Holy cow!!!!!!!!!!

[theysawyoucomin' 10]

I agree with Merlyn!!!!!!!

 

 

It's all there in the Declaration of Independence...right after the phase a long line of usurptations...or something like that.

 

It is the right, nay THE DUTY...

 

 

 

But I'd much rather use my trigger finger in the voting booth.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Advocating death for anyone is hardly scoutlike, please be careful with this discussion

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Even when it's hypothetically speaking about what circumstances people would revolt and kill tyrants? Is it OK to say Hitler should have been assassinated, even though he was properly elected? Is it never proper to even speculate under what dire circumstances it might be appropriate to kill oppressive leaders? I think even politicians would be interested to know if & when a significant fraction of the population might resort to violence, if only for self-preservation.

 

Or to quote the sentence uz2bnowl referred to:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

 

As an aside, I think the title "president for life" suggests an obvious solution on how to change the leadership, so I don't know why some dictators are so fond of it.

[scottteng 11]

"Thomas Jefferson said: "No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Jefferson made himself even more explicit when he said: "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not .warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.""

 

Are we there yet? That is something citizens must decide for themselves. At what point is the line crossed between a "well intentioned" nanny state and a tyranny?

[TheScout 10]

Sporadic assasination of government officials is little less than terrorism. Clearly wrong. Even the Patriots of '75 never advocated killing King George III.

 

The Confederates resisted tyranny for 4 years in a civilized fashion before Lincoln was shot. Most were reviled by the act.

 

It comes down to how one wishes to fight. Does one wish to act without regard to accepted principles of fighting, or does one wish to resort to barbaric notions like al Qaeda terrorists or the Indian savages.

 

The army that Mr. Jefferson supported fought a brave an honourable war against the UK for 7 years to gain our independence. The colonists could have easily killed all British officials in the colonies. However their actions set this country on the way to a civilized society.

 

 

[OldGreyEagle 5]

As long as we keep it on a historical and theoretical plane, fine.

 

I just dont want any 10-13 year olds to read this and figure that because Mr. Teacher wont let me sit next to Sally, I can kill him because he deprived me of my rights. Because that is wrong.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Well TheScout, perhaps you could answer my question from one of the earlier threads that was closed, as long as historical discussions are ok -- would it have been terrorism to assassinate Hitler? He was elected, after all.

 

And I'm not sure if I understand why leadership (at least during a war) is not considered a valid target, but footsoldiers are. Is it ok to kill rank & file grunts, but not their leaders? Decapitation attacks have always had a place in wars. Lincoln's assassination isn't an instance of that because the war was over.

[packsaddle 753]

"Violence is the last resort of the incompetent" I've long been fond of that quote not because it is true in all cases (it isn't), but because it describes a more subtle relationship. Words can hurt feelings but words can also be used to come to understandings, compromises, and to settle differences in a non-violent manner - in all situations where the parties actually want to find a resolution. Violence, however, is sometimes forced upon us by something or someone who is unwilling to use words rather than force. Their unwillingness or inability to use words is a statement of the fundamental weakness of their ideas...that they would rather resort to violence than to subject their thoughts and ideas to examination. And underlying this most of the time, is fear.

I was recently reminded of this in an obituary for Jim Clark, the swaggering sheriff of Selma:

http://www.economist.com/obituary/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9333348

THIS was truly an obituary for a violent, hateful man in a violent and hateful time and place. But it was a wonderful reminder of the legacy that needless violence, rather than meaningful discourse, leaves in our names. I think of this also when I consider our policy of pre-emptive war. We are going to pay a dear price for that legacy as well.

[GernBlansten 10]

I believe decapitation attacks were first effectively utilized during the Revolutionary war by the patriots. Really caught the Brits off guard and infuriated them because we didn't follow the "rules" of civilized warfare. Of course I base this opinion on the movie "The Patriot".

[GernBlansten 10]

Fear is the path of the dark side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.

 

[TheScout 10]

The US has a policy against assasinating foreign heads of states. Wars can not be waged in a civilized fashion without leaders.

 

But this whole argument is moot, or at least should be. You immediatly want to jump to extremem measures when the Supreme Court makes a wrong ruling, such as invalidating the 1st Amendment.

 

Instead of violence, wouldn't it be better for Congress or the President to simply not enforce the Court's dicatates.

 

Or your state seceding from the Union to be free out of it.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

"The US has a policy against assasinating foreign heads of states."

Not during a war (or, what we've had since Korea, undeclared wars); the attack on Iraq started with an attempted decapitation attack to take out Saddam Hussein.

 

And your hypothetical case where the US supreme court says the first amendment no longer applies would mean there's no freedom of speech, press, or religion. I don't consider armed revolt at such a point to be radical.

 

By the way, you still haven't answered my question if it would have been OK to assassinate Hitler, even though he was elected. Is it somehow OK to kill footsoldiers but not leaders? Are you critical of the German resistance for attempting to kill Hitler on July 20, 1944?

[TheScout 10]

It is absurd how you compare violence against the SCOTUS with that against Hitler.

 

The point is if the SCOTUS makes a bad desision, you do not need to kill them!

 

I like to avoid violence. Lets think of all the other ways the Supreme Court can be stopped if it makes a horrible decision invalided the 1st Amendment.

 

1. The President could not enforce the Supreme Court's erroneous decision

 

2. Congress could cut off funding to agencies charged with enforcing such a warped decision

 

3. State governors and local executives could not use their forces to enforce such a decision

 

4. State legislatures could cut off funding to state and local agencies charged with enforcing a bad decision

 

5. Congress could impeach and remove the Justices involved.

 

6. Congress could use its Article III, Section 2 power to limit the Courts jurisdiction in such cases and pass a new law.

 

7. People could commit acts of civil disobedience and ignore the ruling.

 

8. States could decide the federal contract is broken and secede from the union.

 

In all these cases the decision could be rejected without violence.

 

Merlyn, your problem is that you put the Supreme Court on such a high pedestal that you do not think any other branch or level of government should check them. Therefore, your only resort to an erroneous decision is violence. That is a shame.

 

Recall, Mr. Jefferson also said,

 

"At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account."

 

 

All that being said, I would have supported the removal of Hitler. If there were no peaceful means available, death would have been necesary.

 

Luckily, there are peaceful means of fixing our squables, or at least I think so.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Well, I think freedom of speech, press, and religion is sometimes worth fighting for, and even sometimes killing for, and I don't have the same deference for not killing leaders that you have (in fact, I hold them much more responsible than the footsoldiers).

[TheScout 10]

Nobody is arguing with that fact. All I am saying that if the SCOTUS makes a clearly erroneous decision, there are more peaceful ways to fix it then killing justices!

 

I hope you would agree.

 

So since you are so intent on killing leaders, how should we have fought the tyranny in the Revolution. Should Washington have sent a hit squad to kill King George III and Lord North, the Prime Minister. That does not seem a gentlemanly way to conduct a war.

 

Targeted sporadic terrorist killings do not seem consistent with the Scout Law.