If you could point out to me where i argued that 'the condemned get improper representation', then i'll try to find time to respond to your first question here .... already started composing it mentally, prolly something along the lines of 'the old saying that you get what you pay for is not necessarily and always true within any justice system' ... 'or indeed within any system designed and/or operated by human beings' .... yeah, i can fix up something, time permitting
' Do you consider killing enemy soldiers a proper function of government'
It depends ... for a start, it would depend on pre-agreed definitions for the terms 'enemy', 'soldiers', and 'government' .... to begin the process of setting clarity to those terms, it would likely be useful to pick specific situations instead of trying to define the concepts across all possible generalities .... eh ... so may i suggest a comparison - the defense of the New Jersey shoreline against an invasion by, let's say, those bloody liechtensteiners*, as compared with the 1830-40s military occupation of the northern half of México combined with the subsequent ethnic cleansing therein .... how exactly do we define those three words to fit both situations
.. as to the latter half of your question i think i've made myself plain on that ... it's just too much power for a government to have, to take the life of a captive human being ... backing that up, it's too expensive a process as well, but i've rejected it on principle before getting that far, really ..... don't have much time to type today, and really i don't think anybody is going to change anyone else's mind on this question, it's another visceral thing about which everything has already been said ad nauseam ... cheers
* - or, if you prefer, icelanders -g- |
