Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
This argument isn't about the timing of the release.
To which argument are you referring. There is certainly an argument about the timing of a release which many feel shouldn't be released.
It's about the obvious duplicity that undermines our real objectives.
And which code need I use to translate that sentence?
And for being weak, it takes a far stronger person to live by their own word.
|
I'm not sure to which "word" you refer. If you mean "the rule of law", I believe that any law, domestic or international, that equates to suicide is, to quote #^&#^&#^&#^&ens' Mr. Bumble, that "law is a ass, a idiot."
Furthermore, the rule of law applies to an agreed upon social contract. Those that fall outside the purview of that contract have no claim to any of its rules. And if some Pols insert such a rule that endangers the society that created the contract, then that rule IS A ASS, A IDIOT and needs to be repealed.
Furthermore, in reference to your "those who claim to hold their principals highest (i.e. the rule of law)"-- the prime principle is to exist, without which there can be no other principles. The next principle is to propagate. From these principles it may follow that, to ensure them and to gain the best existence, there should be a rule of law. If a rule of law violates the prime principles, it is a contradiction--A ASS, A IDIOT. If the "terrorists" wish to enter a contract with us to harmoniously exist and propagate, and if they wish to abide by that contract, the rules of law can be drawn. If they wish to deny our existence, any rules to accomodate them are ASSES AND IDIOTS. And interrogation techniques applied to those outside the purview of our social contract should adhere to the highest or PRIME principle, not to our rules of law.