Are you satisfied now?!

>I think it's revolting not to rejoice over the death of

>someone who would go on to kill 50 million people, or who will

>order and cause a series of terrorist acts which will result

>in the death of huge numbers of innocent people. I can't

>imagine the moral corruption necessary for someone to find the

>death of such killers - which saves the lives of millions of

>innocent human beings -- as anything other than a cause for

>celebration.

If you think anyone's death should be celebrated, then I see no difference between you and the killers you are ranting about. I consider that capital punishment is necessary in some cases -- as Geoghan's death shows, there are some people so dangerous that they can't be prevented from killing even by imprisonment -- but it is certainly nothing any sane person would rejoice over.

>>One may favor capital

>>punishment for the same reason one favors amputation -- in

>>some circumstances it may be the only way of saving life

>Several hundred years of Anglo-American law -- which you like

>to cite as some Ultimate Authority - have reached the opposite

>conclusion. Cutting people's limbs off constitutes "cruel and

>unusual," but executing them does not.

For the benefit of those who suffer from dyslexia, there is nothing in any post of mine that suggests amputation as a punishment for anything. Amputation of a patient's limb is sometimes necessary to save the patient's life. Capital punishment is sometimes necessary to save the lives of others. Neither is cause for celebration.

>Additionally, I think that if you ask most people if they

>would favor having cut off Osama bin Liden's arms if it meant

>that 9/11 would have been averted, they would say "yes". What

>would your answer be - would you rather have him keep his arms

>and let those planes fly into those buildings?

I wouldn't ask most people such a question because I don't believe most people are crazy enough to contemplate such a thing. These questions of "Would you kill so-and-so if you knew it would prevent something terrible" are nothing but foolish games for childish minds. No one can know what would have happened if Hitler had been killed. Perhaps Stalin would have taken over Europe. Would that have been better? Idle speculation is for the idle. I have better things to do.

>If you think anyone's death should be celebrated, then I see

>no difference between you and the killers you are ranting

>about.

Well, since you "see no difference," allow me to point out to you that there is a rather huge difference - fundamental, even - between killing innocent people and killing mass murderers. Do you really not see that difference?

I ask that question becasue there are many people who don't see that difference. That is how many people equate the act of going onto a bus and blowing up 10 teenagers with the act of killing a known terrorist who has caused the death of innocent civilians in the past and will do so again. It is the same depravity that would cause someone to equate the celebration of Osama bin Laden's death with the celebartion of the death of thousands of innocent people.

People who fail to "see a difference" between the killing of innocent people and the killing of mass murderers suffer from a serious moral deficiency.

>I consider that capital punishment is necessary in

>some cases -- as Geoghan's death shows, there are some people

>so dangerous that they can't be prevented from killing even by

>imprisonment -- but it is certainly nothing any sane person

>would rejoice over.

If we kill Osama bin Laden tomorrow, it will undoubtedly save the lives of thousands of innocent people, if not more. No sane person would see such an event as anything but a cause to rejoice.

>For the benefit of those who suffer from dyslexia, . . ..

Oh, my - look what we have here - a childish personal insult from He Who Never Makes Such Insults Unless First Victimized. Oops.

>I wouldn't ask most people such a question because I don't

>believe most people are crazy enough to contemplate such a

>thing. These questions of "Would you kill so-and-so if you

>knew it would prevent something terrible" are nothing but

>foolish games for childish minds. No one can know what would

>have happened if Hitler had been killed. Perhaps Stalin would

>have taken over Europe. Would that have been better? Idle

>speculation is for the idle. I have better things to do.

Actually, one of the most important ways to learn about our present situation is to look to the past. Asking what we would have done in a certain situation with the benefit of hindsight can shed incomparable light on what we should do now in similar situations.

Those who refuse to answer such questions are generally unwilling to do so because their answers conflict with the positions they have taken. Given the amount of time that you spend on this Board engaged in conversations which end up being completely pointless, I don't think that "time constraints" is a very persuasive reason why you would refuse to answer such questions.

>I didn't say I favored capital punishment for Geoghan or that

>I approved of what happened to him. Nor have I or would I

>suggest amputation as a punishment for any crime. Come back

>when you've learned to read.

This thread is about Geoghan. Your comparison of amputation and capital punishment was in the context of this thread. Next time be more careful with your analogies if you don't want to be held to account for the implications of your words.

RE: Cruel or Unusual Enough for you?

>Hey, Axehbia - this sounds like you. Please confess that you

>are the one who furnished him the list of the lawyers with the

>"Jewish-sounding names."

Nah, I don't rely on the sound. My list was more accurate, but it did not get to him on time hope to bring some peace to the scores of human beings and their families whose lives were ruined by this vile bacteria.

>>I didn't say I favored capital punishment for Geoghan or

>that

>>I approved of what happened to him. Nor have I or would I

>>suggest amputation as a punishment for any crime. Come back

>>when you've learned to read.

>This thread is about Geoghan. Your comparison of amputation

>and capital punishment was in the context of this thread.

Right. And my statement was that while the two things are sometimes necessary, neither is an appropriate cause for celebration. There is nothing in my post stating that what happened to Geoghan was lawful or appropriate. That came from your head, not my post.

>Next time be more careful with your analogies if you don't

>want to be held to account for the implications of your

>words.

The correct word is "inferences," not implications. I will never take any responsibility for the inferences you dream up. And I don't think any amount of care will prevent you from dreaming up things that fit your prejudices.

RE: Cruel or Unusual Enough for you?

>Nah, I don't rely on the sound.

Upon what do you rely then? Please share your secret. I'm particularly interested in the clues you used to uncover woodlawn who, even though he never said so, you pronounced to be a jew.

>My list was more accurate,

>but it did not get to him on time hope to bring some peace to

>the scores of human beings and their families whose lives were

>ruined by this vile bacteria.

AWESOME!! I actually had to read this twice before I realized that, with this sentence, you were referring to jewish lawyers as "vile bacteria." You outdid yourself with that one. I truly enjoyed it!

>>If you think anyone's death should be celebrated, then I

>see

>>no difference between you and the killers you are ranting

>>about.

>Well, since you "see no difference," allow me to point out to

>you that there is a rather huge difference - fundamental, even

>- between killing innocent people and killing mass

>murderers. Do you really not see that difference?

You remind me of all the idiots on other message boards who supported Bush's order to use military tribunals to judge terrorists by saying that such procedures are far more than terrorists deserve. They're too stupid to understand that before one can talk about what a 'terrorist' deserves one has to determine whether he IS a terrorist, and that is what the tribunals are supposed to do. I won't support killing someone simply because YOU or some other nameless jerk decides he's a mass murderer and deserves it. Everyone deserves to be judged by a legal process and to be considered innocent until proven guilty. If we abandon that principle then what is it we're defending when we say we're defending America -- the stock market?

Can you tell me exactly what role Bin Laden played in 9/11? Can you tell me whether he actually approved the plot? Whether he even knew about it before it happened? No, you can't. You are ready to sign his death warrant on the basis of nothing more than that he made a videotape saying how pleased he was to hear about it. You are the last person who should judge anyone. If you had been born in Iran, you would be one of the people marching through the streets shouting "Death to America!" whenever the government calls for such a demonstration. The last thing America needs is more fanatics like you.

>If we kill Osama bin Laden tomorrow, it will undoubtedly save

>the lives of thousands of innocent people, if not more.

Just exactly how do you know that? The truth is, you have no idea of his actual involvement in any of these plots. You won't answer because you have no answer.

>Oh, my - look what we have here - a childish personal insult

>from He Who Never Makes Such Insults Unless First Victimized.

>Oops.

You're not just a liar but an extremely stupid liar. You accused me of "moral corruption" in the fist post you addressed to me, liar.

>Actually, one of the most important ways to learn about our

>present situation is to look to the past. Asking what we

>would have done in a certain situation with the benefit of

>hindsight can shed incomparable light on what we should do now

>in similar situations.

Bullshit. There is no way of knowing what would have happened had Hitler died before 1939.

>Given the amount of time that you

>spend on this Board engaged in conversations which end up

>being completely pointless,

LOL! This idiot who wants to go on and on about what would have happened if Hitler had died has the colossal nerve to talk about conversations that are "completely pointless"! Unbelievable!

RE: Cruel or Unusual Enough for you?

>I hope this incident at least brings some peace to the scores

>of human beings and their families whose lives were ruined by

>this vile bacteria and by that Most Holy Institution which

>aided and abetted him in his crimes.

What sort of peace do you think will come from this:

"...Druce followed Geoghan into his cell and jammed the electronic cell door to prevent guards from opening it. Druce bound Geoghan's hands behind his back with a sheet and gagged him. He then repeatedly jumped onto Geoghan's body from a bed and beat him with his fists..."

RE: Cruel or Unusual Enough for you?

>AWESOME!! I actually had to read this twice before I realized

>that, with this sentence, you were referring to jewish lawyers

>as "vile bacteria." You outdid yourself with that one. I

>truly enjoyed it!

Nah, I was just tracking your language in the hopes that you would see how silly and offensive what you wrote was.

>But, please explain how you interpreted my comments to be

>advocating and reveling his death? Perhaps you should consult

>your doctor because I'm not sure you are seeing things

>realistically.

That sometimes happens when one runs out of their meds.

fukamarine

> I won't support killing someone

>simply because YOU or some other nameless jerk decides he's a

>mass murderer and deserves it. Everyone deserves to be judged

>by a legal process and to be considered innocent until proven

>guilty.

Oh, ok - that makes a lot of sense. We're at war and we're not supposed to use our weapons or do anything mean to anyone until we first convene a criminal trial in the judicial system and obtain a jury conviction that the defendant has committed a crime.

Yeah - that's what our country has always done - we don't go to war until we first convene a criminal trial and obtain criminal convictions against foreign leaders.

Do you realize how fucking stupid it is what you have said? Does this mean you didn't support the war on Afghanistan because we never convicted Mullah Omar of aiding and abetting Al Quaeda? Does this mean that you thought it was wrong to kill Quasy and Uday Hussein because they never had their day in court? Do you weep when notorious and admitted Hamas terrorists are killed by missiles without first assigning them a lawyer and allowing them to make motions?

How exactly are we supposed to get Osama bin Laden to a trial? Maybe you can have a nice U.N. lawyer go find him and make a citizens' arrest.

If U.S. leaders were as scared and timid and stupid as you are - not acting against terrorists until we had a criminal trial where they were convicted - there would be no courthouses left in which to try them.

Read some U.S. history some time, asshole. President Lincoln suspended virtually every constitutional right enjoyed by American citizens during the Civil War because the necessitiies of that war required that, lest there be no country left. President Roosevelt interned American citizens whom he judged to be a threat to our national security during World War II.

And you think that it is somehow contrary to American values to deprive murderous foreign terrorists of due process before we can act to stop them. What a fucking idiot you are.

>If we abandon that principle then what is it we're

>defending when we say we're defending America -- the stock

>market?

The important principle is that American citizens can't be imprisoned by our Government without due process - not that our Government can't act against our declared foreign enemies without first holding a trial. Does that distinction really elude you?

>Can you tell me exactly what role Bin Laden played in 9/11?

>Can you tell me whether he actually approved the plot?

>Whether he even knew about it before it happened? No, you

>can't.

Incontestable intelligence has linked Al-Qaeda to 9/11. OBL is the head of Al-Qaeda, as he has admitted to numerous foreign reporters, including Peter Bergen, author of Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden. Being the head of a terrorist organization which seeks to murder as many Americans as possible and to destroy our civilization is good enough proof for the overwhelming majority of people that we can kill him without having a trial in a nice courthouse.

It's nice to see that Osama has some apologists and defenders left, though.

>>If we kill Osama bin Laden tomorrow, it will undoubtedly

>save

>>the lives of thousands of innocent people, if not more.

>

>Just exactly how do you know that? The truth is, you have no

>idea of his actual involvement in any of these plots. You

>won't answer because you have no answer.

Read the book I cited above. Al Qaeda's link to scores of terrorist crimes over the years is conclusively established and -- other than a few babbling freaks who can't distinguish between right and wrong -- denied by nobody. The fact that you oppose acting against its leaders without first having a "trial" says more about your depraved judgment and fearful paralysis than anything I could ever say.

>Well, imo, you are both sick to advocate and revel in the

>murder of a fellow human being, regardless of his crimes.

>This man was judged and sentenced according to law, and did

>not deserve to be brutally murdered.

>

>It is unfathomable, how anyone could celebrate the violent

>death of another human being. Who the hell died and made you

>two God of the universe? As the Bible says "judge not lest ye

>be judged".

>

>TOTALLY DISGUSTING!!

It may be totally disgusting in YOUR opinion, but your idiotic and trite comment about who made us God of the universe only proves how infantile you are.

You always have an opinion on EVERYTHING and God help anyone who does not agree with you.

Look at it this way. The con who murdered him did you all a favour.

Probably saved the state a million buck in housing/maintance cost over the years, not to mention the expence of further trials that I understand were in the works.

And what's so wrong with murder - even the Vatican practices it when it suits their purpose. Ever read "In God's Name"? The book proves that when a newly elected Pope was about to clean out the corruption in the Vatican - they organized their own snuff brigade. So if they can justify the killing of a good man for proposing to sweep out the stalls, they should have no problem with the murder of a cock sucking priest. And now that he's toast he is no longer a threat to the other pedophiles in the Church, as he can't rat on them.

Now there's a thought! If I was a believer in conspiracy theories I might just see a more sinister plot here.........

So climb down from your perch hawk - lest someone thinks you appointed yourself God.

fukamarine

RE: Cruel or Unusual Enough for you?

>Nah, I was just tracking your language in the hopes that you

>would see how silly and offensive what you wrote was.

Which is the offensive part - calling this serial child rapist "vile" or calling this serial child rapist "bacteria"?

I get the impression that you don't consider sexual absue of minors to be a very serious crime, if you consider it to be a crime at all. What is your view on that?

RE: Cruel or Unusual Enough for you?

>I get the impression that you don't consider sexual absue of

>minors to be a very serious crime, if you consider it to be a

>crime at all. What is your view on that?

I don't consider it a crime that ought to be the subject of the death penalty which is what this man was, in effect, sentanced to. I think all those who pumped up the hysteria around this issue share responsibility for his execution today. It was entirely predictable.

RE: Cruel or Unusual Enough for you?

>I don't consider it a crime that ought to be the subject of

>the death penalty which is what this man was, in effect,

>sentanced to.

What do you think the sentence should have been? How about life in prison? Is that excessive? If so, what do you think was merited?

I think all those who pumped up the hysteria

>around this issue share responsibility for his execution

>today. It was entirely predictable.

Why do you think he abused those children? Do you think that absuse ruins childrens' lives?

RE: Cruel or Unusual Enough for you?

>What do you think the sentence should have been? How about

>life in prison? Is that excessive? If so, what do you think

>was merited?

The point is that putting a 67 year old accused of sexual assault in a maximum security prison on a life sentance was tantamount to signing a death warrant for him. The sentance was about retribution. I see little point in that.

BTW, do you agree with the execution of the gay truck driver who made a pass at the priest's killer too?

August 25, 2003

Suspect Planned Priest's Killing, DA Says

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

....

Druce, 37, a reputed member of the neo-Nazi group Aryan Nation, was convicted in the June 1988 murder of George Rollo, 51, a gay bus driver who had picked Druce up hitchhiking.

According to court documents, a fellow hitchhiker told investigators that Druce, who then went by his birth name, Darrin E. Smiledge, attacked the bus driver when Rollo made a sexual advance. An insanity defense failed and Smiledge was sentenced to life in prison.

....

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Church-Abuse-Geoghan.html?pagewanted=print&position=

>Oh, ok - that makes a lot of sense. We're at war and we're

>not supposed to use our weapons or do anything mean to anyone

>until we first convene a criminal trial in the judicial system

>Yeah - that's what our country has always done - we don't go

>to war until we first convene a criminal trial and obtain

>criminal convictions against foreign leaders.

Uh, I hate to interrupt your rant with a note of sanity, but did you ever hear of the Nuremberg trials? No? Why am I not surprised?

>Do you realize how fucking stupid it is what you have said?

No, but I realize you are about to embark on yet another of your shrill, foul-mouthed tirades. The signs are unmistakable.

>Does this mean you didn't support the war on Afghanistan

>because we never convicted Mullah Omar of aiding and abetting

>Al Quaeda?

I don't see what one thing has to do with another. Making war on another government has nothing to with a judicial process. Condemning a specific person to death does.

>Does this mean that you thought it was wrong to

>kill Quasy and Uday Hussein because they never had their day

>in court?

I thought it wrong to kill them for several reasons. One is that they represented a treasure trove of intelligence that is now lost forever. Intelligence not only about Iraq but about Iraq's dealings with other countries like Syria. All gone now. Thanks to idiots like you who went to the John Wayne School of International Affairs.

Another is that there was no need to kill them. What idiot would think that it was necessary to blow up an entire building with missiles to protect a bunch of U.S. troops from two men and a boy inside with rifles? What was the hurry? Why not simply wait until they came out?

And, like many Iraqis, I thought it was best for all concerned to take them alive and put them on trial. Surely you don't think it would have been hard to find evidence that they had committed crimes against humanity? Not from what I read. So why kill them? I have not heard one person explain why this was necessary.

> Do you weep when notorious and admitted Hamas

>terrorists are killed by missiles without first assigning them

>a lawyer and allowing them to make motions?

Given the fact that terrorist acts against Israeli civilians have not abated one whit as a result of these assassinations, I would love to hear anyone explain what purpose they have achieved. So far as I can see, all they have done is give more ammunition to Israel's critics.

>How exactly are we supposed to get Osama bin Laden to a trial?

> Maybe you can have a nice U.N. lawyer go find him and make a

>citizens' arrest.

How did we get Goering in a court? Or Eichmann?

>If U.S. leaders were as scared and timid and stupid as you are

Stick it up your flaccid old ass.

>- not acting against terrorists until we had a criminal trial

>where they were convicted - there would be no courthouses left

>in which to try them.

I seem to remember that the 93 WTC terrorists were tried and convicted in federal court. As was their spiritual leader Sheik Rahman. So it's not impossible after all. What a shock!

>Read some U.S. history some time, asshole. President Lincoln

>suspended virtually every constitutional right

More bullshit from our resident moron. You don't know what the hell you are talking about, you merely parrot whatever crap you hear on Fox News. Polly want a cracker?

>President Roosevelt interned American citizens

>whom he judged to be a threat to our national security during

>World War II.

To our country's eternal shame, a shame we bear to this very day. And what was achieved by that internment? How many of those interned actually turned out to be enemy agents? Well? I'm going to ask you that question again and again until you answer it.

>And you think that it is somehow contrary to American values

>to deprive murderous foreign terrorists of due process before

>we can act to stop them. What a fucking idiot you are.

The only idiocy I've displayed lately is spending the time involved in looking at the ca-ca you smear on this screen. I must definitely try to cut down on that.

>The important principle is that American citizens can't be

>imprisoned by our Government without due process - not that

>our Government can't act against our declared foreign enemies

>without first holding a trial. Does that distinction really

>elude you?

If you ever learn to read properly, try reading the Constitution. Read it a few times and you MAY discover that the rights it provides are NOT limited to citizens.

>>Can you tell me exactly what role Bin Laden played in 9/11?

>>Can you tell me whether he actually approved the plot?

>>Whether he even knew about it before it happened? No, you

>>can't.

>Incontestable intelligence has linked Al-Qaeda to 9/11. OBL

>is the head of Al-Qaeda,

That is not what I asked you. Still waiting for an answer.

>good enough proof for the overwhelming

>majority of people that we can kill him without having a trial

>in a nice courthouse.

I'm sure you have no problem with executing someone based on an opinion poll. But we civilized people do.

>It's nice to see that Osama has some apologists and defenders

>left, though.

If you were running this country we would have exactly the kind of government Osama helped put in place in Afghanistan. Which would mean we'd have nothing to fight with him about. The only difference between you and him is that he's better looking.

>Given the fact that terrorist acts against Israeli civilians

>have not abated one whit as a result of these assassinations,

>I would love to hear anyone explain what purpose they have

>achieved. So far as I can see, all they have done is give

>more ammunition to Israel's critics.

For once, we agree. (Maybe, you are uncut afterall!)}(

>For once, we agree. (Maybe, you are uncut afterall!)

Pipe down, lamebrain. After wasting my time with the nonsense posted by that other idiot, more crap from you is the last thing I need. I think the two of you should get married. You have a lot more in common than plenty of couples I know.

>Which of the following best describes you:

>

>(A) You are aware of how stupid you are, but think that it

>shouldn't stop you from expressing your views, since you

>believe that, your stupidity notwithstanding, your heart is

>still in the "right place" and you have "common sense"; or,

>

>(B) You are so stupid that you are actually even unaware of

>how stupid you are, or even that you are stupid.

>

>I am genuinely interested in your answer to this question.

In your case, Doug/FFF, I believe that c)All of the Above would be the correct answer. Let's assume for a moment that one actually could travel back through time and assassinate Hitler. Would it actually save lives? Or would something as foul or more foul than Hitler rise to fill the void? You can't know, so to suggest that going back in time to kill Hitler would result in millions of lives saved is Pollyana thinking at best.

I agree with you that the not so Holy child molester got exactly what he deserved (was it Schillinger or Adebisi that ordered the hit, I wonder?), but as for rejoicing over the death of OBL, maybe if he died of natural causes, yes, but were he to be killed? Absolutely not. Alive, OBL causes havoc but can be silenced. Martyrs can never be silenced.

>I think the two of you should get married. You

>have a lot more in common than plenty of couples I know.

Funny, I have noted a marked similarity in your writing styles and forms of argumentation. You would not be playing with yourself here on-line, would you?;-)