No Need To Treat Terrorists Nicely

[chance1]

Precisely Andy.

Chance, you're so small minded, so narrow minded, so ignorant of the true facts and so blinded by your republican fed bullshit, that nothing we say on here, no amount of evidence to the contrary will sway you from your unblinkered path.

I feel so sorry for you, not knowing the true facts of the world. May god have mercy on your soul.

take a hike joe

go befriend a terrorist - im sure they'll love ur "broad minded" ways

as for god - he has no use for terrorists whose mission in life is to kill/maim innocents

wake up joe

there's a real world out here

 

[Zingerific]

"If Fascism comes to America, it will come bearing the Bible in one had and the flag in the other."
If I may recommend a book, the above quotation is from It Can't Happen Here by Sinclair Lewis, published in 1935.

The point is that when a country becomes authoritarian or totalitarian, most people don't see it coming, and many don't see it until well after the fact (Hitler and Stalin both had many supporters in the west in the 30s).

I'll be the first to admit that careless analogies to Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia are hyperbolic fear-mongering. Yet, if we are truly to learn from history, we must never prima facia close our eyes to parallels.

 

[chance1]

"If Fascism comes to America, it will come bearing the Bible in one had and the flag in the other."
If I may recommend a book, the above quotation is from It Can't Happen Here by Sinclair Lewis, published in 1935.

The point is that when a country becomes authoritarian or totalitarian, most people don't see it coming, and many don't see it until well after the fact (Hitler and Stalin both had many supporters in the west in the 30s).

I'll be the first to admit that careless analogies to Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia are hyperbolic fear-mongering. Yet, if we are truly to learn from history, we must never prima facia close our eyes to parallels.

don't really buy the bible/flag thingy

i think that's a pretty anti catholic/anti patriotic view

not as bad as usa = nazi germany to come

but not so great either

and frankly i don't see parallels

gwb is gone in a short while

could we become nazi germany with obama or hillary as pres?

or does the entire parallel end with gwb?

 

[chance1]

Thats rich coming from someone who hasnt travelled.

Jesus H Christ Chance, i know more about the world out there than you do... wake up yourself sunshine!

what makes u think u know anything about my travels ?

i will tell u what u know about it

NADA

"i know more about the world .............."

yeesh

i think my advice to u to "go befriend a terrorist" which was originally a facetious dilly - well, i think im serious now

pardon me while i make plans to travel to europe MORE so i can catch up with the self professed "knows more about the world" guy

LOFL

 

[barefootbob]

as usual ........

ur missing the point

waterboarding is NOT barbaric

that is the point

and terrorists should not be protected by the geneva convention as they do not qualify based on the standards

as for "hawks flying high" and we live "with so much violence in our lives" all i can say is

what????????

so if you or a beloved family member/friend were waterboarded you wouldn't call it barbaric or torture ?

 

[chance1]

so if you or a beloved family member/friend were waterboarded you wouldn't call it barbaric or torture ?

really silly premise

really silly

but just for funzies ..........

if my beloved family member was really a terrorist ............. he would deserve what he got

 

[chance1]

The fact is Chance, you've not once given a true or factual reasoned argument about WHY we shouldn't give suspects of terrorism due process... all you've done, is called people out for silly things and being pedantic.

Which suggests to us all here that you've got no argument, other than your own meandering misguided beleifs.

Come back to us with decent, methodical and proper reasoning about why we should abandon centuries old protocol at this time.

plenty of argument - good arguments

like we're the good guys
and waterboarding does not constitute torture
and that terrorists should not be afforded the rights as outlined in the geneva convention

yeah

ur response - and then u edited it to cover ur tracks .......

nice move btw joe - very lame

ur response is to claim that u "know more about the world" than i do

im comfortable - very - with my stance

and am pretty certain that ur stance makes the world a much more dangerous place - for u and ur loved ones

 

[chance1]

Actually i went back to add more and change the order of my answer.. i havent deleted anything from it.

Ask the mods.

And No, you're arguments are you opinion.. they're not based in any fact what-so-ever... in fact, most are countered by well documented fact.

So, i ask again.. what proper arguments do you have to back up your points?

Answer - NIL.

read the op ed - it's called logic

and usually when one asks a question, waiting for an answer is the normal thing to do

i would think with all ur travels u would know that

 

[chance1]

Who says your family member is a terrorist? Who says?

You just do not get it do you? Or if you do, you wont acknowledge it, because you know it just blows your stance clean out of the water!!

Say for argument sake, your brother (i dunno if you have one, but say you did)... was one day arrested, thrown in a cell..and left to rot. The government say he's a terrorist.

You gonna leave it at that?

If you say yes - you're full of shit. Totally, utterly full of shit.

You'd wanna know why! What he'd done, when he;d done it. You'd wanna see the proof to confirm he'd done it... your brother would want to see the evidence against him, he'd want a lawyer, he'd want a chance to argue against it... you'd want him to get those things.. as a brother.

You wouldnt just take Bush jnr's word for it and walk away.... and if you dare say you do, then you've just confirmed what we've all been thinking.. you're a god damned blithering idiot... cos no man in his right mind would just leave it at that.

And No, Chance - my stance makes it a much safer world for me and my loved ones... under my way, they'd get a phone call, a lawyer, a chance to hear the evidence against them, a chance to counter the evidence with their side of the story...

If they're then, found guilty by a jury, then they deserve any punishment they get (just as i do in my situation)... but they deserve the right to a fair trail and Habeas Corpus.

If you seriously think that my way makes the world a more dangerous place, you best remove your head from Bushs' rectum.

i have a brother - good guy - not a terrorist - he's never been arrested and i don't expect him to - not imagining my govt breaking down his door and rousting him off to a secret jail - that would be ur paranoia - not mine

we're all full of shit - and once a day (hopefully) we manage that problem

ur in the UK? strong anti terrorism methods have saved lives i would suggest - u would have those in charge be handcuffed so that terrorists could be treated like any common petty criminal - not safer my man - but u prefer to protect those who would kill vs. those who would be victims

thats the diff between us

u wanna protect the rights of those who commit heinous acts of indiscriminate violence

i would prefer to protect the lives of the innocents

yeah

 

[Zingerific]

Given the history of Northern Ireland, I'd say that when it comes to terrorism, someone from the UK has a pretty good idea of what they're talking about.

 

[Sammie13]

I'm not going to re-hash all that's been said here. While I think Chance1 might be a little extreme with his opinion, I'm inclined to see the big picture closer to his view.

Giving up freedoms and civil liberties does bother me immensely , but these are different times we live in. The one biggest fear I have that keeps me up at night is the terrorists returning here under an Obama/Hillary administration. I think the terrorists will see their lack of will on this issue and think we're looking in another direction. Even the action of the Iraq/Afgan wars have kept the terrorists over there fighting us, and if and when we come home from Iraq, I could see the terrorists coming back here with the troops.

 

[chance1]

Chance, You're impossible to engage in sensible debate, cos you're just full of uncomprehensible bollocks.

I havent said i want to lock up and detail law makers or those in authority.

I havent said that i want to protect the rights of those who commit henius crimes.. i said i want to protect the rights of those SUSPECTED of crimes. Once found GUILTY then sentence them accordingly.

You say you want to protect the lives of the innocents. But by your very own admitted policy, there are thousands of innocent people being detained across the world without trial or due process... how is that policy protecting them?

Just because they're in Iraq or Afghanistan doesnt make them immediately a terrorist.

Yes here in the UK we have strong Anti-Terror measures... but we still apply rule of law and Habeas Corpus. We do not detain people indefinately without trial. We do not deny them the right to a lawyer. We do not deny them the right to hear the crimes of which they are alleged to have commited.. and we bring them all to a swift trial where they are tried by a jury of their peers.

It's called due process... and it is THAT which we're talking about.

The process by which we determine if someone is a terrorist or not.

i like the "bollocks" thing - really do - see i can't get away with saying that or writing it - and u can - and that ticks me off

u haven't said any of that stuff joe - it's just that what u believe will lead to that - ever hear about "best intentions?" that be u

u want innocent people (innocent suspected terrorists) to be protected against being waterboarded when in fact they know nothing, did nothing, etc.

i hear u - and i don't want innocent suspected terrorists being harmed either - no one does

and i don't think waterboarding (example) would be or is used indiscriminately - i don't

call me naive

or call me trusting

call me what u like

but i really do like "bollocks"

we're gonna have to agree to disagree

i wanna focus on u (ur not a terrorist r u?) and me and other innocents - not on the bad guys - and i want to help ur govt and my govt catch the bad guys - cuz they deserve to be caught - and if u gotta stick their head in a toilet bowl (flushed) to get info - im ok with it

can u please tell me exactly what bollocks means?

PS - i love london - been there many times

stayed in russell square last time

loved churchill museum - very cool

he was some drinker huh?

 

[chance1]

Bye Chance, you've earnt a place on my ignore list.

yeesh

some people have no sense of humor

as i was trying to be playful with u joe

but was not to be i guess

i've been ignored by better blokes than u

 

[andysayshi]

I'm not going to re-hash all that's been said here. While I think Chance1 might be a little extreme with his opinion, I'm inclined to see the big picture closer to his view.

Giving up freedoms and civil liberties does bother me immensely , but these are different times we live in. The one biggest fear I have that keeps me up at night is the terrorists returning here under an Obama/Hillary administration. I think the terrorists will see their lack of will on this issue and think we're looking in another direction. Even the action of the Iraq/Afgan wars have kept the terrorists over there fighting us, and if and when we come home from Iraq, I could see the terrorists coming back here with the troops.

These are not different times. The enemy was Germany and Japan in WW2. The enemy was Communism in the 50s. The enemy was Russia in the 60s. There will always be enemies, that will never change. There are also enemies within our own borders, who would take those freedoms from you and I. And I don't mean terrorists.

There are many reputable reports which demonstrate that the war in Iraq has increased terrorism and terrorist numbers, not reduced it.

Copy of a post I made in another Waterboarding thread:


Here's an historical viewpoint which sounds similar to some of those above:

This fight has nothing to do with soldierly gallantry or principles of the Geneva Convention. If the fight against [the enemy] is not waged with the most brutal means, we will shortly reach the point where the available forces are insufficient to control the area. It is therefore not only justified, but it is the duty of the troops to use all means without restriction, even against women and children, so long as it ensures success.

- Wilhelm Keitel, chief of staff of the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces of Germany [Dec. 16, 1942]



How the brave men and women who fought and died fighting for our freedom and democracy, fighting fascism and cruelty like the quote above, must be turning in their graves to hear people in a modern democracy spit in their faces. Their sacrifice now meaningless, when a human being not convicted of any crime can be treated with such a lack of humanity, without dignity or basic respect.

The defence of torture is not just misguided, it is cowardice, from weak men who don't have the courage to defend the principles and honour of their forefathers. It is disgusting.

The debate here isn't only how to protect the country. It's how to protect our values.

If cruelty is no longer declared unlawful, but instead is applied as a matter of policy, it alters the fundamental relationship of man to government. It destroys the whole notion of individual rights. The Constitution recognizes that man has an inherent right, not bestowed by the state or laws, to personal dignity, including the right to be free of cruelty. It applies to all human beings, not just in America -- even those designated as 'unlawful enemy combatants.' If you make this exception the whole Constitution crumbles.

- Alberto J. Mora, former Navy General Counsel [Feb. 27, 2006 issue of The New Yorker, entitled "The Memo"]

Just a repeat mention - I hope it will open a lot of eyes.

Have you seen this year's Oscar winning doco, Taxi To The Darkside?



I strongly recommend it.

 

[andysayshi]

Oh, and Chance, bollocks is the english word for balls (the male kind). But they use it in lots of other ways:

"He got a bollocking" (he was shouted at or beaten up).
"Bollocks!" (Bullshit!)
"I got bollocked down the pub." (I got drunk at the local bar).
"Waterboarding is bollocks" (Waterboarding is completely unacceptable)


Well... okay, the last one was a stretch...

 

[Sammie13]

These are not different times. The enemy was Germany and Japan in WW2. The enemy was Communism in the 50s. The enemy was Russia in the 60s. There will always be enemies, that will never change. There are also enemies within our own borders, who would take those freedoms from you and I. And I don't mean terrorists.

There are many reputable reports which demonstrate that the war in Iraq has increased terrorism and terrorist numbers, not reduced it. .

I don't declare myself a military expert...just speaking from the heart. Though two points to your comment andysayshi:

1) I think that these are different times. There is no single person(s)/figure head leading the battle against us (Osama, but there are so many other Islamic extremist) and there is no defined, organized, centralized army. Just random people doing random acts, usually cowardly. WW2, the Communists, etc. ...we knew the enemy. This is a much more "individualistic" war, in my mind, which warrants activities that I once would have never thought acceptable.

2) In regards to the reputable sources saying the Iraq battle has increased terrorism. I guess I don't know the data to argue with that except I know that it can't be data looking at America. It's been quiet here....maybe the battle has increased activity in Europe and certainly, if you count all the terrorist activities in Iraq, then one could say it's increased terrorism overall. Again, myself and a number of middle easterners that I know feel like the Iraq battle has kept most of these folks distracted.

 

[Zingerific]

It's high time we sparred again, Sammy13

1) I think that these are different times. There is no single person(s)/figure head leading the battle against us (Osama, but there are so many other Islamic extremist) and there is no defined, organized, centralized army. Just random people doing random acts, usually cowardly. WW2, the Communists, etc. ...we knew the enemy. This is a much more "individualistic" war, in my mind, which warrants activities that I once would have never thought acceptable.

It's impossible to deny these are different times; but I have to yet hear exactly what these different times warrant. I do not see how, nor have I heard it argued, that suspending the writ of habeas corpus or denying legal representation helps the war on terror in any way. In fact (as I argued in a previous post in this topic) I believe it is ultimately contrary to the interests of the United States.

My main objection to torture is, again, that it's counterproductive. Torture has long been regarded as the least effective way of gathering intelligence; people tell the interrogators what they want to hear, or they use the opportunity to send misinformation. Does anyone these days believe the confessions from the Inquisition or the Salem Witch Trials? No, and for good reason.

If we, in the name of fighting terrorism, ignore amendments 4-8, ignore the Geneva Convention, allow warrantless wiretaps, et.al.,I believe we go a long way toward proving true everything that enemies of America have long claimed: that we're hypocrites, we're willing to bend our own rules if it suits our convenience, and we talk a good game about freedom and liberty but we don't really mean it if it's too inconvenient. If we really believe in rights and civil liberties, we would not be so eager to blithely "burn the village to save it."

I am all for fighting terrorism vigorously and without quarter. But if we lose our soul as a free people in the process, what kind of a victory is that?

 

[Agent-Neon]

Torture should never be considered as a viable form of interrogation nor for any other means for that matter.

I have relatives who were subjected to torture in South America during the 60's-70's when the US Office of Public Safety trained soldiers and police officers in "interrogation techniques" with the aim of bringing down leftist governments and organisations. This later evolved into Operation Condor, and was a particularly dark time for Latin countries - the history of US involvement in Chile, Argentina and Uruguay during this period is particularly unsettling. So yes, I oppose it.

 

[Sammie13]

It's high time we sparred again, Sammy13

Zing....I'm a lover, not a fighter!!! (and I noticed, you've become a "slut" now...restrain yourself, will ya?)

I think your concerns are valid, and I don't truly disagree, but I have found since 9/11, I think that where terrorists are concerned, I must back off those long-held notions. I don't care if they have legal representation for an initial period, and, if it's necessary, to torture for info, then go for it....granted, who is to say the info is accurate. And I find there is a study disputing everything in life, so I'm sure there are studies that conclude torture doesn't work (and maybe it doesn't, but is should be an option). I just feel like our intelligence needs to have more "weapons" at their disposal faster to fight this unique war, and not get bogged down in governmental beauracracy. I'm for helping the good guys keep us safe. I do think terrorism is an "individual" war which changes certain rules, and, I view this somewhat differently from a prisoner of war.

I don't think we're burning the village to save it...but, yes, ultimately it could lead to that if this goes beyond terrorism, which I don't see any evidence of happening. Definitely, we have to watch this situation...it's a tough trade-off.

 

[SoulSearcher]

Who gets to decide what a terrorist is? Should states have a monopoly over violence? Read this list of US military interventions around the world since 1890. By its own definition, many of these "interventions" could be considered terrorism itself. Torture should never be used against anyone, especially if we plan to continue to invade and chastise other "uncivilised" countries for their misdeeds.