Originally Posted By Dabob2 You're assuming an awful lot of things not in evidence, as they say. Minimum habeas rights as mandated in our own laws mean nothing but... well, minimum habeas rights. We convicted the Nazis (known killers, worse than these guys - literally millions dead) and we did it the right way, when few would have shed a tear if we'd hung most of them and thrown the rest in a dungeon to rot. But we insisted on doing it the right way, and won respect for it. We were looked up to as a higher example, rather than seen as just typical vengeance takers. Now we're doing it the wrong way and look terrible in the eyes of the world, including those who might be sitting on the fence but could be radicalized against us. Which way is better?
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Let them go through trials that every liberal lawyer and member of the ACLU is going to talk about how unfair we were to these people.*** You really think this, don't you. You are incorrect in your assumptions. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is going to speak out in favor of any terrorist (unless they want a quick end to their career). You're very naive, you know that?
Originally Posted By DAR And I guess the rest of you are correct because you can assume that the guilty will be punished.
Originally Posted By Mr X There's not much doubt of that. You're using false arguments to try and support your torture advocation. Much like the White House does.
Originally Posted By DAR Well I guess we'll have to see happens, but I just have a sick feeling that we're going to let people that should be imprisoned out.
Originally Posted By Mr X If we present compelling evidence, I don't see any reason why that would happen. They will receive an adequate defense (one would hope), but it's not going to be like the O.J. trial or anything, which I think is your fear. We're talking about strict military tribunals here. How many guilty Nazi war criminals walked away?
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost >>>but it's not going to be like the O.J. trial or anything, which I think is your fear.<<< While I admire your faith in our judicial system, I can't help but wonder why? Why do you think it wouldn't be exactly like O.J.? Already the thought is that we can't be "mean" to these people even though we are pretty sure that they would kill us in a heartbeat if they could. And here we are bubbling over with confidence that the same "I'm sure he's learned his lesson and knows now that what he did is wrong" attitude will not result in a man set free that will not be any different no matter how nice we are. Remember, these guys are willing to kill you and your children with whatever means are available and they have never met any of you. That desire is not going to get worse because it can't get worse. Dead is dead.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***While I admire your faith in our judicial system, I can't help but wonder why? Why do you think it wouldn't be exactly like O.J.?*** Mostly, because O.J. had a large number of supporters. Plus, I have mentioned that I feel a military tribunal (preferably an international one created specifically to try terrorists, like Nuremberg) would be preferable anyway. Trust me, I don't have some sort of naive faith in our justice system. I just think Dar is mistaken in his fear that Barry Scheck will come along and dazzle some jury for these guys.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Already the thought is that we can't be "mean" to these people*** No, the thought is we should respect international norms and conventions regarding torture. ***Remember, these guys are willing to kill you and your children with whatever means are available and they have never met any of you.*** Noone needs reminding of that fact, though you and Dar seem to think anyone who is against torture must not be seeing these evil terrorists in a harsh enough light. That's not the point. Everyone knows they are deadly fanatics. Everyone thinks they deserve justice. Heck, I'll even go so far as to say the death penalty would be fine and dandy. But have the international tribunals first, call them out on their heinous crimes, and don't violate international standards of prisoner treatment (which we SIGNED, by the way) in the process. It's not about them, it's about us.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost It's not so much that I don't think that torture is a bad thing, it's just that I cannot seem to differentiate between torture and battle ground killing and wounding. What I think is that every possible scenario in war is bad. There is nothing good or humane about any of it. Yet, we seem to be able to separate one area of endeavor from the other. If we send troupes to places and in the process many soldiers get killed or maimed, we say, that's awful but we are at war. I don't see the difference here, I don't see why, in war, and make no mistake about it, this is war, you cannot employ any means available to quickly end it. Again, there is nothing humane about any war, any time, any place and for whatever cause. Never has been, never will be. So, in summary, because I have already spent way too much of my life, discussing this stuff, I also think torture is awful, I think war is awful, I think drive by shootings are awful, I think almost every Jessica Simpson song is awful, but many of the aforementioned things are a required part of maintaining freedoms and stopping oppression. If anyone knows of a actually workable system other than that, I'm willing to listen. If we could find a way to stop all armed conflict and all people bent on destroying anything that doesn't agree with them, I will be first in line to sign up. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening in the near future so we must play the game and play it properly if we wish to be successful. That line that Jack Nicholson uttered "You can't handle the truth!", is as true a statement as was ever said in a movie.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***I cannot seem to differentiate between torture and battle ground killing and wounding*** One is acceptable according to the international community at large. The other is not.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Yet, we seem to be able to separate one area of endeavor from the other.*** I totally agree with you, it is ALL barbaric and horrible. BUT, at least there are SOME standards of conduct in place, which is a good thing don't you think? If we went for a policy of all out freeforall, where would that leave things? Target those red crosses on top of the field hospitals...ripe for the picking, no? Let's off all the kids and the women too on purpose, that'll shock the population but good and force a quick surrender, right? Why not just nuke every country that dares engage us (or, dares to piss us off enough to be engaged by us)? I agree that war sucks. Is there any good reason for us to make it even worse?
Originally Posted By Mr X ***I don't see why, in war, and make no mistake about it, this is war*** Actually, I think that's a load of crap. Especially the "make no mistake about it" part. This is no "war". This is something entirely different. In fact, it's SEVERAL different issues, none of which constitute a war. If this is a "war", where exactly is the country we're at war with? What, exactly, can we do to accomplish defeating said enemy? When can we expect a surrender? And from whom? It's not "we're at war", it's simple rhetoric. Like the "war on drugs", or the "war on poverty", or any of those other silly notions. Global terrorism is a threat that must be dealt with, yes. But a war? Yeah...and we can expect to see Al Quaeda show up to surrender any day now... <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Surrender_of_Japan_-_USS_Missouri.jpg" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...ouri.jpg</a> You've been listening to Bush too much, I think.
Originally Posted By Mr X By the way, "war without end, with unattainable goals and undefinable enemies" is something George Orwell cooked up a long time ago. Read 1984, and get back to me, will you?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>And here we are bubbling over with confidence that the same "I'm sure he's learned his lesson and knows now that what he did is wrong" attitude will not result in a man set free that will not be any different no matter how nice we are.<< Again, no one is asking for anyone who is actually guilty of terrorism to be set free. This isn't about reforming anyone. Locking them up and throwing away the key doesn't bother me IF we establish guilt, through a tribunal, trial, what-have-you. But if we somehow scooped up people that shouldn't be locked up, we need to know that. And if you want to apply the death penalty to those who are guilty of terrorism, fine by me. I just object to secretive, no-oversight torture of prisoners. By holding ourselves to a higher standard than third world hellholes we maintain moral superiority in the area of human rights.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***That line that Jack Nicholson uttered "You can't handle the truth!", is as true a statement as was ever said in a movie.*** And yet he subsequently got thrown in jail.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost >>>And yet he subsequently got thrown in jail.<<< Because he was right...we couldn't handle the truth.
Originally Posted By Mr X Or else he was dead wrong, and criminally irresponsible/negligent/culpable. I guess it all depends on your perspective, but the law was clear. Laws are good things, sometimes.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan It's been awhile since I saw the movie, but if memory serves, the "truth" was that he felt that he shouldn't be questioned and second-guessed about how he went about "providing our blanket of freedom." That no one should question how he gets things done, that essentially, his role in protecting freedom was so important, that he was above the law. That was kind of the point of the whole movie, that we either live up to high standards and hold people accountable or we look the other way.
