Is burning down cities an acceptable law enforcement tactic?

[A18]

Htmldon says yes

[??????????]

We know that Don supports war crimes but all these liberals who are "against war" support such actions as well.

[Max Power]

Is burning down cities an acceptable law enforcement tactic? No.

Was slavery right? Definately not.

[Ebowed]

Of course, it was to save TEH UNION!!111111

[Max Power]

Of course, it was to save TEH UNION!!111111

Oh, we're talking about the Civil War? Then yes, it was necessary to keep the rebels from regrouping.

[??????????]

Of course, it was to save TEH UNION!!111111

Oh, we're talking about the Civil War? Then yes, it was necessary to keep the rebels from regrouping.

Hypocrite

[phk]

Oh, we're talking about the Civil War? Then yes, it was necessary to keep the rebels from regrouping.

[Max Power]

Oh, we're talking about the Civil War? Then yes, it was necessary to keep the rebels from regrouping.

Why the hell did you just copy everything I said, word for word? If you would have quoted me, it would have been fine. But that's a schmucky thing to do.

[© tweed]

There is a difference between war tactic and law enforcement tactic.  I don't necessarily support this war tactic but I feel it necessary to point out the difference.

[A18]

If secession is illegal, then the act was void, and the southern states were still part of the union. Thus, it was a matter of law enforcement.

[Emsworth]

To put down a rebellion? Absolutely not.

[© tweed]

If secession is illegal, then the act was void, and the southern states were still part of the union. Thus, it was a matter of law enforcement.

I disagree.  The south and north were engaged in war, not a law enforcement dispute.  Law enforcement leads someone to believe that you're talking about the police coming to your house, arresting you, cand then burning down your house.

[Bono]

Thought this was about Waco.
Anyways, the answer is still no.

[A18]

Supressing insurrection, as authorized by the Constitution, is law enforcement. Just because there's insurrection in one state, doesn't mean the fed is free to burn someone's home to the ground, even if they have nothing to do with it.

[© tweed]

Supressing insurrection, as authorized by the Constitution, is law enforcement. Just because there's insurrection in one state, doesn't mean the fed is free to burn someone's home to the ground, even if they have nothing to do with it.

so you're arguing that the north and south were not in fact engaged in war?

[A18]

The states can not violate the Constitution.

[Virginian87]

I suppose you believe that Gen. Sherman's philosophy of "total war" is equivalent to terrorism, correct?

[A18]

Terrorism can be justified under a limited set of circumstances. But against your own people, it's always illegal in this country.

[Virginian87]

I must say that the March to the Sea was very extreme.

[AuH2O]

Obviously it's not acceptable. But you could argue the South did legally secede, in which case the Union committed war crimes against another country, and then subjugated it and removed democratic rule, rather than merely slaughtering their own civilians.

[J. J.]

Htmldon says yes

It can be an acceptable tactic in fighting a war or a rebellion. 

Of course, I live in one of few American cities that bombed itself.  ;-)

[Hitchabrut]

To put down a rebellion? Absolutely not.

Yes. To ruin the infrastructure of one's own country is impulsive and carries only negative consequences.

[bullmoose88]

Philadelphia-The Only City (that I know of) thats dropped a bomb, via a heliocopter, on its residents.

Its the city that loves you back!

[Giant Saguaro]

Philadelphia-The Only City (that I know of) thats dropped a bomb, via a heliocopter, on its residents.

Its the city that loves you back!

1985, if memory serves. Uh, now I found out - Rendell was in Philly politics, he wasn't mayor - that's right, he came in after W Wilson Goode. And they pretty much just passed the buck around on this one, I vaguely remember this.