Extrajudicial killing; For or Against?

[Anglojew]

An extrajudicial killing is the killing of a person by governmental authorities without the sanction of any judicial proceeding or legal process. Extrajudicial punishments are by their nature unlawful, since they bypass the due process of the legal jurisdiction in which they occur. Extrajudicial killings often target leading political, trade union, dissident, religious, and social figures and may be carried out by the state government or other state authorities like the armed forces and police.

Are you for or against extrajudicial killings?

What circumstances, eg killing terrorists, are they justified?

[Feral]

People, on the table, likes to talk about human rights, and no matter how much they try rationalize certain cases, if it happen off the table, they don't even care to deny that, yes, the world might be a better place without some people.

[rhiannon]

Are you for or against extrajudicial killings?

What circumstances, eg killing terrorists, are they justified?

I don't know about terrorists......but child killers?

YES.

No trial. Just kill them. In public.

Fuck yes.

[Caismeachd]

No because it undermines "liberty" and democracy. I know Mossad and Russia are big fans of it. Perhaps the US as well. But what's to stop an average person to do the same thing? What difference is it if a regular joe kills someone because that person impedes their livelihood (vigilante justice) or a govt agent instead? What if we drag pedos and thieves into the streets like Rihanna says and set them on fire like they do in Africa and Mexico? It's no different really.

[meAyin-sixteen]

-all animals are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

-(biologically speaking), we are animals and animals are not bound by any moral code

-we evolved to capture our prey using our hearts instead of claws

-Love is what holds the Universe together

[Hexachordia]

Who judge the acts of nations, LOL.

[Manifest Destiny]

Unless it's law enforcement officers acting in defense of self or others, I don't think the government should be killing American citizens on American soil unless they've been convicted of something by a jury of their peers in a legitimate trial.

[Caismeachd]

It's probably the fault of stupid people/criminals, but compared to elsewhere, American cops are way too quick to pull the trigger. Seems like the value of life in the US isn't very high.

[The Lawspeaker]

I don't know about terrorists......but child killers?

YES.

No trial. Just kill them. In public.

Fuck yes.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWPjvpjBdNI

Both terrorists and child killers. Get rid of them !

[The Lawspeaker]

From a legal point of view: when a state of war exists prisoners of war ought to be treated with courtesy and respect: however.. if we were to deal with f.i Islamic or left-wing terrorists or indeed any sort of terrorists than those are not protected by the Geneva Convention. They should be "questioned" and then, when they are of no further use, lined up and shot (and in the case of Islamic terrorists buried under a pig-layer cover and with their arses turned to Mecca). And this should be standard procedure. Pictures should be taken and used to deter further terrorist attacks.

[Hithaeglir]

Against

[Yehiel]

They should stand trial before death if they is no proof of that he/she did it than they should not be killed

[The Lawspeaker]

They should stand trial before death if they is no proof of that he/she did it than they should not be killed

What if caught red-handed ?

[Scandalf]

Are you for or against extrajudicial killings?

What circumstances, eg killing terrorists, are they justified?

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!
Give that power to authority!?! How do you know it will be actually used to kill criminals? Authority's only interest is to perpetuate itself, it's highly probable that it would use that power to kill dissidents.

[Scandalf]

What if caught red-handed ?

Caught red-handed is proof.

[Yehiel]

What if caught red-handed ?

that counts as proof, still need to go before trial though

[SkyBurn]

Yup. Lynching and crimes of passion is exactly what we need in this world. Who even needs systematic evidence?

Circumstantial evidence is not unfalsifiable, and I believe in innocent until proven guilty. I cannot trust the government to abide by that.

[The Lawspeaker]

that counts as proof, still need to go before trial though

A waste of good time and resources then if he is to be shot anyway.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

From a legal point of view: when a state of war exists prisoners of war ought to be treated with courtesy and respect: however.. if we were to deal with f.i Islamic or left-wing terrorists or indeed any sort of terrorists than those are not protected by the Geneva Convention. They should be "questioned" and then, when they are of no further use, lined up and shot (and in the case of Islamic terrorists buried under a pig-layer cover and with their arses turned to Mecca). And this should be standard procedure. Pictures should be taken and used to deter further terrorist attacks.

Although I agree that a terrorist isn't protected under the Geneva Convention I point out that some people may manipulate language for their own purposes. Was the Viet Cong a terrorist group? Or was it an extension of the North Vietnamese Army? They did dress in a way to distinguish themselves from the civilian population but they also blended in with the population.

[The Lawspeaker]

Although I agree that a terrorist isn't protected under the Geneva Convention I point out that some people may manipulate language for their own purposes. Was the Viet Cong a terrorist group? Or was it an extension of the North Vietnamese Army? They did dress in a way to distinguish themselves from the civilian population but they also blended in with the population.

It was not an official army or security service and they blended in with the local population. And thus they are terrorists. Security services: either state paramilitaries, the police or the armed forces itself.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

What if caught red-handed ?

Are you a child? This opens up lots of unwanted doors towards an authoritarian regime.

"We need to get rid of Lawspeaker for having dangerous political opinions."

"Okay, he was caught red handed setting explosives. That settles it."

"Won't it come out in trial that he didn't?"

"Trial? He was caught this morning setting up explosives. Off with his head! Now go ask him to join us for breakfast so we can arrest and kill this mo' fo'."

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

It was not an official army or security service and they blended in with the local population. And thus they are terrorists. Security services: either state paramilitaries, the police or the armed forces itself.

Dutch resistance fighters during WW2 would fall under the category of terrorists also, correct?

[The Lawspeaker]

Are you a child? This opens up lots of unwanted doors towards an authoritarian regime.

"We need to get rid of Lawspeaker for having dangerous political opinions."

"Okay, he was caught red handed setting explosives. That settles it."

"Won't it come out in trial that he didn't?"

"Trial? He was caught this morning setting up explosives. Off with his head! Now go ask him to join us for breakfast so we can arrest and kill this mo' fo'."

Bollocks. You think too much of regimes that do not exist and will not exist.

[The Lawspeaker]

Dutch resistance fighters during WW2 would fall under the category of terrorists also, correct?

Yes. And they were treated as such and legally speaking the Germans were correct. Let me explain that: when a government forsakes its duty and goes into exile the occupying power becomes, de jure, the legal government whose responsibility it is to maintain law and order. This is what international law has to say about it. Resistance fighters, no matter how admirable their cause, tended to bomb trains and hold up stores and distribution centres. Where does resistance end where does terrorism begin ? This is why shooting resistance fighters is not seen as a war crime. If they were shot by the German army that would have been legal - if they would have been shot by Dutch traitors that would have been a crime.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

Bollocks. You think too much of regimes that do not exist and will not exist.

Obviously you're not a student of history.

[The Lawspeaker]

Obviously you're not a student of history.

Actually.. you're very wrong there. Name one regime in Europe that is currently a dictatorship. Just one.

[SkyBurn]

Actually.. you're very wrong there. Name one regime in Europe that is currently a dictatorship. Just one.

Belarus?

[Hartley]

Belarus?

It doesn't fit the technical definition of a dictatorship.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

Yes. And they were treated as such and legally speaking the Germans were correct. Let me explain that: when a government forsakes its duty and goes into exile the occupying power becomes, de jure, the legal government whose responsibility it is to maintain law and order. This is what international law has to say about it. Resistance fighters, no matter how admirable their cause, tended to bomb trains and hold up stores and distribution centres. Where does resistance end where does terrorism begin ? This is why shooting resistance fighters is not seen as a war crime.

Actually, you're only partially correct on the law. Resistance fighters fall under the protection of the Geneva Convention if they can be identified in combat. Something as simple as an arm band during combat is sufficient. That's what international law has to say about it.

What if the new legal government doesn't follow the rule of law? What then?

I think you're looking for justifications to murder Muslims, to be honest, in their own homeland.

[The Lawspeaker]

Belarus?

As if Belarus is going to invade and occupy the rest of Europe. Hahaha. If they were to march for five miles into Poland they would have been turned to dust.

[The Lawspeaker]

Actually, you're only partially correct on the law. Resistance fighters fall under the protection of the Geneva Convention if they can be identified in combat. Something as an arm band during combat is sufficient. That's what international law has to say about it.

Yes and they were not. Not until 1945.

[SkyBurn]

It doesn't fit the technical definition of a dictatorship.

In that case, it's a dictatorship in all but name.


As if Belarus is going to invade and occupy the rest of Europe. Hahaha. If they were to march for five miles into Poland they would have been turned to dust.

You asked for a dictatorship, not a powerful one :P

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

Actually.. you're very wrong there. Name one regime in Europe that is currently a dictatorship. Just one.

Modern Europe? What does "a student of history" mean to you? I know what it means to everyone else. You said such a regime has never happened: that is false. Romania within our own life time was a dictatorship, for example. We also have to take into account of nations outside of Europe. International law applies to them as well, no? Why only mention today's Europe?

[The Lawspeaker]

Modern Europe? What does "a student of history" mean to you? I know what it means to everyone else. You said such a regime has never happened: that is false. Romania within our own life time was a dictatorship, for example. We also have to take into account of nations outside of Europe. International law applies to them as well, no? Why only mention today's Europe?
Name one scenario that is of any significance to you or me in our present lifetime as we speak. Just one dangerous dictatorship that threatens you or me. In our own country.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

Yes and they were not. Not until 1945.

As I said already but you probably didn't see it because I add it after i made my post the Nazi regime in Netherlands did not follow the rule of law. Hell, they were starving the population on purpose at the end of the war.

It's very murky these international laws. No government actually follows them if it hinders their objective in any way and it's only the losers of the war that pay the price for not following international law.

[LightHouse89]

Are you for or against extrajudicial killings?

What circumstances, eg killing terrorists, are they justified?

I am pro Capital Punishment....I am tried of my tax dollars being used to house and take care of people in Gitmo...they should be hanged all of them. On top of this I am disgusted with 'Europe' for housing known terror suspects and not handing them over to be tried in court here....shows how much they are allies.....I will be glad when Russian tanks are driving in their capitals. Pay back is a bitch they say.

[LightHouse89]

Modern Europe? What does "a student of history" mean to you? I know what it means to everyone else. You said such a regime has never happened: that is false. Romania within our own life time was a dictatorship, for example. We also have to take into account of nations outside of Europe. International law applies to them as well, no? Why only mention today's Europe?

who cares about them.... they think they are higher born because they are from 'western europe'....they can go fuck themselves they are considered bottom of the barrel where I live.

[The Lawspeaker]

Hell, they were starving the population on purpose at the end of the war.

Wrong. Faux-pas even. On 17 September 1944 the Dutch government-in-exile (in London) orders a general railway strike that is not rescinded. Food can be found in the lesser populated East, the people in the West. Coal can be found in the liberated South (Limburg Province). But you're not Dutch so you wouldn't know that. Another cause: Allied fighter planes were constantly attacking both military and civilian transportation alike. Combine this with the harshest winter for over 40 years. How the hell do you expect to keep millions fed and warm in conditions such as those ? Half the country was in the frontline.


It's very murky these international laws. No government actually follows them if it hinders their objective in any way and it's only the losers of the war that pay the price for not following international law.
That's a nice platitude.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

Name one scenario that is of any significance to you or me in our present lifetime as we speak. Just one dangerous dictatorship that threatens you or me. In our own country.

It's irrelevant whether you or I feel threatened by a foreign regime. What matters is it exists. And whether it's "significant" is rather subjective. Don't play semantics with me. You made a false statement. Now you're finding ways to make your statement valid but that can't be done now with your attempts to add on to what you said.

Lawspeaker: Such regimes didn't exist and never will.

Colonel: They have existed. Here is one of many examples.

The first part of your statement is false.

What of the second part? Well, if they existed before, why assume human nature has changed and such a thing won't happen again?

[The Lawspeaker]

It's irrelevant whether you or I feel threaten by it. What matters is it exists. And whether it's "significant" is rather subjective. Don't play semantics with me. You made a false statement. Now you're finding ways to make your statement valid but that can't be done now with your attempts to add on to what you said.

Lawspeaker: Such regimes didn't exist and never will.

Colonel: They have existed. Here is one of many examples.

The first part of your statement is false.

What of the second part? Well, if they existed before, why assume human nature has changed and such a thing won't happen again?

Do. They. Exist. Now. The answer no so your argument fails.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

Wrong. Faux-pas even. On 17 September 1944 the Dutch government-in-exile (in London) orders a general railway strike that is not rescinded. Food can be found in the lesser populated East, the people in the West. Coal can be found in the liberated South (Limburg Province). But you're not Dutch so you wouldn't know that. Another cause: Allied fighter planes were constantly attacking both military and civilian transportation alike. Combine this with the harshest winter for over 40 years. How the hell do you expect to keep millions fed and warm in conditions such as those ? Half the country was in the frontline.

You're using a fallacy: you're not Dutch and so you don't know.

I am however a student of history and you should know that the German high command gave orders stopping food shipments. It was done on purpose to starve the population as punishment.



That's a nice platitude.

It's an honest observation but don't keep me from stopping you from finding a way to kill Muslims in their own lands. You're not the one who has to live with it. It's easy to talk when you're not the one who has to pull the trigger.

[LightHouse89]

I believe in capital punishment.... an eye for an eye. :cool: I think though that executions should be public here in America and I hope my state starts practicing it again because the prison population is too big here....a good way to get rid of afew blacks and other genetic garbage wasting tax dollars in prison. I really think they should make them public or at least put them on tv like pay perview.

[The Lawspeaker]

You're using a fallacy: you're not Dutch and so you don't know.

I am however a student of history and you should know that the German high command gave orders stopping food shipments. It was done on purpose to starve the population as punishment.
I don't think you're a student of history at all. Did you know that after the war no one was prosecuted for the Hongerwinter. Because if they had the London government would have hanged as well.



That's a nice platitude.

It's an honest observation but don't keep me from stopping you from finding a way to kill Muslims in their own lands. You're not the one who has to live with it. It's easy to talk when you're not the one who has to pull the trigger.
No honest observations from you. You seem to forget that when a mess hits this country we will have to fight while you, American libertard traitor, will gladly sell us out.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

Oh noes... Lawspeaker is thumbing me down... such a hardcore warrior, he be.

Childish, brah.

[The Lawspeaker]

Oh noes... Lawspeaker is thumbing me down... such a hardcore warrior, he be.

Childish, brah.

You deserve them. You would much rather see us all under Sharia law. I personally think that liberals should be targetted just the same in case there is trouble in Europe because they are fifth columnists.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

I don't think you're a student of history at all. Did you know that after the war no one was prosecuted for the Hongerwinter. Because if they had the London government would have hanged as well.

Um, because the German generals made a deal to surrender. If they had kept fighting, they would have been put on trial.


No honest observations from you.

So nations do typically follow international law when it would hinder their objective?


You seem to forget that when a mess hits this country we will have to fight while you, American libertard traitor, will gladly sell us out.

Another fallacy you have made. Choosing not to kill people without a trial is not selling out. It's keeping a leash on fanatics who prefer to sell their soul for hatred. People have to live with themselves afterwards, you know. When you toss out the rule of law what you get is thugs like yourself running the show and we all know how that ends up.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

You deserve them. You would much rather see us all under Sharia law. I personally think that liberals should be targetted just the same in case there is trouble in Europe because they are fifth columnists.

Any more fallacies you want to throw my way? The sad thing is you're 31. I expect such nonsense to come from a kid.

[The Lawspeaker]

Um, because the German generals made a deal to surrender. If they had kept fighting, they would have been put on trial.
No they didn't. What the American Bedell Smith said had no legal meaning. The general commander of the armed forces present was Gen. Faulkes, 1st Canadian Army.




So nations do follow international law when it would hinder them?
Why should we when it hinders us ?





Another fallacy you have made. Choosing not to kill people without a trial is not selling out. It's keeping a leash on fanatics who prefer to sell their soul for hatred. People have to live with themselves afterwards, you know. When you toss out the rule of law what you get is thugs like yourself running the show and we all know how that ends up.
No.. it's giving fanatics the chance to do their dirty work without fearing repercussions. The rule of law is a nice theory but wars are not won that way. Soon you will be telling me that Dresden was not a war crime.

[The Lawspeaker]

Any more fallacies you want to throw my way? The sad thing is you're 31. I expect such nonsense from a 20 year old.

The only thing you understand are fallacies. It doesn't take long for anyone to recognise liberal trolls.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

The only thing you understand are fallacies. It doesn't take long for anyone to recognise liberal trolls.

Calling someone a troll when they provided a valid argument falls under one of the many fallacies that exist in our flawed world.

Since I'm a troll you should report me to the moderators. Maybe we can have a show trial.

[The Lawspeaker]

Calling someone a troll when they provided a valid argument falls under one of the many fallacies that exist in our flawed world.

Since I'm a troll you should report me to the moderators. Maybe we can have a show trial.

But I know your kind: you would put terrorists on a "fair" trial and then have them released and compensated. That's what liberals do,