Why are we the only White country that finds killing human beings as an acceptable way to deal with our problems?

Why are we the only White country that finds killing human beings as an acceptable way to deal with our problems?

because we are the only white country

Because you value retribution over justice or rehabilitation.

Don't worry, you're a proper white country. Europeans have created all wars.

Probably something in the water.

The invasion of Libya was a European project

Americans: Kill Muslims, take pride in how many kids die

Europeans: Invite Muslims in

truth

>Why are we the only White country
>White country

Because you're the only 'white' country that has the unanswerable power to do so abroad.

America has been in a continuous state of war since 1945, it has not had the time to disengage itself or question the horrors of war, which as a sovereign state is absolutely vital. I think you should do it more often.

>"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
>Life

OOGA OOGA BOOGA

Yeah, Life

For white people

Everyone else has to earn the right to life. Like you, Juan Carlos Spiczalez, would have to prove why a cop shouldn't shoot you in the back of the head if you ever came here. Personally I considering it liberation from the pressures of living.

Both rehab and retribution are components of justice.

Consider this: the theft of an item. Rehab is telling the thief that his actions are wrong, and retribution is returning the stolen item from the thief to the victim. Can justice be done any other way?

I don't think so. Let's examine a more murky example, of something that can't easily be returned. A person murders someone's family member. That person can't be returned, so... where can justice be done? Rehab is convincing the murderer that murder is not a civilized tool for disputes. But you can't bring back the dead. Justice cannot be done without some retributive action, such as imprisoning the person.

Otherwise, the victim is murdered for nothing, and there is no deterrent to murder (or other irreversible actions).

specifically Sarkozy

Why do americans shit on the Habeas corpus?

We like sending people back to hell where they belong.

>completely ignoring
>belgium
>netherlands
>switzerland
>sweden
>france
>unitedkingdom

Again

They invite Muslims in their country. We kill them

You think Muslims were safely walking around US streets after 9/11? Lots of mosque burnings, lynchings, etc.

only once in our history, the Civil War

nono they kill off their unwanted elderly and children

And secret CIA prisons.
And Guantanamo.

>Albania
>Andorra
>Armenia
>Austria
>Azerbaijan
>Belarus
>Bosnia and Herzegovina
>Bulgaria
>Croatia
>Cyprus
>Czech Republic
>Denmark
>Estonia
>Finland
>Hungary
>Iceland
>Ireland
>Italy
>Kazakhstan
>Kosovo
>Latvia
>Liechtenstein
>Lithuania
>Luxembourg
>Macedonia (FYROM)
>Malta
>Moldova
>Monaco
>Montenegro
>Norway
>Poland
>Portugal
>Romania
>Russia
>San Marino
>Serbia
>Slovakia
>Slovenia
>Spain
>Turkey
>Ukraine

US constitution doesn't grant foreigners habeas corpus. That's the point of Guantanamo, and why it's not on US soil.

If you want American rights, apply to be a citizen

I'd rather have the rights of some civilized country.

Why is every American man, woman and child a stone cold killer?

Then move out of Finland you simpleton fucktard.

...

Habeas corpus is a part of the human rights that you agreed to follow when you joined The United Nations, and the underlying principle of those rights is that their are not conditional.

The United Nations isn't shit to us. I'm excited for us to leave it. The only reason why Democracy around the world means anything is because American blood protects it

Good luck protecting human rights without the help of America.

We'll send people to hell ourselves.

This pic belongs in a museum.

>le war is peace maymay

Please leave and be as isolationist as possible.

Criminal? Kill him.
Druggie? Kill him.
Ugly? Kill him.

I call it the 2nd Amendment Eugenics.

If we did that in 1916 and 1941 you'd be a German colony.

Maybe you deserve to be.

You owe us your independence then, you faggot Frog piece of shit

I bet if you met an American in real life, you'd piss your pants out of fear. Brave behind a computer, aint shit off it.

>toothpaste flag

If France hadn't been like you are now in 1915 there wouldn't have been a WWI or consequentially a WWII

France caused WW2 by not listening to President Wilson's advice that the Treaty of Versailles was too punitative, so you're only proving my point.

France is one of the most destructive countries in European history, after Germany.

>little fucking stars

>Rehab is telling the thief that his actions are wrong

Lad, no one is above anyone else. ALL morals are subjective. You have no right to choose the punishment others receive. The point of our prison systems is to rehabilitate those who have committed crimes in order to help them integrate back into our society. That's all it should ever be seen as.

>Lad, no one is above anyone else. ALL morals are subjective
Give me your address so I can rob, rape, and murder you then. If "all morals are subjective."

Laws are in print, they're clear as fucking day. No subjectivity there, letter by letter, printed by Gutenberg's own diarrhea. You're not weaseling out of the objectivity.

Don't need those, as we have proper laws concerning those matters and not medieval leftovers, fatso.

>white country

Backpedal somewhere else cuck.

Laws are there, but your idea of punishments are not. I have my morals, and you have yours. Morals are subjective and only an idiot would attempt to argue against that.

The idea of rehabilitating criminals is only viable because we have set rules for our society. Those that live within the borders of the United States have willingly agreed to live under our laws. People can find justice in the sentences people receive, but that's not what the prison system intends to do.

>Laws are there, but your idea of punishments are not.
The idea of mandatory minimum sentences for XYZ crime contradicts this.

>Morals are subjective and only an idiot would attempt to argue against that.
They are, but laws aren't. I don't care about the morals backing them up.

>The idea of rehabilitating criminals is only viable because we have set rules for our society.
It is a component, otherwise we shouldn't release any criminals at all. Otherwise, if a rapist can't be rehabilitated, they're just going to rape again. The logical thing to do would be to kill them.

>People can find justice in the sentences people receive, but that's not what the prison system intends to do.

Yes, which is why a deterrent is a necessary force, much like nuclear weapons during the Cold War. If you can steal things and receive a slap on the wrist for it (the simple return of the item), there's nothing to convince people to not steal. They'll try, and try, and try, and eventually they'll succeed undetected at some point. Punishment is a deterrent, which is a form of social engineering. The thief may try, and try, and try, but all of the times they fail, they're "losing" something, whether that means time or a fee/money.

This isn't Hammurabi levels of sophistication here. The idea isn't "an eye for an eye," it's "how do I prevent an immoral faggot from doing this again." Rehab is an appeal to the logos, ethos places the criminal's actions in the context of the time. Every human being has a limited lifespan and it's best not spent locked up in a prison because you act like a chimp. Justice ultimately lies between logos and pathos.

>mandatory minimum sentences
They do exist, but are not directed by the Judicial branch. Still, it really makes no difference when its a minimum sentence, and not a direct form of punishment for specific crimes.

>They are
No need to put quotes around something as if you're questioning it.

>It is a component
Its the entire point, nothing more and nothing less. The time they receive is the amount of time a judge believes the criminals needs in order to rehabilitate and eventually join back into society. If they are deemed worthy of rejoining before their time is up, they can be released early. In this country, you are innocent until proven guilty, so your sick desire to kill someone for a crime they may never commit is pretty damn stupid both by the ideals of this nation and "logic".

>Deterrent
>slap on the wrist
You're still stuck on the idea of punishment rather than changing their thought process. The vast majority of time people do not want to be criminals, but they are put in situations where they believe they have no choice. There are exceptions, but no where near the amount of total crimes committed. If we are to believe the idea of rehabilitating someone is possible, which you apparently do not disagree with, the time they receive for the first crime is enough to stop them. I could argue the prison system today is corrupt and does not do the job it is meant to do, leaving people worse off than they were before, and many times unjustifiably so.