Personally, I'd rather be executed that rot in prison for decades.

And although I oppose the death penalty, I'm more opposed to it because it's a waste of resources (endless litigation and extra $ to keep people on death row) than because of the moral implications.

I feel bad for someone who is wrongly convicted and then executed - and there have probably been a couple. But nevertheless, I'd feel just as bad for them if they were wrongly convicted and wasted away the rest of their life behind bars.

So yes, Mr. Mize will die, physically tonight, and will begin the next stage of his existence, just as his victim, Mr. Tucker, did decades ago. And just as each of us eventually will.

Overall though, I must confess I won't lose any sleep over it and the older I get the harder it is for me to get worked up over murderers being put to death. It's just a teeny, tiny part of the long story of mankind.

thanks for reading and commenting Fins2theleft.

the waste of resources approach is a legitimate one. Our entire prison system is terribly inefficient. Like the death penalty, the system is based on retribution and not rehabilitation. And it doesn't serve us well at all.

It's also not exactly efficient to have such a large percent of our population in jail. Do we really need to lock up drug users and non-violent criminals?

If we would just legalize pot already, I'm guessing we would free up a ton of law-enforcement resources as well as prison space. But alas, there are powerful corporate entities out there who will lobby to ensure that we keep locking up lots-0-people so they can keep building, staffing and supplying prisons.

Some people are so evil they deserve to die slow, but until we figure out how to do it fairly I am against the death penalty. monkey fingered.

I've always been anti death penalty, save for a year or so in high school, when a cowardly thief killed a classmate who was pumping gas early on a Sunday morning, shot him in the face and head seven times, took his class ring and the $13 in his pocket.

But even then, I knew. I knew I could not sanction taking life.

If someone hurt one of my kids, I'd probably end up in jail myself. That does not mean I trust the system to do the job. Nor can I condone it.

I really can’t stomach it when those who have no time for Christians or religion decide that they know what the bible says about homosexuality or the death penalty. When actually it is a vain attempt at trying to discredit those with who they think are hypocritical.

Spare me your not so enlightened attempts at theology. Jesus would have forgiven a murderer, IF, yes IF, the guy had truly repented. Then, Jesus would have made the guy do his time or get executed. The forgiveness that deems one able to enter the pearly gates has nothing to do with one’s debt to society. If you remember, Jesus was on the cross next to a thief. He didn’t miraculously get the thief down when the thief repented. He let the thief die with Him. His forgiveness made eternal life available to the thief, but it didn’t absolve the thief of his debt to society.

If I robbed a bank at 10am, no one was hurt, I used a toy gun, and at 12 Noon, I decide to go give the money back because I recognized the error of my ways, do you think I am going to jail?

You said: “And now we get state-sanctioned retributive murder in my and every other Georgian's name.”

I think that’s a nice spin to put on the state’s motives. How intelligent sounding. “retributive murder”. The more important issues of support for the victim and ridding society of the incorrigible have not been discussed. Georgia is going to take the life of (not murder) a person who went through due process and was found guilty by a jury of his peers. The state of Georgia has deemed him a capital criminal. The rights of the victim now come into play. What are the rights of the victim? The rights of the victim are that the state will vindicate him and serve justice to the convicted. The state of Georgia has deemed execution a fair and fitting sentence which is JUST because of the nature and severity of the crime.

Throughout American history, there were numerous times, (when our system wasn’t so fraught and burdened with liberal appeals) that a judge admonished the convicted to make his peace with eternity. They were forgiven by the court and by the families of the victim, just as Jesus did. Yet, the state was bound to see JUSTICE met and enforce the law.

You insist on saving the life of a convicted murderer. But I will bet you my bottom dollar that you are pro-choice. You have the Gaul to err to the side of caution when it comes to a convicted murderer, yet you will turn a blind eye to 49,000,000 abortions since 1973. You should re-examine your very soul my fiend.

I forgive William Mark Mize. God forgives him if he will repent. I hope he has made his peace because justice will and should be served for the murder of Eddie Tucker tonight. RIP

The felony murder rule, under one of its incarnations Mr. Mize will die, it outdated.

The rule is this: If more than one person are involved in the commission of murder, then the intent to commit the felony transfers to the murder. Thus the requisite element of scienter is met.

The case that finally lead to the the end of the death penalty in Great Britain was such a case.

A young man, who was in the custody of the police at the time of the fatal shooting of another police officer was sentenced to hang because he was involved in the original crime of burglary. Hang he did.

Felony murder is the foulest kind of retribution. If we can't kill the one who dunnit, we'll kill one of 'em who showed up for a different dance but wound up doing Danny Deaver anyway.

Rated.

I am against the death penalty as barbaric and inhuman. Of course, we haven't let that stop us before. I guess that my Christian upbringing keeps coming to me...as you said, forgiveness, love, turning the other cheek. It's time for us to empty out our prisons and quit making criminals in this school of incarceration. Maybe we should re-purpose them into mental institutions for the criminally insane. You have to be insane to commit a crime in this country who has more prisoners per capita than any other nation in the world. Something is wrong here.

It makes me sick that a free society would kill its citizens no matter what the reason. Lock him up for a good, forget he's in there, but the state has no business killing people, particularly since our justice system is not exactly known for infallibility.

Just as with torture, there are three issues worth considering (beyond the cost in dollars).
First, is this a moral action? I admit to being ambivalent about the death penalty. It seems horrible, but then the crimes that bring the death penalty are supposed to be horrible, too.
Second, does this bring shame on us as a nation? I think the answer to this is clear, as other nations have abolished the death penalty. They therefore appear more humane in their treatment of criminals than we do.
Third, does the death penalty work? In other words, does it deter crime? I don't know the answer to that, so I can't really address it with facts, but my suspicion is that it doesn't.

I am against the death penalty in all cases, but this one in particular stinks. As for the statement that "probably" a couple of innocent people have been executed, the facts, should you care to look them up, are staggering.

I still believe in the adage that it's better to let a murderer go free than to kill an innocent man/woman.

Most civilized countries outlawed the death penalty decades ago. It always astounds me that so many Americans defend it so passionately. It's right up there with the right for everyone to carry concealed handguns and own assault rifles in its barbaric idiocy.

My post was really poorly written. It's been a bad day. Sorry about that.

The government playing God? Who thinks this is a good idea? Why?

~137 countries no longer implement the death penalty:

Death Penalty Outlawed (year)1

Albania (2000)
Andorra (1990)
Angola (1992)
Argentina (2008)
Armenia (2003)
Australia (1984)
Austria (1950)
Azerbaijan (1998)
Belgium (1996)
Bhutan (2004)
Bosnia-Herzegovina (1997)
Bulgaria (1998)
Cambodia (1989)
Canada (1976)
Cape Verde (1981)
Chile (2008)
Colombia (1910)
Cook Islands (2007)
Costa Rica (1877)
Côte d'Ivoire (2000)
Croatia (1990)
Cyprus (1983)
Czech Republic (1990)
Denmark (1933)
Djibouti (1995)
Dominican Republic (1966)
East Timor (1999)
Ecuador (1906)
Estonia (1998)
Finland (1949)
France (1981)
Georgia (1997)
Germany (1949)
Greece (1993)
Guinea-Bissau (1993)
Haiti (1987)
Honduras (1956)
Hungary (1990)
Iceland (1928)
Ireland (1990)
Italy (1947)
Kiribati (1979)
Liberia (2005)
Liechtenstein (1987)
Lithuania (1998)
Luxembourg (1979)
Macedonia (1991)
Malta (1971)
Marshall Islands (1986)
Mauritius (1995)
Mexico (2005)
Micronesia (1986)
Moldova (1995)
Monaco (1962)
Montenegro (2002)
Mozambique (1990)
Namibia (1990)
Nepal (1990)
Netherlands (1870)
New Zealand (1961)
Nicaragua (1979)
Niue (n.a.)
Norway (1905)
Palau (n.a.)
Panama (1903)
Paraguay (1992)
Poland (1997)
Portugal (1867)
Philippines (2006)
Romania (1989)
Rwanda (2007)
Samoa (2004)
San Marino (1848)
São Tomé and Príncipe (1990)
Senegal (2004)
Serbia (2002)
Seychelles (1993)
Slovak Republic (1990)
Slovenia (1989)
Solomon Islands (1966)
South Africa (1995)
Spain (1978)
Sweden (1921)
Switzerland (1942)
Turkey (2002)
Turkmenistan (1999)
Tuvalu (1978)
Ukraine (1999)
United Kingdom (1973)
Uruguay (1907)
Uzbekistan (2008)
Vanuatu (1980)
Vatican City (1969)
Venezuela (1863)
Death Penalty Outlawed for Ordinary Crimes2 (year)

Bolivia (1997)
Brazil (1979)
Cook Islands (n.a.)
El Salvador (1983)
Fiji (1979)
Israel (1954)
Kazakhstan (2007)
Kyrgyzstan (2007)
Latvia (1999)
Peru (1979)
De Facto Ban on Death Penalty3 (year)4

Algeria (1993)
Benin (1987)
Brunei Darussalam (1957)
Burkina Faso (1988)
Central African Republic (1981)
Congo (Republic) (1982)
Eritrea (n.a.)
Gabon (n.a.)
Gambia (1981)
Ghana (n.a.)
Grenada (1978)
Kenya (n.a.)
Korea, South (n.a.)
Laos (n.a.)
Liberia (n.a.)
Madagascar (1958)
Malawi (n.a.)
Maldives (1952)
Mali (1980)
Mauritania (1987)
Morocco (1993)
Myanmar (1993)
Nauru (1968)
Niger (1976)
Papua New Guinea (1950)
Russia (1999)
Sri Lanka (1976)
Suriname (1982)
Swaziland (n.a.)
Tajikistan (n.a.)
Tanzania (n.a.)
Togo (n.a.)
Tonga (1982)
Tunisia (1990)
Zambia (n.a.)


Of those that permit it, only two westernized countries, america and Japan still have it in effect. NO European countries still allow it.
The list where it is still in effect include many countries that those who subscribe to american exceptionalism refer to as either undeveloped and/or terrorist countries:

Afghanistan
Antigua and Barbuda
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belarus
Belize
Botswana
Burundi
Cameroon
Chad
China (People's Republic)
Comoros
Congo (Democratic Republic)
Cuba
Dominica
Egypt
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Gabon
Ghana
Guatemala
Guinea
Guyana
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Korea, North
Korea, South
Kuwait
Laos
Lebanon
Lesotho
Libya
Malawi
Malaysia
Mongolia
Nigeria
Oman
Pakistan
Palestinian Authority
Qatar
St. Kitts and Nevis
St. Lucia
St. Vincent and the Grenadines
Saudi Arabia
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Somalia
Sudan
Swaziland
Syria
Taiwan
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Thailand
Trinidad and Tobago
Uganda
United Arab Emirates
United States
Vietnam
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe

What a conspicuous bunch of countries the defenders choose to group themselves with.

I'll stand on the European side on this one.

One can also browse the "offender information." That too, has to be considered.

My response probably most mirrors Connie Mack's. I'm against the death penalty and I believe if guilty they should rot in jail, as expensive as that is. And if someone on "death row" is cleared via DNA years after the fact (and it's happening more and more often) then the country doesn't have more blood on its hands. But if someone hurt my family, I'd be right there in prison next to the rest of them and I would most likely rather die than to live that way.

"The death penalty is unethical, amoral and it's a terrible stain on the United States' claim to be "the home of the free"; a land promising "liberty and justice for all." "

I agree. The state should not be in the ugly business of killing the killer to prove that killing is wrong.

1994? It took too long. Should have happened 30 minutes after the verdict.

I'm against the death penalty for 2 practical reasons only 1) waste of resources 2) innocent people are killed

Is it morally acceptable to kill a killer? This is obviously a difficult question, and I don't know if humans can ever come to a consensus on it, particularly when you talk about types unlikely to be reformed, psychopaths who kill and torture because they enjoy it.

My personal opinion is that it is not wrong to kill these people and permanently keep them from harming others, eliminating any chance they could break out of prison and continue harm, if we could do it efficiently and with 100% accuracy. It is absolutely WRONG to let someone who has murdered for no other reason than the desire to hurt someone out of prison.

There is no reason that we should put non-dangerous (Martha Stewart-type) people in jail. These people can be punished/rehabilitated in other ways. Let's save our jail space for the truly evil.

Thanks all for reading and commenting. I apologize for being away from the discussion. It didn't look like it was going to take off like this in the hours after I first posted.

First, an update on Mr. Mize. He's still alive. The Georgia Supreme Court granted a 24 hour stay to clear up some legal technicality. Mize is now scheduled to be put to death this evening at 7:00 p.m.

Logan 5: you mentioned the "offender information" available on the Texas site. That stuff is every bit as chilling as the final statements. I read it all and continue to be fascinated/mortified by it.

Philos: your comment is full of inaccuracies, especially since you attacked me for positions that you erroneously assumed me to have. First you suggested that I have "no time for Christians or religion." However, I am a practicing Christian and a nightly reader/studier of the Bible. You also wrote "But I will bet you my bottom dollar that you are pro-choice." Well, wrong again. Pay up. I am pro-life across the board, however I don't necessarily subscribe to the idea that making abortions illegal is the best way to prevent abortions from happening. I actively support organizations that seek to reduce abortions worldwide through means such as education and the reduction of unwanted pregnancies. Also, Philos, your two-cent explanation of why Jesus would support the death penalty was wrong in my view and completely off the ball from the perspective of the Catholic church. Matthew 5:38-42 spells it out in very clear language. I really would appreciate your comments more if you didn't presuppose and assume so much. It's insulting. Your comment in this thread reminds me of when I wrote about my experiences chasing Somali pirates as an officer in the U.S. Navy and you accused me of being a pirate-lover or something of the sort. You sound like a jerk when you leave comments like that (and the one that you left here). And finally, "take the life" is a laughable euphemism for murder. If someone is killed at the hands of other humans, it is murder.

Oh Edgar, Edgar, what is one to do with a man who miss-interprets scripture every time one quotes it.

Let's start form a basic one. What does this scripture mean?

Exodus 20:7
Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

I would like to hear your take on that one. It is probably the most universally misunderstood scripture in the bible, so I would enjoy your commentary.

I am sure you mean well. But, your misuse of the verses Matthew 5:38-42 is going to get you into hot water. I can tell you really don't read the word much and if you do you filter it through your finite pre-established perspective. One cannot have a doctrine and then find scripture to support it. One must read scripture and have the scripture define your doctrine.

The verses you quote do not refer to governments meting out justice. They are for offenses regarding an individual being personally offended. The bible, time after time mentions judgment for leaders, nations, populations, tribes, etc. That they will be judged differently than individuals, families, husbands, etc, because of their responsibilities to uphold peace, tranquility, etc. You are just trying to broad stroke and simplify a topic that is very important and you should really study the word on this one.

I maintain the thief on the cross illustrates that Jesus that Jesus knew his debt the society had to be accomplished, but Jesus forgave him and that day, he was with Jesus in paradise.

As for other posts that I have commented on, if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. I have tried to stay as impersonal as possible, but it’s pretty hard when the whole point of a blog is to challenge, opinionate, etc. Peace.

Blackflon, you're upset with America's system of due process? I always figured you hated America. Now I have some evidence.
Aaron Rury
April 29, 2009 11:41 AM

Jury trial = due process. He needs to be Tango Uniform.

Philos, what do you want? People have written books explaining why Christianity fundamentally opposes capital punishment. Use your favorite search engine and type: catholics and the death penalty.

The scripture most certainly defines the Vatican's doctrine on this matter. The Gospel verses I mentioned in my response to your second comment was but one of many examples... and it was the clearest, easiest and most obvious one.

Of course I can "stand the heat"

You don't see me deleting your comments, do you?

I'm just saying that you're going to get further and maybe actually win an argument here or there if you can find it in yourself to put forth a dissenting opinion that is not almost completely composed of personal insults, false assumptions and strawman arguments.

First, I want to apologize for accusing you of supporting abortion if you do not. Sadly, in this day and age, if you do not speak out against the practice of using abortion as birth control then you are being pro-choice. I still have my doubts about your position because your explanation intimated that you still think the law should support abortion. Do I have that right? You do support the pro-choice laws? Nice try. But you have a weak, fence straddling position. That explains a lot. Now about your other hard core committed Catholic supporting postions..(oh,I forgot, the Catholic Church has a very different position than you). Sorry.

Let us get one thing very clear here. I agree with you on one point. Yes, those scriptures may be the ones that support the Catholic position on the death penalty. They (Catholics) also embrace somewhat controversial practices such as Papal Infallibility, fish on Fridays, transubstantiation and praying to people. There are others, but you get my drift. As a minority of believers in America are Catholic as opposed to Protestant, I think it only fair that you qualify your position.

If that is your position on things, please make sure you use the word Christian and Catholic more specifically. It seems obvious that your interpretation of the bible is very specifically Catholic and luke warm at that.

Speaking from a Protestant/Evangelical (gasp) perspective, the bible is very clear about the responsibilities of governments and how they differ from the responsibilities of, say, a father or an individual. An individual will be held responsible for what he or she did with the Gospel. Then an individual will be held responsible for the stewardship issues pertinent to his or her life. Friendships, oaths, repentance, prosperity, etc.

Likewise a father will be held responsible for how he treats his wife, then, did he represent the love of God to his children. Was he a good steward of his household, etc. A father will not be held responsible for vindicating the innocent people of a land or protecting a people. A president or king will. For you to take scriptures that specifically were spoken by Jesus and used for the management of ones own salvation and to use them to define justice for a country is at best a stretch and at it’s worst a flagrant abuse of God’s word.

Turning the other cheek is for individuals, not judges and law enforcement whose job it is to uphold and enforce civic law. Jesus didn’t overturn civic government. He was asked by the Pharisees if He paid taxes. This was in response to the claims that Jesus was the messiah. He was challenging religious perversions of the law. Like no death penalty. Asking Him about taxes was the Pharisees challenging His authority. Jesus actually said “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.” We all know He was talking about money. The principle stands that civic law is something He has left up to the people. God will hold leaders responsible for not punishing those who violate the innocent. This is about a murderer abdicating his own rights when they commit the murder. I can’t understand why you think a murderer should be above the law. Do we forgive people who don’t or won’t pay their taxes also? That would be violating the exact words that Jesus spoke. Or, do we not enforce laws? You can’t have it both ways.

So are you going to tell me your take on the scripture I asked you about?
Exodus 20:7

Good post, Edgar. I agree.

I also have learned that you are a patient man.

Monte

Hey Aaron, you, of all people have got to be kidding, calling me stupid. I thought I had seen the last of you when you wimped out of the last conversation where you couldn’t hang with any credible commentary.

I read the whole book of Ecclesiastes after reading your silly comment just to see if it had changed since the last time I read it.. If you read (which I know you do not) the bible as a living collection, and not some book of prose and one liners, you would know that God wants justice and God wants the innocent vindicated by those in power. His MERCY for those who violate CIVIC law is for those who repent and then they will have eternal life. There is no promise in scripture that promises that those who violate civic law will be relieved of their debt to society.

All through scripture, example after example, demonstrates that they will have to bear the consequences of their crimes.

The book of Ecclesiastes is the book that most theologians understand was the book that Solomon wrote that chronicles his fall from God. Yes, his fall. Do a Google search about Solomon. You may be surprised to know that he turned his back on the God of Israel and served other gods before he died. Many believe he turn his heart back towards God before he died, many say otherwise. The book is filled with many contradictory statements specifically to demonstrate how the unspiritual mind thinks.

Here is a link, (but you won’t read it, because you are in group 1) that helps explain the 8th chapter of Ecclesiastes which is the only place in the book that discusses justice & punishment.

http://www.realtime.net/~wdoud/ecclesiastes/ecc18.html

Here is the part about justice.

Ecclesiastes 8:11
“Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed quickly, therefore the hearts of the sons of men among them are given fully to do evil.”

Commentary ; Evil systems delay legal retribution against the wicked and their evil deeds. In other words, they are getting by with it. The sentence is not executed quickly and others who see the wicked prosper and get by with it are tempted to follow in their evil footsteps. Now do we have this problem today? No doubt about it. When a convicted murderer is sentenced to death and the punishment is delayed and delayed by appeal after appeal, justice is seen as a joke in the eyes of evil men. We often debate whether capital punishment is a deterrent to crime. Certainly not in the way it is executed today. Even when a capital offender is executed it is so often for crimes committed years ago that is does not have any impact upon society and no impact upon the criminal element of society.

Is this right, can we figure it out? No? Our vision does not allow us to figure out this kind of injustice.
______________________________________________________________________________

Aaron, You are a sheep. You do not have one thought, not even an idea, that isn’t agreed upon and approved by the masses. You are so afraid to have an original idea, that you make your living in the safest, least risk taking job you could find. You are an affront to everything truly American. You surround yourself with bureaucratic yes people who support your simplistic, foolish, self absorbed ideology. You then denigrate those who do take risk and accomplish great things. You are doomed to a destiny of following and never, ever really knowing anything about life much less anything eternal. Do not make the biggest mistake of all. Do not make assumptions about what you do not know.

There are 4 kinds of people.

1. Those who don’t know that they don’t know.
2. Those who know they don’t know
3. Those who know
4. Those who know they know

You are in group 1. I feel so sorry for you.

Isaiah 5:20
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

To somehow think the rights of murderers, who violate the most basic, precious right of another by taking their life, supersede the rights of the victims to be vindicated by the society that purports to uphold justice, is wicked. We have lost our souls to folly.

As much as I HATE to agree with philos on anything, I must agree with him here:

"Hey Aaron, you, of all people have got to be kidding, calling me stupid."

It is a grave and heinous to conflate stupid people anywhere with the vacuous nature of philos's misfiring neurons.

My first two posts, "Howard Zinn" and Smedley Butler" were posted with NO comments by me (except for a hat tip to Mr. St. Armant for his embedding post).

Suddenly, philos, THE reader ("Only 8,000 died under Nixon") , shows up and in his first response to me, includes comments such as:

"You m must be too young. You suffer from what I call “Affluenca”. It’s a disease of the mind that happens to people who have too much that they didn’t have to work, sweat or die for.

Now numbskulls like you pull out goofy (albeit fun to watch) dated ideological pabulum and decide the U.S. is wrong to be in any type of conflict for any reason.

The whole flippin worlds standard of living is going to tank and your silly, however passionate, ideology will be to blame. "

"Saving lives or growing the economy? Because in Viet Nam, 50,000 people died under Kennedy and Johnson. Only 8,000 died under Nixon and he was there for the same amount of time as both of them.

The conflict in Iraq, has been the single most successful military operation is history."

His continued public comments to me are equally if even more wacky.

His PMs transcend decency - hey mr. philos, I DON'T appreciate p_ _ _s jokes, even when you insert blanks between the first and last letters.

After three requests to stop PMing me, he has seen fit to comply.

Don't others think there should be an ignore feature that would allow anyone to say what they want but would provide those interested in civil and reasoned discourse, to simply not even be aware of the sandboxes like the one philos plays in?

Edgar, I apologize on behalf of mij. He needs an anger management counselor. Your blog is specifically about capital punishment. You used an application of scripture to support it and that was the context of my comments. Now it’s turned into mij’s personal slander fest. I am sorry.

Howard Zinn is a silly leftover from the hippy movement who found a limited audience with people whose misguided compassion is only superseded by their hatred for the American ideal.

General Smedley Butler was a well meaning, highly decorated American hero who to his dismay had his ideology adjusted when at the end of an illustrious, courageous and patriotic military career he learned that ALL military operations are and always will be rooted in the economic interests of a nation. Rarely are military operations solely acted upon for ideology or for purely “security” related reasons. It’s almost always about economic security. Always.

This seems to baffle mij. If you disagree with him with facts when he attacks the U.S. and blames her for all of the atrocities in the whole world since the dawn of time, he challenges your facts with extremely odd (and very long – longer than mine) lists and fringe group stories of conspiracies between bankers, arms dealers, mullahs, priests and politicians, etc.

He then goes to a place of fomenting and rage that makes him blind to the new topic and reckless with his posts. I really do think he may be on medication. Real, healthy people don’t act this way or treat other people the way he does.

He has said he is from Okinawa. He claims to be an expatriate, but he also keeps his citizenship. I think that may have to do with his need for the medical benefits. I actually think he may reside at Belleview Mental Institute.

I really would have liked mij to stay on topic. If you read his whole diatribe, he never once addresses anything I said in this post. Actually, neither did, Aaron. He digs stuff up from months ago in an argument about how he believes that every single military action since the dawn of the U.S. was absolutely heinous and paid for, ordered by, coerced by, and manipulated by some business, corporation, individual or group with wicked motives or selfish intent.

Mij is in the 5th group Reagan talked about. He “knows so much that just isn’t so”. Peace

William Mark Mize died April 29th. He maintained his innocence right up until he lost consciousness. The state of Georgia murdered him by pumping a combination of lethal chemicals into a vein in his arm.