNITED) the South. If Nixon or Ford had Said, AW SCREW IT> And Haipong and Hanoi and a couple of other major cities were turned into glass?

I wonder what would have happened in 1978 (when Jimuh Carter had held the collective hands of the United States people while a third world crap hole had raped us)when the Tehran Embassy was taken if we had said, 'Screw it, and turned the military ability of Iran into a graveyard along with say their major oil systems and a couple of cities. Sure 70 some odd Americans would have died. But think about it.
I am sorry to be this way but you know for years I have had a chance to watch the ANDY type cop and the Dirty Harry type cop. And SCUM only respect POWER>
Sure this country is occupied by a group who say "Be nice" ( whiney voice)...I have a better idea, "Hey I don't care if you like us, but YOU WILL RESPECT US."”

“It was cold-blooded execution of children per Congressman Murtha, someone who should know.”
USA
10:29:34 PM
5/28/06

Actually, you sound like Bush. Ignore the evidence and repeat your claims. While the evidence points very strongly to the killings not being justified or accidental, it points equally strongly to them not being "cold blooded." You, Bush and his backers seem to share a strong immunity to the effects of evidence.

“To argue with a man who has renounced his reason is like giving medicine to the dead..
--Thomas Paine”

“Two dozen including women and children shot in the head at point blank range. Those are the facts. To say it was not cold-blooded is fantasy. You have lost all credibility.”

“Would you rather they had been shot in the head from 20' back?”

“Paul Harris in Washington and David Smith in Basra
Sunday May 28, 2006
The Observer


...were in effect executed, it was reported yesterday.
According to Congressional and defence officials quoted by the Los Angeles Times, the pictures show wounds to the upper bodies of the victims, who included several women and six children. Some were shot in the head and some in the back.

'There wasn't a gunfight, there were no pockmarked walls,' the paper reports a congressional aide as saying. And it quotes a US Defence Department official who had been briefed on the contents of the photos as saying 'the wounds indicated execution-style' shootings.US military investigators are probing the events of 19 November 2005, and a picture is gradually emerging of a small group of troops who lost control in the wake of an unrelated attack on their vehicle, which left one of their comrades dead. Other soldiers then helped to cover up the atrocity.

Some top US politicians involved with defence issues have already been briefed on the issue and they have told reporters that the evidence is damaging. 'Marines over-reacted... and killed innocent civilians in cold blood,' Congressman John Murtha, a former marine, told the Washington Post. One retired general, David Brahms, told the newspaper: 'When these investigations come out, there's going to be a firestorm. It will be worse then Abu Ghraib. Nobody was killed at Abu Ghraib.'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1784705,00.html

The dozen Marines involved in the house-to-house searches split into four-man “fire teams.” One of these fire teams, led by a sergeant identified by ABC News as Frank Wuterich, began methodically killing innocent civilians over the course of the next five hours.

Five people in a nearby taxi were shot to death immediately, and then the fire team raided three houses. In each house, the Marines broke down the door, grouped the occupants together in a single room, and executed them. The victims included old women, children, men, and infants.

So many bullets were fired at close range that most of the head of one man was obliterated; another woman had both arms shorn off at the elbow. Almost all of the victims were shot point blank in the upper body, execution style.

All crimes and atrocities in an aggressive war flow from the decision to wage war in the first place, and in a war of colonial occupation and mass oppression, atrocities such as the massacre of November 19 are inevitable. This was the legal principle established at Nuremberg and invoked against senior Nazi military and government officials who planned and carried out military aggression.

Those who are ultimately responsible for the events of November 19 are the architects of the Iraq war itself—members of the Bush administration, beginning with the president, leaders of both houses of Congress, and the top military brass. They continue to wage war in the face of determined popular resistance in Iraq to foreign occupation and massive anti-war sentiment in the US. After Abu Grahib, Fallujah, Haditha and a death toll of more than a hundred thousand Iraqis and nearly 2,500 Americans, no high-ranking official has been held accountable.

For these same officials to lay their own crimes at the feet of the lowest-ranking perpetrators is utter hypocrisy. It is worth pointing out that Saddam Hussein is presently being tried for crimes carried out during his presidency, for which he is being held responsible whether or not it can be proved that he was directly responsible. The US-orchestrated prosecution is arguing that the crimes flowed from his policies, and that he therefore bears guilt.
last edited: 5/29/06 1:16:45 PM”

“Put the whole quote in bold:

"Marines over-reacted... and killed innocent civilians in cold blood,' Congressman John Murtha, a former marine, told the Washington Post.

The two are incompatible you don't do something in cold blood while "over-reacting" - especially to an IED that kills one of your buddies.”