Suspected Terrorist = Actual Terrorist

[DanS]

Originally posted by Admiral
Yes, it was corrected. But how long did it take for us to realize our mistake?

I don't know. The timeline was probably listed in the WaPo article of a couple of days ago that Colon posted.

My sense is that our troops in places like Guantanamo probably feel discouraged from looking for mistakes, when I feel that to justify a place like Guantanamo, questioning the evidence that placed people there has to be a top priority.

You'll have to find a different example than Masri to hang this on, however.

[Donegeal]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


Benjamin Franklin in fact. One of your founding fathers. Isn't it amazing that what were supposedly the founding principles of your country can be conveniently ignored? You don't seem to be grasping that these laws can be used against anyone. Faith alone is not enough to ensure your personal civil liberties. Even within months we are seeing gross abuses of these powers, and they are legitimate!

DAMN! That was my second guess. Hey PH, I like the founding principles just as much as the next guy, in fact, back awhile when there was the tread about what was the one thing you'd want top pass along if our civ ever died out, it was the US Constution and Bill of Rights. Problem is, is that times change. Circumstances call for exceptions. None of the founding fathers forsaw jet liners flying into 110 story buildings.

Enjoy your police state. If you'd ever had an original thought in your life, you might understand why you want to have them. Just because you are aligned with your current administration (hell knows how) you are safe. But at some point in the future, you may not be quite so cosy.

Thanks, I will (I AM the police... ). Thats just it. It will never come to that. That is why I don't mind having people like you around. If people like you wern't around, then it would be that much harder to regain those civil liberties when crisis has past.

You can minimise but never eliminate. That is a fact of life. But none of these security measures mean anything except to terrorise people into not committing these act. And thus your supposed 'war on terror' is lost without the enemy firing a shot.

Bingo! We have a winner! These measure aren't being done to "terrorise" the general population. Its meant to scare, and prevent, those few wakos out there who might do something. And you said it yourself, the end result is they don't do it because they don't want to get caught. The 'war on terror' is not lost, it has taken a major step in the right direction.

That's the tip of the iceberg. My government tried to get an extension for detention without trial extended to 3 months under the prevention of terrorism act. So basically this would give the police a chance to lock someone up for whatever reason for a period of time that would destroy the persons life. Just because they want to.

Again, that is why I am glad to have people like you. You won't let things get to that point. Its nice to have you around.

And let's face it, even if nothing malicious ever occurs under these laws, the police have a nasty habit of making mistakes.

Aside from the personal slander of that comment, the Police are correct at about 95-97% of the time (Now I'm not talking about terror suspects, I'm talking about Police work). Mistakes do happen. That cannot be prevented. We (humans) are imperfect. Deal with it.

Perhaps, depends on what you mean by that. I am referring to the west's gunboat diplomacy that has created this insurgency...

OK, I guess that we don't. I was looking for the less troll-ish aspect of what the insurgents were fighting for, or the even more underlying reasons behind the cultural differences between the Sunnis and Sheits...

[Admiral]

Originally posted by DanS


I don't know. The timeline was probably listed in the WaPo article of a couple of days ago.



You'll have to find a different example than Masri to hang this on, however.

Fair point. I haven't been following the Masri case, and was not really basing my case off him. Rather, I'm looking at the general picture, where you have an administration that takes Donegeal's attitude, that has foresworn the Geneva convention and denied the Red Cross access to facilities, and refuses to assume responsibility for anything. This paints a picture, and that picture tends to translate into the actions or inactions of interrogators at places like Guantanamo. There will be no incentive for our troops to look for errors and mistakes, and consequently, they will tend to be lackluster in that regard. Combine this with the sort of bigotry towards Muslims that goes on in Guantanamo, and you get a very disturbing situation indeed.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Donegeal
DAMN! That was my second guess. Hey PH, I like the founding principles just as much as the next guy, in fact, back awhile when there was the tread about what was the one thing you'd want top pass along if our civ ever died out, it was the US Constution and Bill of Rights. Problem is, is that times change. Circumstances call for exceptions. None of the founding fathers forsaw jet liners flying into 110 story buildings.

Times change, but human rights should evolve, not step backwards. I'm sure the founding fathers would roll in their graves if they were seeing this. In terms of deaths caused, terrorism is so utterly minor...I mean, can you imagine the strains of the War of Independence - did they renege on their very principles and decide to shoot people who looked 'a bit British'? Hell no. Some principles, such as civil liberties, have been hard fought to gain, yet you are willing to give them over for nothing apart from the sensationalism spun by your administration in order to get control over a rather abundant oil field?

[quote]Thanks, I will (I AM the police... ). Thats just it. It will never come to that. That is why I don't mind having people like you around. If people like you wern't around, then it would be that much harder to regain those civil liberties when crisis has past.[quote]

My problem is, this is a storm in a teacup. Normal police practice has been successful in thwarting the largest number of threats, and some are always going to get through the net...but how many do? How many terrorist incidents have you had since 2001? It's shocking but you can't give up everything that makes life in the west as good as it is just for, what is in essence, pure scaremongering.

Bingo! We have a winner! These measure aren't being done to "terrorise" the general population. Its meant to scare, and prevent, those few wakos out there who might do something. And you said it yourself, the end result is they don't do it because they don't want to get caught. The 'war on terror' is not lost, it has taken a major step in the right direction.

Collateral damage? The freedom of everyone is lessened by these actions, not just the ones you like, who are an extremely small minority.

Again, that is why I am glad to have people like you. You won't let things get to that point. Its nice to have you around.

But look how much bloodshed and fighting and how many centuries it has taken to win those rights to give them away so quickly?

Aside from the personal slander of that comment, the Police are correct at about 95-97% of the time (Now I'm not talking about terror suspects, I'm talking about Police work). Mistakes do happen. That cannot be prevented. We (humans) are imperfect. Deal with it.

Precisely, they happen. And if a fair system is not adhered to look at the consequences. Rather than an innocent person being falsely tried and incarcerated and then released, we have an innocent person who has been terrorised - abused, beaten and tortured. It is precisely because of those errors that this can never be an acceptable avenue of pursuit.

OK, I guess that we don't. I was looking for the less troll-ish aspect of what the insurgents were fighting for, or the even more underlying reasons behind the cultural differences between the Sunnis and Sheits...

Well the simple fact of how we conducted the invasion of Iraq and the sheer amount of maiming and killing that was caused to the civilian population which is only now becoming apparent. And then the indifference towards the indigenous population by not restoring the most basic amenities and quickly, which was well within our capacity. And the atrocities that have happened and continue to surface. Fallujah perhaps? These things ignite a population, and hence Iraq will be a problem for many decades. I dread to think that by the time the dust settles, just how many hundreds of thousands of people will be dead...

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
With this kind of tactic, you know the war against terror is completely lost, because it has clearly come the war between different terrors.

oh please. surely people don't actually believe utter bull**** like this.

[DanS]

Rather, I'm looking at the general picture, where you have an administration that takes Donegeal's attitude, that has foresworn the Geneva convention and denied the Red Cross access to facilities, and refuses to assume responsibility for anything.

I don't think that's a fair description of the facts, but your opinion is noted.

Personally, I divide the current goings-on into 2 categories. (1) Iraqis in Iraq and (2) other WoT and non-Iraqis in Iraq. The people in group #1 are afforded a greater deal of protection under the Geneva Conventions. The people in group #2 aren't afforded very much protection at all.

We haven't really developed laws and MOs for dealing with group #2 (the Euros might have, but we haven't). Trying to apply laws of common criminals to terrorists is wholly unsatisfying to me. I admit that we have not developed a just way to decide whether suspected terrorists really are terrorists. However, that's a far cry from demonstrating that the criminal justice system is the proper place for this stuff to be adjudicated.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Donegeal
[q] Bingo! We have a winner! These measure aren't being done to "terrorise" the general population. Its meant to scare, and prevent, those few wakos out there who might do something. And you said it yourself, the end result is they don't do it because they don't want to get caught. The 'war on terror' is not lost, it has taken a major step in the right direction.

People who are willing to kill themselves and kill/maim other people will not be deterred. Their hate only grows stronger; when will you people understand that? It's counterproductive! Respect earns you more than fear, because counting on fear to keep them at bay can't be sustained endlessly. Just look around you in the world and in history, nobody will stand for it for too long a period. That while a mutual relationship of respect is in my experience much harder to break.

However I do know it's not that easy to talk with these extremists, it is still the better way, ethically too. Letting the whole situation escalate hasn't provided any side with any benefit so far, unless you are going to deny that? You seriously think the world looks brighter now?

Originally posted by Donegeal
Its called being pro-active instead of being re-active.

If your poractive, there are less terror attacks, but mistakes can be made.
If your reactive, then no mistaes are made but you have hundreds, or thousands of people dead; and usually no one to try, as they kill themselves in the process.

I, for one, prefer that the US government maintain its proactive stance to insure my saftey.

After 9/11, how many 'attacks' on US soil have been undertaken?
If you could give me a detailed list on all of them please.
.
.
.
.
Right, my point is your 'proactive' stance is not even necessary! The relatively few attacks on western nations have not inflicted that many casualties right. In any case I don't fear for my life when walking down the streets! Also, these extremists are just using the west as an abstract evil entity, while they actually want power and influence in the Arab territory... and you guys blindly fall into the trap, making yourself the most hated nation in many places of the world

Well the simple fact of how we conducted the invasion of Iraq and the sheer amount of maiming and killing that was caused to the civilian population which is only now becoming apparent. And then the indifference towards the indigenous population by not restoring the most basic amenities and quickly, which was well within our capacity. And the atrocities that have happened and continue to surface. Fallujah perhaps? These things ignite a population, and hence Iraq will be a problem for many decades. I dread to think that by the time the dust settles, just how many hundreds of thousands of people will be dead...

You could look here... http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
It gives relatively detailed information on perished people in Iraq.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by DanS


I don't think that's a fair description of the facts, but your opinion is noted.

Personally, I divide the current goings-on into 2 categories. (1) Iraqis in Iraq and (2) other WoT and non-Iraqis in Iraq. The people in group #1 are afforded a greater deal of protection under the Geneva Conventions. The people in group #2 aren't afforded very much protection at all.

We haven't really developed laws and MOs for dealing with group #2 (the Euros might have, but we haven't). Trying to apply laws of common criminals to terrorists is wholly unsatisfying to me.

So if you're saying they have little or no rights, then imo you should accept the fact that they commit the same brutalities on your soldiers too, right? Because if you say there are no laws applicable to those people this must be so.

[DanS]

The terrorists take no prisoners. Reciprocity would dictate that we take no terrorist prisoners either.

[Jon Miller]

because taking no prisoners is such a great idea...

it isn't, it is a terrible idea

there is a reason why we have always taken prisoners.. (Well, sometimes the combat situation (in a particular battle) makes it a bad idea, but the usual is that we take prisoners)

not taking prisoners makes war more difficult

Jon Miller

[DanS]

I agree that there are many practical reasons to take prisoners and that's why we do so in these situations. But as far as I'm aware, reciprocity rules the day in warfare, as Traianvs correctly pointed out.

[Sava]

HEY YOU LIBRUL SCUMBAGS!!!

It's better to lock up tens of thousands of innocent people, not charge them with anything, torture them just to be sure they are innocent, and then let them go rather than have 1 American die...


WE ARE SAVING LIVES

GIVE ME LIFE BEFORE LIBERTY

[Pekka]

I find it interesting that the Bush votes in here support the whole prisoner thing going on right now, while others don't, in general.

Those votes be Republican most of the times. My instinct tells me this is warped opinion to support the stand of the party more than not. Kind of like the Dem voters do here on their part. In my eyes the US is bi-polarized, and that's not a good idea.

Anyway to the point, about freedom and stuff and democracy, if we take parliamentary type of approach, the mindset of that, there's no room for 'well, we can do that if in spot x time y and we got person z appointed to handle it with the help of f to make it legal if the turkey is in the oven'.

THis really isn't about legality in my books, this is about morals and how people feel freedoms work. Taking the basics out from others (citizens) counts are counter productive instead of the opposite, and all this other crap part of the war, well.. it does sound something like El Salvador or other South American banana thing, maybe there will be a movie about it in 10 years or so.

And the Repub votes then will say it's a lie and propaganda, and the Dem votes say it's a conspiracy theory and it involved a car and a jacket, keys and a room with lots of blow.

That's like OK but how about the procedures and methods we are using on other people. That should be like important, yes? Or is this the time for the 'save face and scramble' move for everyone now?

[Pekka]

I am, of course, talking about the middle way approach.

Would I be so naive to think there's no torture if we take worst case scenario and we have this dude who knows how to prevent the attack that involves lifes of hundreds, but we can't touch the guy and he's like a rock? Of course there would be electricity in some balls. But that's practice. When we accept the theory part, well then we're lost IMO.

I'd be more worried about torturing innocent person than that who knows it might pay out. I thought it was established that info is not reliable anyway.

The bigger damage than a group of innocent getting handled is bad PR. If you ask why there are lots of people out there who don't like the US, this is one of those reasons.

[Heerscher]

Yeah, it must really be terrifying to live in the US these days, knowing your society is threatened by brutal terrorist wishing to turn your country into a Islamic kaliphate. To live in fear each and every day, I wouldn't be able to stomach it. And knowing they even are among you, secretly conspiring their evil plans. You would be a fool to value liberty over security in such a situation. What is libery worth if your safety is compromised every day, when you are at war with a brutal enemy that knows no mercy and is willing to do all that it takes to blow up your buildings, kill your friends and family and destroy your country. In such a situation I would be glad to have a powerfull president and Intelligency Agency, to protect my liberty and freedom!