Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by Lewis, Oct 15, 2010.
Thank you Jason.
Uhm...no it doesnt suffice.
What? Televised? Reporters??? Huh?
Do they have the right to due process? The SUSPECTED domestic terrorists? YES or NO.
It's a simple one word answer. Do you wanna answer the question or do you wanna disco around some more?
already answered. when one is arrested. they are read miranda rights.! that i support.
are you talking about persons who are profiled. such as ma?
that isnt quite the charge of being suspected, just watched.
if i being the only white on the street go into a black neighboorhood late at night. The cops will question me.
they will want to know why i am there and what i am doing.
And do you support them GETTING what they are promised in the miranda rights or just the act of reading them their rights?
We're talking about suspected 'terrorists' with NO evidence against them at all. Profiled or not it doesn't matter.
name one that is being held for no charges.
then i can answer why.
let me ask you this, if i go to a kkk meeting that is associated with killing of blacks(has convicted members that served time for the sake of argument) and was detained would it be wrong?
Why do I need to name any? Its happening! It's allowed!
U.S. Can Confine Citizens Without Charges, Court Rules
By Jerry Markon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 10, 2005
A federal appeals court yesterday backed the president's power to indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen captured on U.S. soil without any criminal charges, holding that such authority is vital during wartime to protect the nation from terrorist attacks.
Jose Padilla is a good example.
Of course it would be wrong!
You might be there serving drinks for goodness sakes!
so you wouldnt let your teen son or daughter there.
lets be real.
so if you join the kkk you are in essence condoning their acts if they commit a crime and under suspicion.
so the police shouldnt monitor these groups wait till they kill hundreds.
so when someone tells them so and so is about to commit a crime. just say cant stop them. as they arent doing that act yet and under the constitution we can charge them till they do it.
if you serve drinks that means YOU Might KNOW what they are planning if the police hear somethings up and KNOW you are there they might take you in for questioning.
and if you dont talk they might try to persuade to talk by either saying we will ignore this charge or that one if you give us what we want to know.
or realease you if they dont have enough.
sure it can be abused.
but that is what has to be done at times.
so what should we do. stop policing neighborhoods and wait till the crime happens then act rather then prevent.
while that is a concern, but that is an overeaction on your part
how many since then have been charged?
i hear only padilla.
that is wrong but sometimes presidents and other overstep thier authority.
LOLZ! Classic Jason comment.
Is it legal to be a member of the KKK? If it is then you should not be held accountable for someone elses crime and should not, therefore, be under suspicion just for being a member of the club.
Um....maybe not hundreds...um....I would say wait until they kill MILLIONS!
Good grief man. EVIDENCE! I wanna see solid evidence. If you got that then you can ask pemission to put someone under surveilance or take them in for questioning.
You have solid testimony from a credible independant source? Thats evidence. You are clear to proceed with your investigation.
(**use Jason tactics**) So your saying it's ok to torture and blackmail perfectly innocent people just to get info out of them? Seriously? Your saying you would allow your own children to be tortured if it means a juicy piece of intel? Who are you Jack Bauer?
Prevention upon receipt of EVIDENCE ONLY!
Okay, as we approach 500 posts, the world is watching... Who has the greatest stamina and perseverance, and who will be the first one to admit that he won't change the view of the other? This is a tight one. Las Vegas odds have them at a near deadlock.
I will NEVER give up the FIGHT!!
I will never ever give up the fight, and that is what any real red blooded Republican American would do, never ever give up the fight it is God and country. Do you pacifist liberals hear me, I will never ever concede.
You are not really answering my question. You appear to presume that it is "impossible" that your take on Jesus in respect to the matter of pacifism is wrong.
Do you really want to say this?
Romans 13 is most certainly not any kind of defence for the Christian being involved in warfare.
Paul is telling us that, yes, God uses even corrupt human institutions to achieve order and combat evil in the world. But that is an entirely different question from the one as to whether the Christian should pariticpate in the use of force, even as carried out by the means of governments.
One needs to remember the Old Testament: God repeatedly used evil agencies to execute His (God's) judgement. But that is hardly an endorsement that we should sign up as members to those self-same agencies.
The fact that God endorses the use of the "sword" by governments does not mean that it is acceptable for Christians to participate in such activities. As per my last post, God uses even evil agencies to achieve his just purposes.
But that hardly justifies our being involved. God used Pharaoh. Does that mean it was OK to be a member the Egyptian crews who abused Hebrew slaves? Of course not.
we vote WE ARE INVOLVED. do you think that its ok to let someone lie and decieve you and manipulate your for his gain. or run for yourself.
i have a problem with your thinking.
you say vote and be involved so are we just to sit back and let the heathen self-centered person who isnt saved run things for us. do to what we wont do?
i am not talking about immoral activities.
you will see my on the news as i will be the one protesting when the time comes for civil disobedience.
i made that promise when its needed. i intend to keep it.
then did jesus say go and buy swords and dont use them.
that is like saying buy a hooker but dont have sex with her.
Jesus didnt say to peter go and deny me so that i might glorified, but rahter that he told peter you will deny him thrice
with the swords the command to go and buy for yourselves swords,scripts and purses for the money and food.
unless the kjv is off.
how. will the thug walk up and just volunteer the evidence if he knows.
so they find something that makes it worthwhile for him to talk. perfectly legal and necessary.
using your thinking then that thug serves time for petty theft ( 3yrs) and then a man for that dies, as he didnt talk.
slap on the hand vs life saved.
life aint perfect and cops dont deal with saints when it comes to crime prevention.
you dont like cops in fact i would say that you hate them. so why would you ever come forward?
who said torture?
funny that you watch tv when you say that it controls and owns you.
it may be under the first amendment to be in a hate group but they often act on those things.
that is why we monitor them. if a cross is on fire in the neighboorhood they get questioned.
Our rulers are the ones who declare war, the Bible tells us to obey our government.
Please. If your government told you to round up Jews and shoot them, would you obey such a command?
Paul's point in Romans 13 is that even that governments are there by God's decree. But, and you keep avoiding this, we know that God uses even evil power for his purposes. We know this not least from Romans 9 where Paul writes that Pharaoh was "raised up" so that God would be glorified.
But that is hardly a reason to join Pharaoh in abusing the Hebrew slaves. Even though it would be nice if Scripture gave us a "rule-book" that covers every situation, it clearly does not. Romans 13 certainly is not a mandate to obey governments no matter what they are asking you to do. It is Paul's brief treatment about how God prefers corrupt fallen governments over total anarchy.
Separate names with a comma.