drieuxster (drieuxster) wrote,
drieuxster
drieuxster

oh me, oh my, we are in which time of clinton again?

p1: efforts to appeal to 'a time of war' will work best IF you can establish how it is that one is to know that this is more a time of war, than well, under the Dubya, or Obama, or Clinton. Since simply citing that there are dead american military personnel is not going to help your argument. Since, oh that's right, the GodlessOnes blew up an american Naval Vessel while the HateFeeDome types were seeking articles of impeachment.

p2: given p1 above there is the problem of resolving IF we are merely at war with civilians. For our slow reader friends, while it may be popular amongst many of them to presume that since they have worked with the government, that they can therefore presume that they are in compliance with the uniformed code of military conduct, and therefore their kills are lawful and in compliance with the laws of land warfare, and/or, the laws of sea warfare. But unless one can actually establish that one is legally a member of the Uniformed Services of said government, well, one is merely the civilian contractor of said government, and, gosh, should not be an armed person in the combat zone.

p3: waving a gun at me does not validate your uniformed status, it merely establishes that IF this were a combat zone, then you could appeal to the Geneva Convention for due process under american law with regards to the detention of armed combatants in the combat zone. At that point, we of course arrive at the realpolitik that one will of course wish to make an appeal under miranda that one needs a competent legal defense, since, well, clearly, one has obviously disqualified one's self on the grounds of mental Stoopids.

p4: Being Ignorant is not a legal defense, no matter what level of STOOPID one present.

p5: be very careful about advocating that GreatLeader has majikal powers, unless of course you really did mean that President Obama is allowed to majikally turn you, and your family, for all six degrees of separation, into recycled cat food, because of course you have always supported the right of extrajudicial powers of the holder of the majikal invisibile imaginary standard of WhatEverItIsThatTeaTardiansWishesWasTheTrueThingusOfPooh!

p6: A person is a pirate when proven by a court of law.

p7: what part of 'proven by a court of law' was so complicated that you failed to comprehend it?

p8: if we were unclear about p7, review p4 and p5 above.

p9: remember that when advocating your mythos about the majikal power of the freeMarket, you really may not want to step on soft delicate primary gender identification organs with your big combat boots, cause, well, damn, that is sooooo gonna hurt. Especially as you wake up and notice that simply by corporatizing the killing of enemies of the state, this offers neither the protections of 'member in good standing of an armed force' nor the various nobilities of being one under obligation to the state, save that you share the same contractual obligation of all of the rest of the concubines and rent boys. Which may be useful if you believe in rush limbaugh as the true fount of all things american, but not if you have read the federalist papers.

p10: Pirating sucks. So yeah. So too does running an illegal combat operation, well, gosh, like every other warlord who has their sole claim to fame that the 'younger brother of jesus' has threatened the 'imperial flower' and thus they are looking for any way to put down the T'ai P'ing rebellion, even if that means allowing any form of warlordism loose in the provinces.

p11: which part of p10 was unclear to your godless unamericanista hate our white christian america?

ps: aaron, what can I say, I still find it funny that folks would like to pretend that a 'war on piracy' was in some way legally distinct from say a 'war on literacy'.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments