|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) |
BlooInBloo (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-24-07 04:46 PM Original message |
Is there a law to the effect of: no member of the military can lie to any civilian citizen? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RB TexLa (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-24-07 04:47 PM Response to Original message |
1. So if you ask them where troops are being deployed in a war |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ret5hd (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-24-07 04:53 PM Response to Reply #1 |
3. Yeah, that's what he meant. of course. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BlooInBloo (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-24-07 05:04 PM Response to Reply #1 |
8. They can not answer. Duh. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RB TexLa (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-24-07 05:06 PM Response to Reply #8 |
12. Then what is the purpose of your proposed law? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BlooInBloo (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-24-07 05:08 PM Response to Reply #12 |
16. Um, to ensure that anything the military tells civilians is not a lie. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Exiled in America (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-24-07 05:04 PM Response to Reply #1 |
9. Red Herring. They can simply DECLINE TO ANSWER. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BlooInBloo (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-24-07 05:05 PM Response to Reply #9 |
11. Why wasn't that obvious? I thought it was so obvious it didn't need saying... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Exiled in America (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-24-07 05:13 PM Response to Reply #11 |
18. No, I was defending you... I was sure you assumed that was obvious. It should have been. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BlooInBloo (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-24-07 05:17 PM Response to Reply #18 |
20. I know - I was shamelessly seeking validation. :) |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
uppityperson (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-24-07 04:48 PM Response to Original message |
2. I don't think there is. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Richardo (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-24-07 04:58 PM Response to Original message |
4. We call it 'The 8th Commandment'* |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
hack89 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-24-07 04:58 PM Response to Original message |
5. Why? nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BlooInBloo (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-24-07 05:07 PM Response to Reply #5 |
14. abstractly: to further enshrine the desired power structure (civilian rule)... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
hack89 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-24-07 05:09 PM Response to Reply #14 |
17. Would you allow and exception for classified material? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BlooInBloo (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-24-07 05:16 PM Response to Reply #17 |
19. I didn't say word *1* about requiring an answer to a question. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
hack89 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-24-07 05:59 PM Response to Reply #19 |
23. Then I am not sure what the point is. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BlooInBloo (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-24-07 06:02 PM Response to Reply #23 |
24. #16. If you see no point in that, that's the way it goes. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
hack89 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-24-07 06:09 PM Response to Reply #24 |
25. If you tell how you think this is even remotely |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BlooInBloo (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-24-07 06:14 PM Response to Reply #25 |
26. I don't see what the alleged constitutional issue even *is*, and enforcement wouldn't be... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
hack89 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-24-07 06:26 PM Response to Reply #26 |
27. There is no need for your law |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BlooInBloo (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-24-07 06:31 PM Response to Reply #27 |
28. Sigh. Yes there is. In general, the lie envisioned needn't be about something *else* illegal. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
hack89 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-24-07 06:42 PM Response to Reply #28 |
29. So lying outside of an investigation or judicial proceeding |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hosnon (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-24-07 05:02 PM Response to Original message |
6. I do not think such a law would be very wise. The advantages of the military |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BlooInBloo (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-24-07 05:04 PM Response to Reply #6 |
10. I didn't say they shouldn't be allowed to not answer. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
HiFructosePronSyrup (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-24-07 05:03 PM Response to Original message |
7. LOL |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
depakid (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-24-07 05:06 PM Response to Original message |
13. If there were, we'd have to build a LOT more prisons eom |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
stirlingsliver (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-24-07 05:08 PM Response to Original message |
15. On Any Subject? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
damntexdem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-24-07 05:33 PM Response to Original message |
21. How about, no civilian president can lie to a member of the military ... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BlooInBloo (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-24-07 05:43 PM Response to Reply #21 |
22. If useful at all, it would be the topic of another law. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TahitiNut (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-24-07 06:47 PM Response to Original message |
30. Nope. But there's a law in the UCMJ that makes a "false report" punishable by imprisonment. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Sun May 05th 2024, 09:51 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC