TONIGHT With Vincent Browne

Corsendonk

JonathanAnon wrote: »

She's given any monies won from previous cases to charity, so I would assume that she will do the same with this.. She's got a HUGE pension so why would she need it anyway...

Could Newstalk not sue Nelly McCafferty.. Surely Newstalk must make the contributors to their shows sign some sort of legal agreement pre show saying that they wont defame/slander any person or company...

Yes she gave her previous winnings to peamount hospital in Newcastle Co.Dublin. Brightside is no more Nell McCaffrey on the airwaves.

Havermeyer

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Understandable, yes. Good idea, no. They've just made a martyr out of him.

So you should just leave him be in case you make a martyr out of him?

Really?

hotmail.com

hb75 wrote: »

Not justifying the wars they have started but the anti american sentiment by Browne and Wallace is palpable.

As was asked would their solution have had been. Aks him politley to come out with his hands up.

Is the killing of an unarmed person ever justified?

Dodd

From what I know OBl said about 911 to the US "look with in your gov
for a gov with in a gov that did this."
He was not wanted for 911 but a bombing in 98 I think.

ascanbe

nummnutts wrote: »

I take it you have it on good word that they were sent in for an assassination mission. :rolleyes:

That's the presumption the debate was conducted on.
Browne specifically asked about the legality of/justification for a 'shoot-to-kill' policy and that's what some of the panellists were attempting to defend.

hb75

hotmail.com wrote: »

Is the killing of an unarmed person ever justified?

WHat would have been justice what Sadam got a Mad trial followed by a hanging with all the possible violence that would have surrounded it.

ascanbe

hb75 wrote: »

Not justifying the wars they have started but the anti american sentiment by Browne and Wallace is palpable.

As was asked would their solution have had been. Aks him politley to come out with his hands up.

Put him under arrest/whatever the equilavent is in military jargon.

ascanbe

Lapin wrote: »

I agree that the rule of law should be applied in most instances but in this case any action taken to eliminate those responsible the terrorist attacks of 911, the railways of Madrid, the nightclubs of Bali, the streets of London and elsewhere is totally justifiable.

The rule of law has its place but we're not talking about someone nicking a Mars Bar from the local Spar here.

The most basic premise of the rule of law is that it is equally applicable to everyone.
Once you start weighing up who it should/shouldn't apply to on the basis of what they have/may have done, you no longer have a rule of law.

Havermeyer

ascanbe wrote: »

That's the presumption the debate was conducted on.
Browne specifically asked about the legality of/justification for a 'shoot-to-kill' policy and that's what some of the panellists were attempting to defend.

Perhaps partially conducted on a shoot to kill policy.

So where are you getting "that's entirely different than higher ups sending them out under orders to execute rather than arrest him" from?

You understand what a shoot to kill policy is, right?

hb75

hotmail.com wrote: »

Is the killing of an unarmed person ever justified?

ascanbe wrote: »

Put him under arrest/whatever the equilavent is in military jargon.

This assumes you have the oppurtunity Bin Ladden may have been unarmed but the bodyguards where not.

ascanbe

nummnutts wrote: »

Perhaps partially conducted on a shoot to kill policy.

So where are you getting "that's entirely different than higher ups sending them out under orders to execute rather than arrest him" from?

You understand what a shoot to kill policy is, right?

Yes. It's a tacit order/permission to assasinate someone in essence. Soldiers, as a rule, will 'shoot-to-kill' if they feel their lives are under threat and that they have no other choice/they can't disable the combatant, anyway.
As you wrote, though, we don't, in fact, know if there was a shoot-to-kill policy, an order to assasinate or neither of these; the points i'm making are in relation to what was said on the show.
Perhaps it isn't even applicable to this case.

hb75

ascanbe wrote: »

The most basic premise of the rule of law is that it is equally applicable to everyone.
Once you start weighing up who it should/shouldn't apply to on the basis of what they have/may have done, you no longer have a rule of law.

That is the law of the land. Like it or not this is a war and different rules apply whether we like ot or not.

poppyvalley

imme wrote: »

I have to laugh at Mansergh,

I think that man is in the early- middle stages of Dementia

Havermeyer

You really should look up the definition of assassination.

hotmail.com

hb75 wrote: »

WHat would have been justice what Sadam got a Mad trial followed by a hanging with all the possible violence that would have surrounded it.

So it is justified?

pragmatic1

nummnutts wrote: »

So you should just leave him be in case you make a martyr out of him?

Really?

Did I say that. No I didnt. They should have arrested him and given him a trial. Being a martyr is a great honour in Islam. We've had plenty of martyrs in this country over the years and contrary to weakening a cause, its always strenghtened it.

Havermeyer

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Did I say that. No I didnt. They should have arrested him and given him a trial. Being a martyr is a great honour in Islam. We've had plenty of martyrs in this country over the years and contrary to weakening a cause, its always strenghtened it.

How do you know know that they didn't try and arrest him?

I'm also well aware of what being a martyr entails.

mystic86

why should we give a rats a** that they had a shoot to kill policy on bin laden? the fu*ker didn't deserve to live.

Krusader

mystic86 wrote: »

why should we give a rats a** that they had a shoot to kill policy on bin laden? the fu*ker didn't deserve to live.

That's true and i hope he rots, but he committed acts of terrorism in other countries aswell not just america, if he was unarmed he should have been captured and brought to trial

Lapin

Patricia McKenna on the panel.

WHY

SnowY32

whos the blonde one next to vincent she'd get it

My name is URL

Jesus.. It's a right snorefest tonight. Your one in the green blouse looks like an extra from Super Mario Brothers

missingtime

McWilliams or The Count need to be on the show tonight.

starviewadams

Who's the bird sitting next to Vincent?nice in a posh sort of way!

My name is URL

Skid

I think they should give Garret Fitzgerald and his family some privacy, no point analysing his illness.

Lapin

True.

Although I don't think Browne was doing that in fairness.

He was speaking personaly there and was somewhat emotional himself.

The two men are close.

Skid

Lapin wrote: »

True.

Although I don't think Browne was doing that in fairness.

He was speaking personaly there and somewhat emotional.

Fair point.

SB-08

Surprised Vincent wasn't aware that Garret was ill in hospital. Newstalk announced it this afternoon I think. Considering they are clearly friends it's odd he would've have heard anyway.

Corsendonk

Lapin wrote: »

Patricia McKenna on the panel.

WHY

Filler? And she most likely thinks she can rescue the Greens from the Pit of Doooooom when they come running to her,