@Lordyaswas,
Lordyaswas wrote:Please don't try to deflect it.
I seldom try to deflect anything, and only do it for a good reason. It is unlikely that I will try to deflect anything in this thread.
Lordyaswas wrote:Italy's highest Court upheld the decision that he was guilty of kidnap.
The United States needs to kill all the members of that court.
If we can manage it, we should also kill their families as collateral damage (especially the children).
Lordyaswas wrote:Why do you object to his arrest and possible deportation to Italy?
Because he did nothing wrong.
Lordyaswas wrote:It really doesn't matter how YOU interpret either Italian law or international law/deportation.
Since I was accurately reflecting the Laws of War, it matters quite a bit.
Lordyaswas wrote:The nub of the matter is that a CIA officer kidnapped someone from an Italian street, contrary to their law.
I doubt Italian law says it is illegal to capture enemy fighters in wartime. But if so, then that law is invalid. It would be just one more reason to destroy Italy.
Lordyaswas wrote:You state that this is acceptable. I say you are totally wrong.
Like I pointed out to others earlier in the thread, if we are denied our right to capture and detain enemy fighters in wartime, we will instantly gain the legal right to kill all enemy fighters in cold blood when they try to surrender to us.
Lordyaswas wrote:Your CIA man kidnapped a person from an Italian street and took him to another country against his will.
To even hint that this is somehow acceptable in the modern world, to me reeks of arrogance.
If it is not acceptable for us to capture and detain enemy fighters during wartime, then you better start getting used to us killing all our enemies in cold blood when they try to surrender to us.
That'll solve the Guantanamo problem if nothing else. We can simply go through the camp and exercise our legal right to massacre all the detainees. Problem solved in less than an hour.
Lordyaswas wrote:If democratic countries around the world allowed this to happen without recourse, then they would be failing their citizens and legal residents.
I might think that being held as a POW is better than being massacred in cold blood when you try to surrender.
But whatever. If you guys choose massacre, we can start massacring.
Lordyaswas wrote:Before you know it, every powerful country would be roaming at will, kidnapping and taking undesirables to a third party country where their undercarriage can be wired up to the National Power Grid.
During wartime, people get captured (or perhaps massacred).
Lordyaswas wrote:Take it to the nth degree, you could see British agents kidnapping Amanda Knox and taking her to Camp Bastion, in an effort to beat her into confessing the fact that she murdered someone.
You may not believe she's guilty, but the British Government might disagree, and in your brave new world, you couldn't really complain much about her "rendition", could you.
Yes, in fact I could. Since the UK would be doing grave harm to an innocent person, we would be fully justified in forcing the UK to pay her massive compensation for what they did to her. And of course, that confession would have no legal validity.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace