5 ms·

So if I decide to put someone on a kill list, there is no burden of proof on me to explain why, by killing that someone my action is righteous, legal and moral?

• briancaw2 13y ago
  Do me the favor of putting my statement and yours side by side. Show the claim I made (that we should scrutinize the validity of the OpEd) vs what you refuted.
  • Volpe 13y ago
    > This guy's son was a bad enough dude that he got put on a terrorist kill list. That's exactly what I responded to. I ignored your conclusion, because of your invalid premise.
    • briancaw2 13y ago
      I think we're nitpicking here. I think that the probability of someone not being impartial given their son was on a kill list is greater than someone who's son wasn't...etc. Anyway, I 100% agree that "there is a burden of proof on me to explain why, by killing that someone my action is righteous, legal and moral"
• bigiain 13y ago
  You're familiar with Senator Edward Kennedy's inclusion on the no-fly list? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17073-2004Aug19.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17073-2004Aug... Personally - I'd like to see _much_ more transparency and accountability in the compilation and justification for most sorts of "government lists", and I fear the people in charge of "the kill list" which manages to kill people who are '… not “specifically targeted,”' have proven to be inadequately discriminating at the task…
  • Volpe 13y ago
    Agree completely. Though I'd probably prefer not to have a "kill list". Killing should be limited to military personell in wars, during 'battle'. I realise the US has framed the war on terror in order to blur those lines... but seriously firing missiles into cafes!?