It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Because some people need killing, this is a fact.
yes how dare I use "legal tripe" on a thread about the legal definition of terrorism....
Yes a thread about how they use legal tripe to change the rules to justify their side of the argument.
Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by XaniMatriX
If you signed up to "kill! Murder, and invade a given lad" your words not mine, you should have been weeded out for having a very sick mind during one of your psych profiles.
Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by acrux
Yes a thread about how they use legal tripe to change the rules to justify their side of the argument.
No they are doing it to ensure that their troops don’t wind up in jail for following orders after some pathetic human rights lawyer starts playing funny games.
It does not change the fact that soldiers are not terrorists.
No they are doing it to ensure that their troops don’t wind up in jail for following orders after some pathetic human rights lawyer starts playing funny games.
Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by acrux
Yes a thread about how they use legal tripe to change the rules to justify their side of the argument.
No they are doing it to ensure that their troops don’t wind up in jail for following orders after some pathetic human rights lawyer starts playing funny games.
It does not change the fact that soldiers are not terrorists.
It applies to nationalist terrorists who are seeking political liberation for a nation or form perceived despot leader, in the eyes of the people they are freedom fighters and in the eyes of their enemies they are “terrorists”. It does not however apply to Al-Qa’ida who have no such goals they are not nationalist terrorists they are Islamic terrorist they have a ideology that is reinforced with religion not patriotism...
It does not change the fact that soldiers are not terrorists.
The government acted within the bounds of the law in both cases of invasions.
It was technically against international laws, but the US governement is not bound to these by force or letter of law, it is more of a nicety to follow international laws, as our constitution supercedes all international laws and treaties any time there is a conflict between the 2
Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by XaniMatriX
I understand and respect that, I also left at the end of my contract, because I was not overly faund of the way things were going or being handled.
I could not in good conscience help continue the perpetuation of acts they my moral compass disagrees with.
Though your discription of the events is much more severe than my own.
Criminals operate outside the law.
The government acted within the bounds of the law in both cases of invasions.
The US constitution allows the president to send troops anywhere for any reason as long as maximum troop numbers or time periods are not violated without congressional approval.
So it was entirely legal by US law, so not criminal, not morally right, but quite legal.
It was technically against international laws, but the US governement is not bound to these by force or letter of law, it is more of a nicety to follow international laws, as our constitution supercedes all international laws and treaties any time there is a conflict between the 2