View Full Version : Let the dancing begin ...
After a decade, sometimes more, of hearing the left wail and gnash their teeth over:
- The death penalty being wrong in all cases.
- Democrats protect the rights of all citizens.
- Law enforcement being limited in it's ability to serve warrants and collect evidence.
- Attacking sovereign nations without UN approval is wrong in all cases.
- Brutality in law enforcement is wrong in all cases.
- Bush was the real terrorist.
- Collateral damage is unacceptable in all cases.
How many will have the testicular/ovarian fortitude to denounce dear leader Barack Hussein Obama Junior for:
- Authorizing the assassination of a US citizen.
- Doing so without a warrant.
- Doing so without a trial.
- Doing so within the borders of a sovereign nation.
- Doing so at the expense of the lives of others beside the target.
- Doing so without UN approval.
ANY GUESSES? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/anwar-al-aulaqi-us-born-cleric-linked-to-al-qaeda-killed-yemen-says/2011/09/30/gIQAsoWO9K_story.html)
09-30-2011, 05:17 PM
U would think that pentagon lawyers made sure that the rocket had a signed search warrant taped to the nose -- Lawsa'Allah.
And the UN will surely giv its seal of approval -- Insha'Allah.
10-01-2011, 12:21 PM
Even if this action were not illegal, I would condemn it.
I believe it was illegal, and I condemn it.
Unless the signing of a presidential finding amounts to 'due process,' we have collectively as a nation, since all official acts are done in our names, deprived a person of life without due process of law. Even should that presidential finding (that the national security interests of the country require this action) be credited as due process in the meaning required here, it is STILL against the '81 Reagan EO stating the Ford EO ban against assassination of foreign leaders would be expanded to banning all assassinations by all intelligence or action groups under US authority.
This is an EXPANSION of Bush-era crimes and scoff-law policies, and not the only one this president has done.
I call upon all who (rightly) condemned such activities in the Bush reign of error to remain consistent with their principles, and equally or more strenuously oppose this action by this president as well.
Yes, it is allegedly in a war, in a battlefield, but the theory is that war is occurring everywhere all the time, and such 'battlefield' includes the US itself.
The same analysis and condemnation ought to be occasioned by the alleged slaying of Bin Laden recently, as well, given the revised admissions that no firefight occurred there, that no shots of any kind were made in initial or return fire from those personnel there, and etc. It was a cold-blooded assassination, once again.
Both these actions have the hallmarks of eliminating embarrassing agents under our direct influence, so as to tidy up the loose ends of a huge crime and deception to protect releasing information that would prove these tentative conclusions.
This particular guy was an invitee and attended a conference at the Pentagon, under DOD control, shortly after 9/11.
You are, obviously, one of few and I commend you for being consistent on that one.
10-01-2011, 12:52 PM
I join Rep. Ron Paul and the ACLU in their mutual condemning positions on this criminal act.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">After a decade, sometimes more, of hearing the left wail and gnash their teeth over:
- The death penalty being wrong <u>in all cases. </u></div></div>
That is such a stupid statement because its not true.
There are those on the 'left' who think that, but the main topic of the day for the Left is the fact that the RW execute people on flimsy evidence...and then cheer.
The RW and you can't accept the truth, that's why you hate the facts.
10-01-2011, 01:21 PM
I didn't take the time to complain and reject the first part of the post, but I agree, most of that was untrue.
Most leftists are not pacifists, and therefore allow for SOME righteous wars, SOME allowable collateral damage, and etc.
Even the General Charter of the UN allows for military action in self-defense without prior UN approval.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">After a decade, sometimes more, of hearing the left wail and gnash their teeth over:
- The death penalty being wrong <u>in all cases. </u></div></div>
That is such a stupid statement because its not true.
There are those on the 'left' who think that
You never cease to amuse bro.
10-01-2011, 03:34 PM
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In historical legal systems, an outlaw is a person declared as outside the protection of the law. In pre-modern societies, this takes the burden of active persecution of a criminal from the authorities. Instead, the criminal is withdrawn all legal protection, so that anyone is legally empowered to persecute or kill them. Outlawry was thus one of the harshest penalties in the legal system, since the outlaw had only himself to protect himself, but it also required no enforcement on the part of the justice system. In early Germanic law, the death penalty is conspicuously absent, and outlawing is the most extreme punishment, presumably amounting to a death sentence in practice.
The concept is known from Roman law, as the status of homo sacer, and persisted throughout the Middle Ages. It was only in the modern period that the principle of habeas corpus was established, requiring that criminals must be judged in person by a court of law before they can legally be punished.
In the common law of England, a "Writ of Outlawry" made the pronouncement Caput gerat lupinum ("Let his be a wolf's head," literally "May he bear a wolfish head") with respect to its subject, using "head" to refer to the entire person (cf. "per capita") and equating that person with a wolf in the eyes of the law: Not only was the subject deprived of all legal rights of the law being outside of the "law", but others could kill him on sight as if he were a wolf or other wild animal.
Legal history Ancient Rome
Among other forms of exile, Roman law included the penalty of interdicere aquae et ignis ("to forbid fire and water"). People so penalized were required to leave Roman territory and forfeit their property. If they returned, they were effectively outlaws; providing them the use of fire or water was illegal, and they could be killed at will without legal penalty.
Interdicere aquae et ignis was traditionally imposed by the tribune of the plebs, and is attested to have been in use during the First Punic War of the third century BCE by Cato the Elder. It was later also applied by many other officials, such as the Senate, magistrates, and Julius Caesar as a general and provincial governor during the Gallic Wars. It fell out of use during the early Empire. 
 In the UK
See also: Outlawries Bill
In English common law, an outlaw was a person who had defied the laws of the realm, by such acts as ignoring a summons to court, or fleeing instead of appearing to plead when charged with a crime. In the earlier law of Anglo-Saxon England, outlawry was also declared when a person committed a homicide and could not pay the weregild, the blood-money, that was due to the victim's kin.
The term Outlawry referred to the formal procedure of declaring someone an outlaw, i.e. putting him outside of the sphere of legal protection. In the common law of England, a judgment of (criminal) outlawry was one of the harshest penalties in the legal system, since the outlaw could not use the legal system to protect them if needed, e.g. from mob justice. To be declared an outlaw was to suffer a form of civil or social death. The outlaw was debarred from all civilized society. No one was allowed to give him food, shelter, or any other sort of support – to do so was to commit the crime of aiding and abetting, and to be in danger of the ban oneself. In effect, (criminal) outlaws were criminals on the run who were "wanted dead or alive".
An outlaw might be killed with impunity; and it was not only lawful but meritorious to kill a thief flying from justice — to do so was not murder. A man who slew a thief was expected to declare the fact without delay, otherwise the dead man’s kindred might clear his name by their oath and require the slayer to pay weregild as for a true man. Because the outlaw had defied civil society, that society was quit of any obligations to the outlaw — outlaws had no civil rights and could not sue in any court on any cause of action, though they were themselves personally liable.
By the rules of common law, a criminal outlaw did not need to be guilty of the crime he was outlawed for. If a man was accused of a crime and, instead of appearing in court and defending himself from accusations, fled from justice, he was committing serious contempt of court which was itself a capital crime; so even if he were innocent of the crime he was originally accused of, he was guilty of evading justice.
In the context of criminal law, outlawry faded not so much by legal changes as by the greater population density of the country, which made it harder for wanted fugitives to evade capture; and by the international adoption of extradition pacts.
The Third Reich made extensive use of the concept. Prior to the Nuremberg Trials, the British jurist Lord Chancellor Lord Simon attempted to resurrect the concept of outlawry in order to provide for summary executions of captured Nazi war criminals. Although Simon's point of view was supported by Winston Churchill, American and Soviet attorneys insisted on a trial, and he was thus overruled.
There was also civil outlawry. Civil outlawry did not carry capital punishment with it, and it was imposed on defendants who fled or evaded justice when sued for civil actions like debts or torts. The punishments for civil outlawry were nevertheless harsh, including confiscation of chattels (movable property) left behind by the outlaw.
In the civil context, outlawry became obsolescent in civil procedure by reforms that no longer required summoned defendants to appear and plead. Still, the possibility of being declared an outlaw for derelictions of civil duty continued to exist in English law until 1879 and in Scots law until the late 1940s. Since then, failure to find the defendant and serve process is usually interpreted in favour of the defendant, and harsh penalties for mere nonappearance (merely presumed flight to escape justice) no longer apply.
 In other countries
Outlawry also existed in other ancient legal codes, such as the ancient Norse and Icelandic legal code. These societies did not have any police force or prisons and criminal sentences were therefore restricted to either fines or outlawry.
 Outlawing as political weapon
There have been many instances in military and/or political conflicts throughout History whereby one side declares the other as being "illegal", notorious cases being the use of Proscription in Republican Rome's civil wars. In later times there was the notable case of emperor Napoleon whom the Congress of Vienna, in 13 March 1815, declared to be "outside the law". In modern times, the government of the First Spanish Republic, unable to reduce the Cantonalist rebellion centered in Cartagena, Spain, declared the Cartagena fleet to be "piratic", which allowed any nation to prey on it.
Taking the opposite road, some outlaws became political leaders, such as Ethiopia's Kassa Hailu who became Emperor Tewodros II of Ethiopia.
 Popular usage
Main article: Outlaw (stock character)
Further information: Social bandits
Though the judgment of outlawry is now obsolete (even though it inspired the pro forma Outlawries Bill which is still to this day introduced in the British House of Commons during the State Opening of Parliament), romanticised outlaws became stock characters in several fictional settings. This was particularly so in the United States, where outlaws were popular subjects of newspaper coverage and stories in the 19th century, and 20th century fiction and Western movies. Thus, "outlaw" is still commonly used to mean those violating the law or, by extension, those living that lifestyle, whether actual criminals evading the law or those merely opposed to "law-and-order" notions of conformity and authority (such as the "outlaw country" music movement in the 1970s).
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2014 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.