KD in CA Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 You mean torture? Yes, torture. Do you get to check off a square now on retard buzzword bingo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 (edited) The criminal is also a citizen; further, the role of government in not to "protect it's citizens from domestic criminals" insomuch as it is to enforce the rule of law in order to promote a predicatable and orderly domestic economy. A government empowered to kill it's citizens will always kill it's citizens. So the government is to limit its own efficiency in order to prevent it from abusing its power to kill citizens? Edited March 11, 2015 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 So the government is to limit its own efficiency in order to prevent it from abusing its power to kill citizens?Do the citizens exist for the purposes of government, or does government exist for the purposes of it's citizens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 (edited) Do the citizens exist for the purposes of government, or does government exist for the purposes of it's citizens?The second. I suppose the disconnect lies in the rights of criminals, even if they are citizens. If a convicted mass murderer exists, who clearly endangers the lives of citizens, shouldn't he be dealt with swiftly, efficiently and permanently? Edited March 12, 2015 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Yes, torture. Do you get to check off a square now on retard buzzword bingo? Oh my! We are not suppose to use that word, "retard." There is a poster that it upsets. The second. I suppose the disconnect lies in the rights of criminals, even if they are citizens. If a convicted mass murderer exists, who clearly endangers the lives of citizens, shouldn't he be dealt with swiftly, efficiently and permanently? So you only think mass murderers should be killed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 The second. I suppose the disconnect lies in the rights of criminals, even if they are citizens. If a convicted mass murderer exists, who clearly endangers the lives of citizens, shouldn't he be dealt with swiftly, efficiently and permanently? I don't think that they should. My reasoning is as follows: I am justifiably skeptical of the trustworthiness of government. Given this, I resist giving it powers, as it continues to evidence that it will abuse those we've already entrusted to it. As such, the power that I am the most reluctant to grant to government is the power to kill it's own citizens. All powers granted to government, over time, are abused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Oh my! We are not suppose to use that word, "retard." There is a poster that it upsets. So you only think mass murderers should be killed? Are we talking? I don't think that they should. My reasoning is as follows: I am justifiably skeptical of the trustworthiness of government. Given this, I resist giving it powers, as it continues to evidence that it will abuse those we've already entrusted to it. As such, the power that I am the most reluctant to grant to government is the power to kill it's own citizens. All powers granted to government, over time, are abused. Ah, so it's the citizen distinction. As long as the government is never given the power to kill a citizen, it can never turn on the citizens whom it exists to serve? Gotcha. I suppose that makes sense. Although, seeing as capital punishment already exists in the US, it's a hard ideology to "get back on track" with, so to speak. Once the government has that power, it won't let go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Are we talking? Ah, so it's the citizen distinction. As long as the government is never given the power to kill a citizen, it can never turn on the citizens whom it exists to serve? Gotcha. I suppose that makes sense. Although, seeing as capital punishment already exists in the US, it's a hard ideology to "get back on track" with, so to speak. Once the government has that power, it won't let go. "Once government has the power to kill it's citizens, it won't let that power go." That thought should horrify you when you really think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 "Once government has the power to kill it's citizens, it won't let that power go." That thought should horrify you when you really think about it. Well, mostly any power, not just that one, but it is worrisome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 The criminal is also a citizen; Only when they abide by the Law, once they have decided they don't want to abide by the law they lose that status. "Once government has the power to kill it's citizens, it won't let that power go." That thought should horrify you when you really think about it. Only when they try to take away my right to defend myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 You mean torture? You asked about 'foreigners that commit terrorist acts', so I answered in that context. Yes, there's little that I wouldn't do to extract information from non-citizen terrorists if I thought it would save American lives. I would resort to torture if I felt it was necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 (edited) Only when they abide by the Law, once they have decided they don't want to abide by the law they lose that status. What? No they don't. Natural born citizens can never, under any circumstances, have their citizenship stripped against their will. Naturalized citizens can only be denaturatized under a few very specific circumstances.: Grounds for Denaturalization Falsification or Concealment of Relevant Facts: You must be absolutely truthful when filling out paperwork and answering interview questions related to the naturalization application process. Even if the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) fails to recognize any lies or ommissions at first, the agency may file a denaturalization action against you after citizenship has been granted. Examples include failure to disclose criminal activities or lying about one's real name or identity. Refusal to Testify Before Congress: You may not refuse to testify before a U.S. congressional committee whose job it is to investigate your alleged involvement in subversive acts, such as those intended to harm U.S. officials or overthrow the U.S. government. This requirement to testify in order to maintain citizenship status expires after 10 years. Membership in Subversive Groups: Your citizenship may be revoked if the U.S. government can prove that you joined a subversive organization within five years of becoming a naturalized citizen. Membership in such organizations is considered a violation of the oath of U.S. allegiance. Examples include the Nazi Party and Al Qaeda. Dishonorable Military Discharge: Since you may become a naturalized U.S. citizen by virtue of serving in the U.S. military, your citizenship may be revoked if you are dishonorably discharged before serving five years. Reasons for dishonorable discharge, which must follow a general court-martial, include desertion and sexual assault. Only when they try to take away my right to defend myself. ... You really believe that you have the ability to defend yourself against a government that has been entrusted with the legitimate power to kill you? Edited March 12, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 What? No they don't. You really believe that you have the ability to defend yourself against a government that has been entrusted with the legitimate power to kill you? Sorry I phrased that wrong, they don't lose citizenship they lose some of their rights, like voting, and in some cases life. Yes Yes I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Sorry I phrased that wrong, they don't lose citizenship they lose some of their rights, like voting, and in some cases life. The Right to Life is inalienable. "impossible to take away or give up" Yes Yes I do Then you're either an idiot, or you haven't thought this proposition all the way through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts