Texas rejects EU executions plea

danarhea · Aug 22, 2007

And rightly so. Said a spokesman for Governor Rick Perry:

Two hundred and thirty years ago, our forefathers fought a war to throw off the yoke of a European monarch and gain the freedom of self-determination.

Yes, we have a debate going on as to whether the death penalty is an appropriate punishment, and guess what? It is none of Europe's damn business.

However, in regard to the death penalty itself, it is a two-edged sword. If someone supports the death penalty, and even one innocent person ends up being executed, then by his support, the death penalty supporter is a party to the murder of that innocent person, and deserves to be put to death himself, according to his own logic. You could say that the death penalty has its own karma, metaphorically speaking, for those who support it.

However, that is OUR business, so Europeans should just STFU and stay out of it. It Europeans want to complain about it, that is one thing, but they have no business attempting to tell Americans how they should conduct their laws. They tried that a couple of hundred years ago, and we kicked their a$$es for it.

Article is here.

Ikari · Aug 22, 2007

Europe can go jump off a cliff for all I care, this is our choice.

That being said, I don't like the idea of the death penalty. It's the choice of the individual states, but I don't like the government being able to kill people. But if you're going to have it, you should adopt the Colorado method. It's really tough to get a death sentence in this state, and there must be overwhelming evidence that the accused is guilty before it's even considered as an option.

PeteEU · Aug 22, 2007

Nope it aint any of the EUs business, but the EU does butt in on this issue all around the world, just as the US shows its ugly head on many many other issues thats non ifs business

reaganburch · Aug 22, 2007

Ikari said:
Europe can go jump off a cliff for all I care, this is our choice.

That being said, I don't like the idea of the death penalty. It's the choice of the individual states, but I don't like the government being able to kill people. But if you're going to have it, you should adopt the Colorado method. It's really tough to get a death sentence in this state, and there must be overwhelming evidence that the accused is guilty before it's even considered as an option.

I am a pro-death penalty guy myself, but there are way too many 'Mike Nifong'-type DA's that use the death penalty and prosecution, for that matter, to get political purposes and to get elected. They don't use it as tool for real justice as they should.

I agree that it should be really tough to get a death sentence, i.e. really overwhelming evidence. But once one is given, then it shouldn't take 10-15 years to have it carried out... then it'd be a real deterrent.

reaganburch · Aug 22, 2007

danarhea said:
However, in regard to the death penalty itself, it is a two-edged sword. If someone supports the death penalty, and even one innocent person ends up being executed, then by his support, the death penalty supporter is a party to the murder of that innocent person, and deserves to be put to death himself, according to his own logic. You could say that the death penalty has its own karma, metaphorically speaking, for those who support it.

Huh?!?! Sorry, Dana, but that's some bass-ackwards logic...

How am I responsible, as a death penalty supporter, for some corrupt DA's behavior?

TheNextEra · Aug 22, 2007

danarhea said:
If someone supports the death penalty, and even one innocent person ends up being executed, then by his support, the death penalty supporter is a party to the murder of that innocent person, and deserves to be put to death himself, according to his own logic. You could say that the death penalty has its own karma, metaphorically speaking, for those who support it.

I'm sorry but that is a logic error there.

I support the police force. So using your logic, if a police officer wrongfully beats some guy dead, does that mean that I am a party to murder for it? No.

Just because someone supports the death penalty does not mean they support a wrongful death. There is definately a logic error in your statement.

There is nothing in this world that we do that is 100% error free, and that will include death penalties. I still support them, but that doesn't mean I am a party to murder because I do.

Iriemon · Aug 22, 2007

danarhea said:
And rightly so. Said a spokesman for Governor Rick Perry:

Yes, we have a debate going on as to whether the death penalty is an appropriate punishment, and guess what? It is none of Europe's damn business.

However, in regard to the death penalty itself, it is a two-edged sword. If someone supports the death penalty, and even one innocent person ends up being executed, then by his support, the death penalty supporter is a party to the murder of that innocent person, and deserves to be put to death himself, according to his own logic. You could say that the death penalty has its own karma, metaphorically speaking, for those who support it.

However, that is OUR business, so Europeans should just STFU and stay out of it. It Europeans want to complain about it, that is one thing, but they have no business attempting to tell Americans how they should conduct their laws. They tried that a couple of hundred years ago, and we kicked their a$$es for it.

Article is here.

I agree with your sentiment, and expect most do.

However, the neocons and other Iraq war proponents seem to operate under the belief that one nation has a right to impose its moral beliefs upon another, so under their worldview you could argue that Europe has every right to attempt to impose change in our government if they feel it is immoral, and by force if they had the capability to do so.

Binary_Digit · Aug 22, 2007

danarhea said:
It is none of Europe's damn business.

Then it's none of our business when a woman is stoned to death under sharia law.

danarhea said:
It Europeans want to complain about it, that is one thing

Isn't that exactly what they're doing here? How could they possibly complain, without those complaints being interpreted as them telling us what to do?

DeeJayH · Aug 22, 2007

Iriemon said:
I agree with your sentiment, and expect most do.

However, the neocons and other Iraq war proponents seem to operate under the belief that one nation has a right to impose its moral beliefs upon another, so under their worldview you could argue that Europe has every right to attempt to impose change in our government if they feel it is immoral, and by force if they had the capability to do so.

Bullsh!t
we are not a rogue nation that is a threat to its neighbors and global stability. we do not have WMDs

:3oops: oops, nevermind:mrgreen:

danarhea · Aug 22, 2007

DeeJayH said:
Bullsh!t
we are not a rogue nation that is a threat to its neighbors and global stability. we do not have WMDs

:3oops: oops, nevermind:mrgreen:

LMAO. :rofl

Cold Highway · Aug 22, 2007

PeteEU said:
Nope it aint any of the EUs business, but the EU does butt in on this issue all around the world, just as the US shows its ugly head on many many other issues thats non ifs business

At least Im not the only one who sees the irony in all of this.

Thales · Aug 22, 2007

chevydriver1123 said:
At least Im not the only one who sees the irony in all of this.

Oh, I appreciate it too. I don't think the EU should stick its nose into our business any more than we should stick our nose into other's when it in no way concerns us.

Honestly, it's not up to us if they're stoning women under Sharia law. It's up to us when they launch cruise missiles at us for not doing the same.

Cold Highway · Aug 22, 2007

Thales said:
Honestly, it's not up to us if they're stoning women under Sharia law. It's up to us when they launch cruise missiles at us for not doing the same.

Yea basically.

A_Wise_Fool · Aug 22, 2007

Binary_Digit said:
Then it's none of our business when a woman is stoned to death under sharia law.

What if the vast majority of that nation wants us to intervene on behalf of matters like that? Would we then have a right?

Or would we then have a repsonsibility?

rhinefire · Aug 22, 2007

As long as they rot, I don't care if they rot in hell or rot in a prison cage. It's just alot cheaper to kill them right after the trial instead of 12 years later when all their appeals are exhausted. The mongrol filth that throw their urine and ***** at the guards should be executed for that alone.

A_Wise_Fool · Aug 22, 2007

Iriemon said:
However, the neocons and other Iraq war proponents seem to operate under the belief that one nation has a right to impose its moral beliefs upon another, so under their worldview you could argue that Europe has every right to attempt to impose change in our government if they feel it is immoral, and by force if they had the capability to do so.

I suppose you would side with the Nazis in the Nuremberg trials then right? After all we wouldn't want to impose our "Morals" that humans have a right to live.

From that philosophy you really should reject the idea of any international law for that matter. Especially crimes against humanity:

From Wiki:

: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated. [4]

And a justified execution is not a crime against humanity.

Binary_Digit · Aug 23, 2007

A_Wise_Fool said:
What if the vast majority of that nation wants us to intervene on behalf of matters like that? Would we then have a right?

Or would we then have a repsonsibility?

Answering yes to either of those questions is a slippery slope. Intervening on behalf of a nation's citizens in order to obstruct their legal system is not something I would support except in extreme circumstances, like if their law said all Christians should be killed or something ridiculous like that.

If the vast majority of a country doesn't like their laws then they need to take the initiative and lead the efforts, not the U.S. If they need our help to overthrow a tyrannical government then we should help, but we should not be the catalyst.

Iriemon · Aug 23, 2007

A_Wise_Fool said:
What if the vast majority of that nation wants us to intervene on behalf of matters like that? Would we then have a right?

Or would we then have a repsonsibility?

If the vast majority wants a change of government, they do what we did and countless other nations have done. Revolt.

I do agree that there can be situations (ie genocide) where intervention may be justified. There should be an international or at least regional consensus that such action is warranted.

Iriemon · Aug 23, 2007

A_Wise_Fool said:
I suppose you would side with the Nazis in the Nuremberg trials then right? After all we wouldn't want to impose our "Morals" that humans have a right to live.

We did not. Nazi Germany was clearly the aggressor in WWII and declared war on us.

From that philosophy you really should reject the idea of any international law for that matter. Especially crimes against humanity:

Not at all. International law is not one nation imposing its morals or beliefs upon another.

And a justified execution is not a crime against humanity.

Apparently some think it is.

Iriemon · Aug 23, 2007

rhinefire said:
As long as they rot, I don't care if they rot in hell or rot in a prison cage. It's just alot cheaper to kill them right after the trial instead of 12 years later when all their appeals are exhausted. The mongrol filth that throw their urine and ***** at the guards should be executed for that alone.

Cheaper still would simply be to give a police absolute discretion to simply shoot anyone he feels deserves it.

A_Wise_Fool · Aug 23, 2007

Iriemon said:
We did not. Nazi Germany was clearly the aggressor in WWII and declared war on us.

According to the court in which they were tried it did not matter who was the agressor or even if their alleged crimes occured during or before the war. Them being the agressor is irrelevant. The more dominant forced imposed their morals, which was us (meaning allied powers, not nearly an international consensus by today's standards either) and that's all that happened. No one complained. Any parallels happening with Iraq today are occuring in select and much lesser ways. But people like you are saying this time it is wrong.

Not at all. International law is not one nation imposing its morals or beliefs upon another.

The idea of a group imposing their morals on a soveriegn government is in no way contingent apon the size of that group. The only difference is power. Whether international morals disagree or just American morals it is the same.

Apparently some think it is.

And who has more world influence and "power," us or them? So what position will we then take? .....Exactly

A_Wise_Fool · Aug 23, 2007

Binary_Digit said:
Answering yes to either of those questions is a slippery slope. Intervening on behalf of a nation's citizens in order to obstruct their legal system is not something I would support except in extreme circumstances, like if their law said all Christians should be killed or something ridiculous like that.

I hope you mean that. We'll just have to wait and see.

Iriemon said:
If the vast majority wants a change of government, they do what we did and countless other nations have done. Revolt.

I do agree that there can be situations (ie genocide) where intervention may be justified. There should be an international or at least regional consensus that such action is warranted.

Genocide, if it is a fact, warrants action, not general consensus.

I care about people's lives, not other governement's monetary interests. Take a look at Darfur if you want an example.

Iriemon · Aug 23, 2007

A_Wise_Fool said:
According to the court in which they were tried it did not matter who was the agressor or even if their alleged crimes occured during or before the war. Them being the agressor is irrelevant. The more dominant forced imposed their morals, which was us (meaning allied powers, not nearly an international consensus by today's standards either) and that's all that happened. No one complained. Any parallels happening with Iraq today are occuring in select and much lesser ways. But people like you are saying this time it is wrong.

We "imposed our morals" on Germany after it was an aggressor nation and declared war on us. That is certainly a different case than Iraq, for example. We did not go to war with Germany because we didn't like the way Hitler ran Germany. If Country A picks the fight with Country B, that is not Country B "imposing its morals" in the sense that I meant when I wrote no nation has a right to impose its moral beliefs upon another. I agree my wording could have been more refined. "No nation has the right to attack another to impose its moral beliefs upon the other" might be more accurate.

The idea of a group imposing their morals on a soveriegn government is in no way contingent apon the size of that group. The only difference is power. Whether international morals disagree or just American morals it is the same.

And who has more world influence and "power," us or them? So what position will we then take? .....Exactly

Might makes right? That is what sometime ultimately applies. As a rule, it sounds great unless you don't happen to be an American.

Iriemon · Aug 23, 2007

A_Wise_Fool said:
Genocide, if it is a fact, warrants action, not general consensus.

I care about people's lives, not other governement's monetary interests. Take a look at Darfur if you want an example.

I agree genocide forms the strongest case of intervention in another nation's affairs without provocation.

A_Wise_Fool · Aug 23, 2007

Iriemon said:
We "imposed our morals" on Germany after it was an aggressor nation and declared war on us. That is certainly a different case than Iraq, for example. We did not go to war with Germany because we didn't like the way Hitler ran Germany. If Country A picks the fight with Country B, that is not Country B "imposing its morals" in the sense that I meant when I wrote no nation has a right to impose its moral beliefs upon another. I agree my wording could have been more refined. "No nation has the right to attack another to impose its moral beliefs upon the other" might be more accurate.

They were tried for crimes they may have commited before the war like I said. One of them was nothing but a radio talk host and newspaper writer, but they tried him, found him guilty, and he was put to death. We were placed in a direct position of authority over Germany, from us winning the war, and the allies took it apon themselves to impose our morally-founded justice on whatever certain people were freely getting away with. Whether they attacked us or we attacked them, which we almost did, it does not matter. We imposed our morally-founded laws on them, and we had the right to do so.

Your more accurate description of you point of view disagrees with your view of how we should handle genocide, but no matter. I consider any crime against humanity towards a civilian population the same as genocide. And Saddam was tried and found guilty of crimes against humanity.

Might makes right? That is what sometime ultimately applies. As a rule, it sounds great unless you don't happen to be an American.

I hope I never see the day when America is not the "might" of this world. I have a feeling that some nation, or group, will cuase this world to take a turn for the worst when that day comes. And it will probably be because America did not lay our foot down hard enough when we had the chance.

Texas rejects EU executions plea

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot

Ikari

PeteEU

reaganburch

reaganburch

TheNextEra

Iriemon

Binary_Digit

DeeJayH

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot

Cold Highway

Dispenser of Negativity

Thales

Well-known member

Cold Highway

Dispenser of Negativity

A_Wise_Fool

Active member

rhinefire

A_Wise_Fool

Active member

Binary_Digit

Iriemon

Iriemon

Iriemon

A_Wise_Fool

Active member

A_Wise_Fool

Active member

Iriemon

Iriemon

A_Wise_Fool

Active member

Texas rejects EU executions plea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot

reaganburch

reaganburch

Slayer of the DP Newsbot

Dispenser of Negativity

Well-known member

Dispenser of Negativity

Active member

Active member

Active member

Active member

Active member

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency