Comments

Load 25 of 194 older comments
  • Peter von Nostrand: Prussian_Roulette: Invisible Obama: Prussian_Roulette:

    Dude, put the FOX News down.

    I'll keep this short, since I don't know what the Fark "wall of text" limiters are...

    1. "Defund the Police", doesn't mean that anyone wants to completely abolish all law enforcement.

    It's literally the first quote on the Defund the Police website: "Abolishing the police does not mean the abolishing of community safety."  People are explicitly advocating for it, and not on Qanon.  Even members of Congress have openly called for it.

    2. "ACAB" is a short acronym or slogan that is an indictment of modern American law enforcement culture, of the idea that there's pervasive racism in American policing and a strong "us vs. them" atmosphere where police now see themselves more as an occupying army rather than members of the community there to help people, and they have no problem lying, deceiving, or misleading everyday people if it helps them get more arrests, rather than helping people and helping the community.

    Well, "ALL cops are bad" certainly does establish an "us vs them" culture, doesn't it?  In fact, if ALL cops are bad, then how do you justify NOT abolishing the police?

    3. Punch a Nazi is good...Letting them walk around and spread their ideology is sewing ideological poison, spreading toxic memes like an infectious mental virus. . .the only proper response to Nazis is swift and overwhelming force.

    I can't put my finger on why you're not convincing me you have the moral high ground here - oh, wait...

    [Fark user image image 212x256]

    4. The vast majority of leftists and progressives in the country really didn't give a shiat about CHAZ....  Also, we never heard much in the way of complaints from the residents of that area objecting to it.  They seemed fine with it.

    They did, huh?  Then I guess they're not worried about their Yelp ratings, either.

    Laura Ingraham giving Trump a nazi salute at the 2016 RNC. It was not condemned by any Republicans. So, if the nazi shoe fits, Republicans should get used to wearing it.

    [Fark user image image 425x275]


    What the holy Frick is going through her mind when she decided to do this.  It honestly breaks a piece of me every time I see this crap.

    I mean redneck ignorant meth heads yes.  But otherwise educated successful people?....... Heartbreaking
  • lmb: Albert911emt: Everything Trump touches dies or is corrupted.

    He the exact opposite of King Midas. Everything he touches turns to 💩


    He's got the Charmin touch.
  • The 22 political murders committed by left-wing offenders from late 1919 to mid-1922 led to 38 convictions, including 10 executions and prison sentences averaging 15 years.

    By contrast, the 354 political murders committed by right-wing offenders in the same period led to 24 convictions, no executions at all, and an average sentence of 4 months, with 34 right-wing murderers who confessed to their crimes were actually acquitted by the courts.
  • Peter von Nostrand: FarkQued: Ishkur: orbister: Two politicians watching an extrajudicial execution they ordered:

    Osama's not American.

    two points you are making...
    1) Its ok to kill proven evil murderers...
    2) Only citizens of a country have rights in same country...

    JFC. You can't be that dense. In order to leap to that you have to completely ignore AUMF. Which exists and pretty much explicitly covers OBL. So no, enemies of the US that have declared war and propagated war like attacks against the US and are not US citizens tend not to get afforded some rights. Nor do Americans that cooperate and complicit with enemies and are operating as an enemy of the US in foreign lands.


    So what would you call war like attacks?
    1) Burning down city blocks, destroying businesses and endangering innocent people?
    2) Threatening and killing police officers, law enforcement, duly elected government officials?
    3) Tearing down historic markers and statues?
    4) Creating no go zones within a city, void of rule of law and government authority?
    5) Murders, rapes, in same no go zones?
    6) Attempting and succeeding to destroy public government buildings, offices?

    I am not excusing injustice, bad people doing illegal actions should be arrested and tried and punished no matter whom, through law enforcement and adjudication.

    I am also not excusing rioters to be free from same laws and rules because of injustice concerns.  Two wrongs do not make a right.

    Most of the arguments I see on these boards are so insular and biased that there is no ability to even see the whole picture.  Any attempt to present a different perspective is akin to resisting authoritarianism.  Those touting Diversity seek only to celebrate those flavors of diversity they choose.
  • Albert911emt: Everything Trump touches dies or is corrupted.


    I have to say this. No one ever does and I will say this once at least. There needs to be an exception to the victims..the victims he raped. He did more than touch them and hopefully not all are dead or are corrupted.
  • cretinbob: easier to post links from PC

    So the marshal deputies give conflicting accounts.
    The guy did have a gun in his pocket.
    I have been assured that carrying a gun is an inalienable right and not at all illegal.


    What does the marshall who is a real marshall and not the "deputized" ones say?
  • RottenEggs: Yeah , but that was just a show . It never really happened  . Although the mainstream media didn't have much to say about it this week . Those that did just tried to spin it off .

    Fark user imageView Full Size

  • The Trump Administration's position on Black Lives Matter is that it's perfectly ok for cops to kill people, at least Black people and leftists.  So no, this one won't get charged during the Trump Administration. If Biden wins, that will probably change.

    However, I'm disappointed that Lieu and Rice, both of whom were elected in 2014, didn't call for investigating Obama's extrajudicial murders of Americans, specifically Anwar Al-Awlaki and his kid, who Obama had killed by drones.  Trump whines about "Obamagate", while ignoring those murders, and the whole GOP whined about Benghazi, while not impeaching Obama for his unconstitutional war against Libya.  (Politically, the latter move was effective; it helped their then-future candidate beat Hillary, even though they kept finding nothing.)
  • Roshamon: Albert911emt: Everything Trump touches dies or is corrupted.

    Trump would be Sauron, but only if Sauron was a big, angry, flaming-orange vagina


    Wtf man. Why would you insult vaginas like that? Vaginas are nice.
  • This must be investigated.  In all other instances, after any death during an apprehension the rule is "Pay me now or pay me later".   The FULL story must be brought to light, reviewed, and assessed by the officers' superiors and the legal authorities who authorized the event before the books can close. A blank page in the record only invites a later investigation.  That one might be only six feet wide but it will be guaranteed to dig down a mile deep. Without this kind of accountability, what is there to ever distinguish what they're calling an "extrajudicial killing" from a murder or a lynching?
  • AllCatsAreBeautiful: Duh. Everyone knew this was a targeted assassination of an American citizen, on American soil, by the Feds. They were never going to arrest him and grant him due process in a criminal court.
    /I'm just surprised they didn't drone him instead.


    This.

    Along with the secret police taking people off the street into unmarked vans in Portland now apparently under trump DHS has moved into death squad territory.

    I guess with a larger agency that ominously has the word "Homeland " in it it was inevitable before it would devolve into authoritarian practices.
  • smunns: I guess whatever they have to do to derail an election is fair game for those people.


    The uS Marshals are trying to derail the election?
  • GummyBearOverlord: orbister:

    "Gramps was consistent in his opposition to killing people"#

    "Good old Gramps"

    I can live with that.

    I will admit I jumped to a conclusion.  Did you vote for Trump?


    I'm in the UK, so I didn't even get a chance not to do so. I'm a socialist (and a pacifist) so if the opportunity had arisen I would have voted for Bernie Sanders.

    I am wholly opposed to state killing, in part because once you concede (one concedes, not you personally) that it's OK for a good guy like Obama to have a bad guy like bin Laden killed, the issue has become one of who counts as good and who counts as bad and my view of that might not match, to take an example at random, Vladimir Putin's.

    Same with capital punishment. The state should never, ever, be in the business of killing us the people, even for very, very bad members of us the people because we never known who might one day be writing the definition of "very, very bad".
  • g.fro: orbister: Peter von Nostrand: So no, enemies of the US that have declared war and propagated war like attacks against the US and are not US citizens tend not to get afforded some rights. Nor do Americans that cooperate and complicit with enemies and are operating as an enemy of the US in foreign lands.

    Even the USA has signed up to the Geneva Convention.

    I must have missed the part in the Geneva Conventions which required a trial before one could kill the enemy. Do you have a reference handy?


    There's a bit about declarations of war and another bit about treatment of prisoners. Are you quite sure that you want to go down the road of summary execution for perceived enemies of the state?
  • Albert911emt: Everything Trump touches dies or is corrupted.


    Then why haven't Arianne Zucker's and Nancy O'Dell's coochies appeared on The Walking Dead?
  • orbister: ...

    There's a bit about declarations of war and another bit about treatment of prisoners. Are you quite sure that you want to go down the road of summary execution for perceived enemies of the state?


    Which of the four Geneva Conventions covers declarations of war?

    As for killing enemies of the state: what do you think war is?
  • Sounds like more made up nonsense to deflect from the Hunter laptop info
  • g.fro: Which of the four Geneva Conventions covers declarations of war?


    The first one. Article 2.

    Signatories are really not allowed to go around killing at will and then saying "We did a double secret declaration of war", which explains why the US is disliked so much around the world.
  • orbister: g.fro: Which of the four Geneva Conventions covers declarations of war?

    The first one. Article 2.

    Signatories are really not allowed to go around killing at will and then saying "We did a double secret declaration of war", which explains why the US is disliked so much around the world.


    Article 2

    "In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
    The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
    Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."

    It says nothing about declarations of war being required, and even acknowledges that undeclared wars or conflicts are still covered.
  • g.fro: It says nothing about declarations of war being required, and even acknowledges that undeclared wars or conflicts are still covered.


    Exactly, so your position that America can do anything it likes as long as it hasn't actually declared war is nonsense'
  • orbister: ...

    Exactly, so your position that America can do anything it likes as long as it hasn't actually declared war is nonsense'


    WTF are you talking about? How is that my position?

    My position is that in war, you kill your enemies. I never said the USA doesn't have to follow the rules; I'm saying the USA didn't break the rules.

    Oh, and just as further proof you don't know what you are talking about, the conflict with Al Qaeda was declared.
    Authorization for Use of Military Force 2001
  • g.fro: orbister: ...

    Exactly, so your position that America can do anything it likes as long as it hasn't actually declared war is nonsense'

    WTF are you talking about? How is that my position?

    My position is that in war, you kill your enemies. I never said the USA doesn't have to follow the rules; I'm saying the USA didn't break the rules.

    Oh, and just as further proof you don't know what you are talking about, the conflict with Al Qaeda was declared.
    Authorization for Use of Military Force 2001


    Great, now we get to quibble about whether an "authorization for use of military force" is the same thing as a "declaration of conflict" or a "declaration of war."

    /sorry, gotta run, i'm gonna hand out speeding tickets at daytona
  • MBooda: ...

    Great, now we get to quibble about whether an "authorization for use of military force" is the same thing as a "declaration of conflict" or a "declaration of war."

    /sorry, gotta run, i'm gonna hand out speeding tickets at daytona


    There is nothing to quibble about: from the perspective of international law, there is no difference. Sorry if you have trouble with that fact.
  • g.fro: MBooda: ...

    Great, now we get to quibble about whether an "authorization for use of military force" is the same thing as a "declaration of conflict" or a "declaration of war."

    /sorry, gotta run, i'm gonna hand out speeding tickets at daytona

    There is nothing to quibble about: from the perspective of international law, there is no difference. Sorry if you have trouble with that fact.


    Thanks. So, how are things going in your judicial chambers at The Hague?
  • MBooda: ...

    Thanks. So, how are things going in your judicial chambers at The Hague?


    If you don't have anything to say in rebuttal, why say anything?
  •  

This thread is closed to new comments.