Who decided Abdulmutallab was to be treated as a simple civilian?

[sirs]

Let's pretend I'm a product of the LA Unified Public School system:

Prince's point is that: ------> < insert answer here >


The disconnect between taking out terrorists with drones, in no act of trying to mass murder vs providing terrorists with full U.S. Constitutional protections while in the act of trying to cause mass murder would be: -------> < insert answer here >

[Plane]

Prisoner of War , Criminal is that the full range of choices?

The Bush Administration seemed to be trying to invent a third catagory , and not very well.


There is already a third choice, the constitution gives to the Congress the responsibility to appoint prosicution for Pirates, which was often as not empowering commanders to shoot on sight.

President Obama is getting there , but the Congress should assert its authority and accept its constitutional responsibility.

[Universe Prince]

Let's pretend I'm a product of the LA Unified Public School system:

Prince's point is that: ------> < insert answer here >

http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=8939.msg93962#msg93962

The disconnect between taking out terrorists with drones, in no act of trying to mass murder vs providing terrorists with full U.S. Constitutional protections while in the act of trying to cause mass murder would be: -------> < insert answer here >

"Where's their 'right to remain silent'??"

[sirs]

So, your point is......repeating the 5th amendment with "no person" while failing to answer the overiding disconnect associated with it & militant terrorists, and answering a question with a question, one that appears to infer a right to be killed??

Sorry Prince, not playing that game of 30 questions any longer.  If you didn't have a point, or simply didn't want to bother in answering a rather straight forward question, just say so, instead of this joint wasting of our time          

[Universe Prince]

So, your point is......repeating the 5th amendment with "no person" while failing to answer the overiding disconnect associated with it & militant terrorists, and answering a question with a question, one that appears to infer a right to be killed??

No, the point is not to repeat anything. And the question was your question; I merely quoted it. If you infer the question indicates a right to be killed, then perhaps you should consider what that means in regard to your position.

Sorry Prince, not playing that game of 30 questions any longer.  If you didn't have a point, or simply didn't want to bother in answering a rather straight forward question, just say so, instead of this joint wasting of our time

Granted, I'm being less direct than usual, but the point is not esoteric or hidden. Here's a hint: there is a disconnect between what the Fifth Amendment says and what you apparently want it to say.

[sirs]

Sorry Prince, not playing that game of 30 questions any longer.  If you didn't have a point, or simply didn't want to bother in answering a rather straight forward question, just say so, instead of this joint wasting of our time

Granted, I'm being less direct than usual

THAT's an understatement.  My only question is WHY??

but the point is not esoteric or hidden. Here's a hint: there is a disconnect between what the Fifth Amendment says and what you apparently want it to say.

Not looking for a hint, I want your point, made clear.  Like I said, I'm not playing this game.  You either have a point to make, or you don't.  The 5th amendment is clear.  Our taking out militant terrorists with military drones, without reading them their miranda rights is also clear.  So since I have no control over our military actions, or an ability to rewrite the 5th amendment, I'd opine that your continued vague assessements remain just as elusive as when you entered this thread

[Universe Prince]

I'd opine that your continued vague assessements remain just as elusive as when you entered this thread

I'd opine that this whole situation is kinda funny. When I am direct and straightforward, you and others try to read between the lines to find some hidden meaning that has nothing to do with what I actually said. Now here I am trying to be more socratic, and you're complaining that I'm not being direct enough to be understood. It's humorous.

[sirs]

Prince, you know I respect you greatly.  Your insights and objectivity, your ability to be critical without any party affiliation is to be commended

Why this need to be so "less than direct as ususal", with an exponential perpetuation of such is really the humerous part here.  Even when I provide a posted format to "simply insert" the point you're trying to make, you respond with a posting of an earlier vague response, complimented by answering a question with a question.

Are you just in some funky mood?  Saw Sherlock Holmes over the weekend, and decided to be some steward of deductive deducements, and need myself to be your Watson??  If that's the case, I think I need to pull a Jude Law and *spoiler alert* punch you in the nose

Please, either answer the damn question(s), with the CLEAR point you're trying to make, or give it a rest.

[Plane]

I'd opine that your continued vague assessements remain just as elusive as when you entered this thread

I'd opine that this whole situation is kinda funny. When I am direct and straightforward, you and others try to read between the lines to find some hidden meaning that has nothing to do with what I actually said. Now here I am trying to be more socratic, and you're complaining that I'm not being direct enough to be understood. It's humorous.

That is indeed human nature , the reason that an easter egg is worth more than an egg.


There is a teqnique  there that is usefull to the skillfull Socratic teacher..

[Universe Prince]

the skillfull Socratic teacher..

Who is apparently not me.

[Plane]

the skillfull Socratic teacher..

Who is apparently not me.

Why would you say that?

[Christians4LessGvt]