Isn't America better than this?

[Alucard]

Alucard is not interested in what the 9/11 families want. He just wants to use them as an excuse to provoke an emotional response that in some minds excuse an act of aggression.

As far as I concerned I think it would be great(although unrealistic) to let families can do what they want... If some want to let some go... let them go... If they want to kill a few... Let them kill a few...
If they want to pull finger and toenails! so be it... Let them decide on a person by person basis if they wish to release, kill, or torture...

Plus it would make for great reality TV!

 

[Taomon]

As far as I concerned I think it would be great(although unrealistic) to let families can do what they want... If some want to let some go... let them go... If they want to kill a few... Let them kill a few...
If they want to pull finger and toenails! so be it... Let them decide on a person by person basis if they wish to release, kill, or torture...

Plus it would make for great reality TV!

Reprehensible

 

[Alucard]

Reprehensible

Its reprehensible to let the victims decide...

But, ok for you to decide!

Get the fuck out of here...

 

[maineman]

Sorry MM.....That does not apply to civilian dressed terrorists, but does apply uniformed combatants.....Try agian!

But I'm sure you can put some spin and twist on it to determine otherwise, as long as it weakens our position protecting ourselves from terrorism ...

Happy New Year, and Merry Christmas by the way!

you are confusing the Geneva Conventions (not a UN treaty) with the one I mentioned.

YOU try again!

 

[Paulie]

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." Wendell Phillips

"But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government." Andrew Jackson

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke

“Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons.” ~Ron Paul

“Legitimate use of violence can only be that which is required in self-defense.” ~Ron Paul

“Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms.” ~Ron Paul

“When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads.” ~Ron Paul

"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist. The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity." ~Ron Paul


"Let it never be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

 

[Taomon]

Its reprehensible to let the victims decide...

But, ok for you to decide!

Get the fuck out of here...

No! You get the fuck out of here fucktard! It is not up to me or you...it should be up to a court of law and not a Kangroo court in the form of a military tribunal using coerced evidence.

Or don't you believe in the Constitution? Are you implying that our soldiers are dying in Iraq to allow the Constitution to be superceded?

 

[manu1959]

reading some of these posts is fucking torture.....where is the UN when you need them....

 

[Alucard]

you are confusing the Geneva Conventions (not a UN treaty) with the one I mentioned.

YOU try again!

You'll have to show me where that protects Terrorists... Because I'm not reading it that way...

 

[Alucard]

No! You get the fuck out of here fucktard! It is not up to me or you...it should be up to a court of law and not a Kangroo court in the form of a military tribunal using coerced evidence.

Or don't you believe in the Constitution? Are you implying that our soldiers are dying in Iraq to allow the Constitution to be superceded?

Why should these people have representation in a court of law?

I believe in the constitution...Exactly where does it protect AQ terrorists and give them access to our courts or rights?

 

[Taomon]

You'll have to show me where that protects Terrorists... Because I'm not reading it that way...

It protects human beings from mistreatment. No matter how much you despise a person or group, there is no call for torture.

 

[Taomon]

Why should these people have representation in a court of law?

I believe in the constitution...Exactly where does it protect AQ terrorists and give them access to our courts or rights?

Because only the guilty should be punished, not all people of a religous or ethnic group.

All men are created equal.

Alexander Hamilton chose to serve as attorney to represent one of the most hated categories of people at that time; a support of the Crown. Hamilton did so in the face of an angry mob because he believed in the rule of law so much.

John Adams represented the reviled British Soldiers who killed American colonists in the Boston Massacre.

Both men - like the lawyers of JAG, the Center of Constitutional Rights, and private attorneys representing the detainees - risked their careers, reputations and even their lives because they love and believe in the rule of law.

Are you not able to protect the rule of law and justice?

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am5

 

[Dr Grump]

Why should these people have representation in a court of law?

To suss out if they are guilty or not...

Exactly where does it protect AQ terrorists and give them access to our courts or rights?

Who says they are terrorists?? That is the problem - nobody knows..

 

[DeadCanDance]

Whats your point???... These dirtbags have no rights under the geneva convention or under American law...

Torture them till they talk... Then kill em for fun... Better yet let the families of the victims of 9-11 do it!

You must be a two time Bush voter.

Your views are immoral and insane, but I'll take comfort from the fact that torture lovers like you, are only brave enough to cheer torture from behind the safety and anonymity of a keyboard. In civilized society and in public, few people dare cheer torture, because they would look like psychotics. I've never heard any mainstream candidate at a republican debate cheer torture, I've never heard anyone at work cheer torture, and in any civilized public setting I've never heard anyone salivating for torture.

 

[Doug]

The question of torture cannot be reasonably answered in an absolutist way. It is possible to construct a situation in which the only reasonable response is to condone torture -- the well-known Ticking Time Bomb scenario.

In practice, the advantages that might be gained from routine torture or even serious maltreatment, in my opinion, are far outweighed by the disadvantages we accrue by using it, or being seen to connive in its use by our distasteful (although tactically necessary) temporary allies.

Our struggle against radical Islam is not only a military struggle. It is a political struggle, in which we aim to win the support, or toleration, of a large part of the world's population, including its Muslim population.

Ambiguity about our attitude towards torture runs counter to this. It radically erodes our image -- which we once had -- as the "good guys".

The question of detention without trial is logically separate from the question of torture. We need to fulfill the spirit of the legal system which we have evolved in the West, while recognizing that we face a new situation, which is neither traditional war -- not even guerilla war -- nor simple criminal activity.

I don't have answers for how to do this. And I am not interested in even discussing it with people who are congenitally anti-American. But those who recognize that we are in a deadly struggle, and want our side to win, do need to have a serious discussion about what our norms and procedures for detaining suspected enemy combatants should be.

 

[Taomon]

The question of torture cannot be reasonably answered in an absolutist way. It is possible to construct a situation in which the only reasonable response is to condone torture -- the well-known Ticking Time Bomb scenario.

In practice, the advantages that might be gained from routine torture or even serious maltreatment, in my opinion, are far outweighed by the disadvantages we accrue by using it, or being seen to connive in its use by our distasteful (although tactically necessary) temporary allies.

Our struggle against radical Islam is not only a military struggle. It is a political struggle, in which we aim to win the support, or toleration, of a large part of the world's population, including its Muslim population.

Ambiguity about our attitude towards torture runs counter to this. It radically erodes our image -- which we once had -- as the "good guys".

The question of detention without trial is logically separate from the question of torture. We need to fulfill the spirit of the legal system which we have evolved in the West, while recognizing that we face a new situation, which is neither traditional war -- not even guerilla war -- nor simple criminal activity.

I don't have answers for how to do this. And I am not interested in even discussing it with people who are congenitally anti-American. But those who recognize that we are in a deadly struggle, and want our side to win, do need to have a serious discussion about what our norms and procedures for detaining suspected enemy combatants should be.

You are very wrong and misguided. Torture and/or coercion only provides unreliable information. The person being tortured mor coerced will do and say anything to end the torment. After days of sleep deprevation or stress positions a sane person can be driven mad or become "moldable" and will do as he or she is told. This is psychological and historical fact.

To say that there are possible scenarios inwhich torture can be condoned shows your limited understanding of the subject. The ticking time-bomb scenario is no different than the possible al Qaeda detainee in Gitmo. Torture makes a person say what they think their torturer wants to hear or what they are told to say to end the torture.

This is why we must use our judicial system. I understand capturing suspects. I do not understand why it is necessary to torture them, hold them indefinitely and create charges against them.

If they are guilty then gather actual evidence. The military has access to the best forensic experts and tools that the world has to offer and the backing of the American people if they can stop the torture, re-establish Habeas Corpus and do some actual investigation.

Only a true psycho would wish for an innocent Muslim to be tortured or killed in the name of security. No one wants that. We the people want justice and we want security, but not at the price of liberty and innocence.

 

[midcan5]

The question of torture cannot be reasonably answered in an absolutist way.

I don't have answers for how to do this. And I am not interested in even discussing it with people who are congenitally anti-American. But those who recognize that we are in a deadly struggle, and want our side to win, do need to have a serious discussion about what our norms and procedures for detaining suspected enemy combatants should be.

HUH!!! - It cannot?? but you manage to, and then as if to head off criticism of your myopic nonsense you add some rules. Weak, very weak.

 

[eots]

HUH!!! - It cannot?? but you manage to, and then as if to head off criticism of your myopic nonsense you add some rules. Weak, very weak.

WOW !...your good...really good

 

[Taomon]

WOW !...your good...really good

Midcan is probably the smartest person on the board.

 

[Dr Grump]

Revenge and torture are tools of the weak minded and ethically bankrupt.

I have no problem with revenge at all. Torture, well it depends under what circumstances...

 

[Taomon]

I have no problem with revenge at all. Torture, well it depends under what circumstances...

As far as I can tell, and from what I have read, there is no reason to torture other than revenge or to instill fear.

We agree that torture does not provide good intelligence correct? It is fact that someone who is tortured or coerced has a breaking point and when that thresh hold is reached he or she will say or do anything to relieve the torment.

That leaves revenge and instilling fear.

Now revenge I do not condone as a state. If someone rapes my daughter, I cannot guarantee that I would not exact revenge. In fact, the chances are pretty high that I would. But a state apparatus exacting revenge is the act of dictators and military regimes. We are a free country whose laws are based on reason and ethics. To exact revenge on innocent people in order to harm a few guilty ones goes against everything this country was founded on and every soldier dies defending.

Instilling fear, now there is a provocative reason. Not only does the state instill fear in their victims (the detainees) but also in would-be enemies and even its own citizens. Yes, we all know that the president now has the power to declare any person, even US citizens, an enemy combatant. That person would be kidnapped and transported to a detention center where we know that torture not only exists, but is lauded by some citizens. People assume that if you are declared an enemy combatant, then you must be a threat - otherwise, why would the president bother?

I'll tell you why, to stop opposition. If ordinary citizens like me, people in the press, civil lawyers, priests and so on were renditioned, tortured, tried and executed the press would label us as spies or treasonists. The public would no longer openly dissent. The administration would not be questioned. People would fear that detainment and torture.

And by the way, the Nazi's did just that. So did Mussilini, Stalin, and many despots throughout Latin America and the Middle East/Southeast Asia.