if someone does something that is borderline (circumstantial evidence, lack of strong proof they were responsible, maybe even an overreaction to something or an accident) then let them live in prison, but not this guy, he ordered the deaths of over 100k people, half of iraq loves him and half of iraq hates him, that alone will cause more to die as long as he is alive. I can understand compassion, but in this case that would be fool hardy
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776. The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-- this is of course for Americans, if you are from someplace else your are correct you have no right to life :wink:
that I disagree with, doing the same thing, causing torture to be done to him, would bring us down to his level. let his death be swift and close to painless, if he hangs it shouldn't last more than afew minutes and it's over
the word "inalienable" is what is causing controversy. by definition, it means not able to be surrendered, so the US is being unconstitutional in killing people. i still think if you have done something so terrible that you have been given the "death penalty", you deserve it. i quote death penalty because it isnt exactly automatic death. if you survive the 3 lethal injections, you are free to go (lol, too bad you wont). one person actually survived the first 2 and died after the third one.
they are endowed by thier creator, but what is given can also be taken away, hence "Thou shalt not kill.." and the penalty was death. When a child is born and as they grow this is thier right, unless thier actions forfeit that right
not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated: you are right, they cannot be given away, howvever, they can be taken away
nope in‧al‧ien‧a‧ble /ɪnˈeɪlyənəbəl, -ˈeɪliə-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-eyl-yuh-nuh-buhl, -ey-lee-uh-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated: inalienable rights. [Origin: 1635–45; in-3 + alienable] —Related forms in‧al‧ien‧a‧bil‧i‧ty, in‧al‧ien‧a‧ble‧ness, noun in‧al‧ien‧a‧bly, adverb —Synonyms inviolable, absolute, unassailable, inherent.
then why would the same people who wrote that support and use the death penalty if they didn't mean that your rights can be taken away. it's kind of hard to pursure happiness in prison the rest of your life or in a chain gang, yes, you have rights but they can be taken away by your actions if they are deemed hazardous or immoral by society
Exactly..It's better then throwing him in general population where every one in the prison would gang up and toture/kill him.
if you think about it, they take away all 3 when they lock you up/give you the death penalty. they should reword that so that they arent being unconstitutional. please dont argue with me about the definiton of a word because my retort is staring right at you.
the defintion of a word can alter when it is not used in context, or by looking to the writers intent. if you choose to distort the intent you can make any document say almost anything you wish