Would you be allright with American soldiers be waterboarded?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by David Floyd

Sure, we need proof, but proof is never 100% accurate. We execute people in this country on less than 100% accuracy, not to mention all the people we put in prison who COULD be innocent.

Put another way, if US soldiers enter a village in Afghanistan, and 19 people from the village independently point their finger at one or two people as being Al Qaeda, assuming the accusers are credible and don't have an obvious ax to grind I would have no problem with us acting on that intel.

So in short you actually don't care about proof, just about some sort of justification, accurate or not.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Again, I'm not a moron. I was asked to define who a terrorist is.

I would never dare to define you as such. And I'm aware of what you meant from your answer to Lorizael, after my post.

As to "potential suicide bombers", I believe I stated my views in another thread as to how to counteract the spread of militant Islam, and it WASN'T through mass torture.

However, if a squad of US soldiers kicks in a door and catches a group of people prepping a suicide attack, then I think torturing each and every one of those people is more than appropriate, if not necessary an effective deterrant.

I don't know all and every Apolyton thread. What concerns the group of people caught preparing a suicide attack, I respect and understand your opinion, although I don't completely share it.

[David Floyd]

BeBro,

So in short you actually don't care about proof, just about some sort of justification, accurate or not.

That's silly. That's like saying we can't put anyone in prison unless we know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that they are guilty.

But that's not how it works. The standard is reasonable doubt, not shadow of a doubt.

Sir Ralph,

I don't know all and every Apolyton thread.

Fair enough. My position was and is that we can help stop the future spread of terrorism (actually, the thread was about militant Islam, but the two are pretty much the same thing) through freedom, especially including capitalism, and encouraging science and education, and by pro-actively confronting regimes that are known to sponsor terror. We make it impossible for nations to openly support terrorism, and we address individual acts of terror by recognizing that educated, prosperous people don't commit suicide attacks, regardless of their political or religious views.

[Vesayen]

The people we are fighting in Iraq are mostly pissed off Iraqis or foreign fundamentalists, a small minority of quasi secular folks, sent by foreign states. Not all we are currently fighting are "terrorists".

Barbarism does not make someone a terrorist.

Even if they cut the heads off of our soldiers, I would not label most of them as terrorists.

Terrorists have to target a civilian extensivley. This is why say, hesbolahs suicide brigade in Israel are terrorists, they extensivley target civilians.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by David Floyd
That's silly. That's like saying we can't put anyone in prison unless we know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that they are guilty.

Prison sentences are declared after a trial IIRC, not by fingerpointing of some guys.

[Patroklos]

a rape kit is useful, to identify the perpetrator, but not necessary to prove rape; any gynaecologist worth his salt can tell, by looking at the allegedly violated orifices, that unconsentual relations have taken place.

Terrorists/insurgents, it matters not in terms of their classification as illegal combatants under the laws of war. To the gallows with them!

Even if they cut the heads off of our soldiers, I would not label most of them as terrorists. Terrorists have to target a civilian extensivley.

So you believe most insurgents are terrorists.

[David Floyd]

Barbarism does not make someone a terrorist.

No, acting like a terrorist makes someone a terrorist.

Also, why does someone have to attack civilians to be a terrorist? Is your point that the attack on the USS Cole was not a terrorist attack? What about the Pentagon on 9/11? Those were both military targets, after all.

[David Floyd]

Prison sentences are declared after a trial IIRC, not by fingerpointing of some guys.

Yes, and in the trial, the fingerpointing, as you put it, is done by the jury. Either way, though, that doesn't address the main point that whether we are talking about a civilian trial, or acting based upon military intel, we are acting without 100% certainty. You are trying to apply a standard to what the military does that isn't even applied to the American judicial system, and that's hardly fair.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Yes, and in the trial, the fingerpointing, as you put it, is done by the jury. Either way, though, that doesn't address the main point that whether we are talking about a civilian trial, or acting based upon military intel, we are acting without 100% certainty. You are trying to apply a standard to what the military does that isn't even applied to the American judicial system, and that's hardly fair.

And in the village you mention, the guy who is accused has what rights that make the situation comparable to a trial by jury that works according to standards of "the American judicial system"?

[Imran Siddiqui]

why does someone have to attack civilians to be a terrorist

Most people like to put a line between attacking unarmed civilians and fighting against an occupying power. I agree with said line. I consider civilian attacks to be terrorism and attacks against military forces to not be (its an insurgency or revolutionary force, etc).

I don't think an attack on the USS Cole was terrorism. And I'm on the fence about the Pentagon (plenty of civilians work there, and I'm sure the attempt was to kill civilians and military personnel).

[Harovan]

Originally posted by David Floyd
We make it impossible for nations to openly support terrorism, and we address individual acts of terror by recognizing that educated, prosperous people don't commit suicide attacks, regardless of their political or religious views.

Well, in this case we have still to work a lot on education and prosperity. Judging by today's values, the 9/11 attackers, most of the London bombers and the group caught in Germany this year (before striking) were educated, prosperous people, who had lived in the West for a long time and in most cases even got their education here. Unfortunately, their radical religious views got in the way.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by David Floyd


No, acting like a terrorist makes someone a terrorist.

Also, why does someone have to attack civilians to be a terrorist? Is your point that the attack on the USS Cole was not a terrorist attack? What about the Pentagon on 9/11? Those were both military targets, after all.

I question if it is possible to be a terrorist when attacking a clearly military target. I'm not sure, but I am saying it might not be possible.

The Cole in my mind, there is NO question about it: Not terrosim. Still really bad of course, I'm not glad to see our brave men and women in the armed forces blown up.

The Pentagon is the headquarters of much of our armed forces, but on the other hand it had a LOT of civilians on it... that is a tough call.

[David Floyd]

Well, the American judicial system exists because of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, which do not apply to foreign nationals in foreign nations. Secondly, the conduct of the US military is still governed by the UCMJ, which will probably provide the accused with more protection than he would normally have had in his ****hole nation (in this case, Taliban-run Afghanistan) before the US military arrived.

So no, the guy doesn't have the right to trial by jury of his peers, or the right to appeal to a higher court, but then again, the US military can't just kill him for ****s and grins, either.

[DirtyMartini]

Originally posted by David Floyd

However, if a squad of US soldiers kicks in a door and catches a group of people prepping a suicide attack, then I think torturing each and every one of those people is more than appropriate, if not necessary an effective deterrant.

That's quite possibly the most insane thing I've ever heard.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Vesayen


I question if it is possible to be a terrorist when attacking a clearly military target. I'm not sure, but I am saying it might not be possible.

Non-state (so more or less private) actors attacking stuff of another nation in peace time - what is it? It's certainly no classic state-state war. It's also not a civil war. Guerilla war doesn't IMO really fit as well if the states both sides belong to are at peace and the attackers aren't part of an occupied area (USS Cole case).