Would you be allright with American soldiers be waterboarded?

[Patroklos]

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.

They are non state, unidentified actors. The difference in how they versus unquestionable terrorists would be treated is nothing.

[David Floyd]

Imran,

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).

Both attacks certainly fit the MO of terrorism. Also, both attacks were conducted by individuals, in the absence of a declared war. And neither of the attacks can be considered a struggle for liberation or independence, because the US was not occupying or otherwise attacking the country of origin for ANY of the bombers. All of that seems to = terrorism.

Sir Ralph,

But how many of those attackers had received an extremist Muslim "education"? Yes, their religious views got in the way, and that's my whole point. The more prosperous and educated people become, the less irrational religious views exist and/or cause them to do stupid ****, like blow up buildings. When I say that we need to address terrorism through spreading education and prosperity, what I'm really saying is that we need to attack the existence of fundamentalist religion.

[David Floyd]

DirtyMartini,

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

Yeah, the torture is really just for retribution. We could also just shoot them and forgo the torture. In retrospect, I'm OK with either solution, as long as the terrorists don't get to live.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by David Floyd
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.

But we usually have the principle "innocent until proven guilty" here, which is done by such a trial, with all the rights of the accused. When you say exactly such a trial is not what they can get (well, your example didn't even include a bad trial), then you can hardly speak of "proof" here without re-defining the term.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by BeBro
But we usually have the principle "innocent until proven guilty" here, which is done by such a trial, with all the rights of the accused. When you say exactly such a trial is not what they can get (well, your example didn't even include a bad trial), then you can hardly speak of "proof" here without re-defining the term.

Presumption of innocence applies in the courtroom, almost exclusively. When police question a suspect it is not done under that presumption. When a situation arises in which the police use justifiable deadly force there is no presumption of innocence.

Questioning a suspected terrorist is not done under conditions that mandate presumption of innocence.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

why does someone have to attack civilians to be a terrorist

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).

Who was on the planes? Military personel?

[Zkribbler]

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.

The protections in these documents are not limited by citizenship. The Founding Father were more interested in limiting the powers of government than in protecting the rights of murderers, be they Americans or foreigners.

[David Floyd]

The protections in these documents are not limited by citizenship. The Founding Father were more interested in limiting the powers of government than in protecting the rights of murderers, be they Americans or foreigners.

Fair enough. But it does not apply to foreign nationals in foreign nations. To an extent, it applies to what the US government can do to foreign nationals in foreign nations, in the sense that only Congress can declare war, but IMO it doesn't apply to terrorist combatants captured on foreign territory.