Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Eagle Eye
Then I take it you hold the position that releasing smallpox against your attacker and causing an pandemic that eliminates 200,000,000 Americans is perfectly Constitutional.

I guess you and I will have to agree to disagree.

90 posted on 04/18/2002 1:04:44 PM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies ]


To: Lazamataz
Then I take it you hold the position that releasing smallpox against your attacker and causing an pandemic that eliminates 200,000,000 Americans is perfectly Constitutional.

I don't appreciate you trying to frame my thoughts. Was the nuking of Hiroshima perfectly COnstitutional? What if the A bomb had been developed by private research and the only means of deployment was privately owned?

The use of small pax as a US GOVERNMENT POLICY was probably Constitutional since I cannot see any Constitutional prohibition.

Now was it moral or ethical? Looking back in retrospect it is easy to say that no, it wasn't.

Does the Constitution prevent Ross Perot or Bill Gates from owning private vessels of war? No.

Does the Constitution prescribe what weapons thoe privately owned vessels of war may or may not use? No. commissioned by the US government? No.

93 posted on 04/18/2002 1:21:46 PM PDT by Eagle Eye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies ]

To: Lazamataz
Lazamataz said: "Then I take it you hold the position that releasing smallpox against your attacker and causing an pandemic that eliminates 200,000,000 Americans is perfectly Constitutional."

The germ theory of disease was not well understood several hundred years ago. The word "malaria" means "bad air" and derives from the thinking that it was caused by odors or gas in the environment. This would complicate matters for our Founders since they would not be able to conceive of the control mechanism for inflicting injury at all, let alone selectively.

I have read of sieges during which the carcasses of dead horses would be catapulted across barriers to encourage disease among the besieged. I don't know for sure if this practice was used in post-Colonial America.

Cities during both the Revolutionary War and the Civil War would come under siege and would be bombarded with heated shot with the sole intention of starting fires to drive the occupants out. This seems pretty indiscriminate to me and yet it would have the desired effect of defeating an enemy.

98 posted on 04/18/2002 1:42:58 PM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson