From: invalid@none.com   
      
   In article <10nli0k$cepo$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com   
   says...   
   >   
   > On 2026-02-22 15:02, Skeeter wrote:   
   > > In article <10nfk8p$2bftr$2@dont-email.me>, nuh-   
   > > uh@nope.com says...   
   > >>   
   > >> On 2026-02-22 09:51, Socialism is for losers wrote:   
   > >>>>>>>> 'These premeditated and intentional killings lack any plausible   
   legal   
   > >>>>>>>> justification.   
   > >>>>>>> In your opinion.   
   > >>>>>> You said you "didn't see any denial of drug trafficking" in that   
   filing.   
   > >>>>>>   
   > >>>>>> That's a quote FROM that filing and it clearly constitutes such a   
   denial.   
   > >>>>> Nope. Neither the complaint from the relatives nor the court filing   
   > >>>>> denied that the boat was carrying drugs.   
   > >>>> "Lacking any plausible legal justification" does precisely that.   
   > >>>   
   > >>> That assumes that trafficking drugs*IS* justification for being   
   > >>> killed, Dumbass.   
   > >>   
   > >> You're the one who is assuming that...   
   > >>   
   > >> ...along with assuming that those killed were doing so.   
   > >   
   > > Until you prove they weren't we choose to believe they   
   > > were.   
   >   
   > That's not the way the RULE OF LAW works.   
      
   Whose law?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)