Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
And you? Would you be willing to kill women and children for the 'virgins?' Which are actually hags, male hags and unclean female hags, that are insatiable. All waiting for the suicidal martyrs...How many terrorists who attacked purely U.S. targets since the 1980s have not been suicide attackers? Iraq does not count because the attacks against U.S. troops would not be happening if we had not invaded.
How many terrorists who attacked purely U.S. targets since the 1980s have not been suicide attackers? Iraq does not count because the attacks against U.S. troops would not be happening if we had not invaded.
Terrorist attacks takes the coordinated effort of an entire terrorist network.
Really? What about a lone assassin who targets a head of state? What about someone who douses a subway car filled with people with gasoline and sets in on fire? What about someone who works in a biochem lab and decides to poison the food at a ballgame?
When is the last time any Islamic terrorist attacked a U.S. target in anything other than a suicide attack?
And just how do you know that the terrorists who provided support for the 9-11 suicide attackers are not willing to be suicide attackers themselves and thus would be immune to torture?
That aside, let me remind you what kind of terrorists we are talking about.
So it's OK to torture some terrorists, but not all?
So it's OK to torture some terrorists, but not all?
Well how can that be? According to your logic all terrorists that attack America kill themseleves in doing so. BTW how do you explain Ramzi Yousef?
I did not say that all terrorists who attack America are suicide terrorists. I simply asked when was the last time a terrorist (meaning a foreigner) attacked a U.S. target without being a suicide terrorist.
The terrorists we are dealing with are the type that gladly become suicide bombers.
so we just give up and surrender?
Ok, when was the last time a Islamic Terrorists attack America? Ramiz Yousef.
Disscussing the US involvement in tortue with you is pointless. You either cannot or are unwilling to recognize that Islamic terrorists opperate within a network of other terrorist that do have vital infromation.
Your proof that this Yusef had no intention of ever being a suicide terrorist against the U.S. is what?
What proof do you have that the people you would torture for the sake of obtaining vital information regarding terrorism actually have this vital information? You really trust the likes of GWB to tell us the truth about what is learned through torture?
If you think torture is OK for the sake of law enforcement, would it be OK to torture people suspected of bank robbery? What about shoplifting, or embezzeling? Where do you draw the line at violating other peoples human rights?
Ok, because nobody seems to get this, I'll say it one more time.
Terrorism is not a law enforcement issue!
If terrorism is not a law enforcement issue, but rather an issue of war, then anyone we capture is legally obligated under international law (the Geneva Convention, which the U.S. has signed) to give us only their name, rank and serial number. Legally, persons captured as prisoners of war cannot be tortured. If GWB condones torture, and if people we have captured in this war are being tortured at GWBs command, then GWB is a war criminal.
So what uniforms do terrorists were?
What military insignia do the terrorists wear?
What country and what branch of the military do the terrorists belong to
They need these to qualify for GC protection
While you would wrap your arms around them, hug them, and reason with them - the terrorists would slit your throat
With your dying breath you would probably blame Pres Bush for it
So you are saying that terrorists are not engaged in acts of war against the U.S.? In that case they are the legal equivalent of pirates and any action we take against them is a law enforcement matter- meaning they are not prisoners of war when we capture them and thus have all of the legal rights to due process as provided by our Constitution. So that means they cannot be forced to testify against themselves; they cannot be subjected to imprisonment without trial; they cannot be denied legal counsel and they can not be subjected to cruel or unusual punishment.
If terrorists we capture are POWs then we cannot torture them without violating the Geneva Convention and thus making ourselves war criminals. If the terrorists we capture are criminals, we cannot violate their legal due process rights without violating our own Constitution.
Whatever gave you the idea that foreign terrorists are afforded the rights, protections, and privileges bestowed on U.S. citizens by the constitution?
U.S. Constitution
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The Constitution says no person. It does not specify that the person be a U.S. citizen.
Two years ago I would have agreed that no non-citizen is entitled to the rights, privileges and immunities granted by the Constitution. But considering GWB recent actions (such as warrantless wiretapping) I no longer feel it would be safe to think this.
