Originally Posted By DAR <<DAR, you think everyone in Gitmo and Abu Gharib was arrested pointing a gun at a U. S. soldier? And that's all you need to know to lock them away forever? >> If they're fighting our soldiers then yes they need to be punished. <<Your a frickin' simpleton.>> Thanks I do my best.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 DAR, the German/Turkish guy whose story I posted on another thread was arrested and sent to Gitmo, and he'd done nothing. He wasn't fighting us, wasn't at any terrorist camp, nothing. He was turned over by a bounty hunter who wanted money and wasn't too scrupulous about who he fingered. And this guy isn't alone. You should read his story and THEN tell me you're all right with torturing people like this and keeping them years without charge.
Originally Posted By DAR Fine I'll compromise let someone like that have a trial and if he's innocent then of course let him go. But if found guilty we can do whatever we want to him.
Originally Posted By dshyates "But if found guilty we can do whatever we want to him." How about we just execute them.
Originally Posted By dshyates I was thinkin' Old Sparky from the Great Starte of FL. About every third guys head would burst into flames.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Fine I'll compromise let someone like that have a trial and if he's innocent then of course let him go.> That's all some of us (and the Supreme Court) are talking about. <But if found guilty we can do whatever we want to him.> I'm hoping we'd keep our soul and not sink to their level.
Originally Posted By DAR <<That's all some of us (and the Supreme Court) are talking about.>> But there's going those due to this process of appeals that are guilty that will find some loophole and go free. Do we really want that? <<I'm hoping we'd keep our soul and not sink to their level.>> Fighting dirty is the only way we win this thing.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<That's all some of us (and the Supreme Court) are talking about.>> <But there's going those due to this process of appeals that are guilty that will find some loophole and go free. Do we really want that?> You're assuming things not in evidence. You have no evidence anyone we've got the goods on will find some loophole and go free. Besides, you said you'd be fine with letting "someone like that have a trial and if he's innocent then of course let him go." So which is it? <<I'm hoping we'd keep our soul and not sink to their level.>> <Fighting dirty is the only way we win this thing.> That doesn't follow. We're not talking about "fighting" here, we're talking what we do with prisoners already in our custody. They're not going anywhere, they can't do any harm; we're talking about people we've got locked up tight. You're fine with torturing them as a purely punitive thing. To start with, that's contrary to international treaties we've signed. I'd like to think this country keeps its word.
Originally Posted By DAR <<You're assuming things not in evidence. You have no evidence anyone we've got the goods on will find some loophole and go free. Besides, you said you'd be fine with letting "someone like that have a trial and if he's innocent then of course let him go." So which is it?>> If they're innocent let them go. What I'm saying is that there will be guilty one's to go free. <<That doesn't follow. We're not talking about "fighting" here, we're talking what we do with prisoners already in our custody. They're not going anywhere, they can't do any harm; we're talking about people we've got locked up tight>> Plenty of schemes can be hatched in prison it happens all the time.
Originally Posted By dshyates "What I'm saying is that there will be guilty one's to go free" "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" Blackstone, English jurorist. 1760 That is the maxim that our judicial system is based on.
Originally Posted By dshyates DAR must prefer, "Better that 10 innocents be killed than one guilty go free."
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<You're assuming things not in evidence. You have no evidence anyone we've got the goods on will find some loophole and go free. Besides, you said you'd be fine with letting "someone like that have a trial and if he's innocent then of course let him go." So which is it?>> <If they're innocent let them go. What I'm saying is that there will be guilty one's to go free.> You don't know that. And how will we know that some of them are innocent if they don't get a trial? The German guy was only let go because the German chancellor appealed to Bush directly. Most of the others won't be that lucky. <<That doesn't follow. We're not talking about "fighting" here, we're talking what we do with prisoners already in our custody. They're not going anywhere, they can't do any harm; we're talking about people we've got locked up tight>> <Plenty of schemes can be hatched in prison it happens all the time.> Those convicted of terrorism could be kept from communicating with others as part of their sentence. I'm fine with that.
Originally Posted By X-san ***If they're fighting our soldiers then yes they need to be punished.*** How Naziesque. Really. Good thing we have international laws for the treatment of enemy soldiers so that Dar's rhetoric can't take hold and turn us into some new third Reich. Oh, I forgot. They're not "soldiers". Even though they were (according to Dar who actually has no clue) pointing guns at U.S. Troops. I'd have thought that's the definition of "enemy soldier", but I guess not. Just lock em away and throw out the key.
Originally Posted By DAR God help us if we ever get attacked again, not one of you will have the right to say we didn't do enough.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>God help us if we ever get attacked again, not one of you will have the right to say we didn't do enough.<< We could always do "more." We could nuke the entire Middle-East. We could stop all transportation of any kind into and out of the United States, putting our country on lockdown. More doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, DAR. Me? I'd rather we not sell our ports to Arab contractors. I'd rather we protect nuclear power plants. I'd rather inspect cargo coming into the U.S. I'd rather we not leak the name of a CIA agent who's primary responsibility was to prevent suitcase nukes from entering the U.S. These things would be far more important than torturing a guy into giving a fake confession (which is exactly what our military says is the likelihood of happening when we torture). But I guess some would rather point the finger at those who aren't responsible for poor security than those who are. In other words: We've got evidence of the Bush administration's many failures to keep us safe, culminating in their failure to get bin Laden and creating hundreds, perhaps thousands more terrorists by invading Iraq. We have exactly *zero* evidence that anything Democrats have done since 9/11 has made us less safe. Instead, we hear about hypotheticals more suited to Jack Bauer than reality. But Keifer Sutherland isn't really in a room somewhere torturing a Middle-Easterner for information on where a nuke is located in L.A.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I'd really like to hear some specifics. I've listened to what he's proposing, and have heard nothing to support your claims.> Then you haven't been paying attention. Here's a recent quote: "What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks -- for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated. And the fact that the administration has not tried to do that has created a situation where not only have we never actually put many of these folks on trial, but we have destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all around the world, and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, "Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims." So that, I think, is an example of something that was unnecessary. We could have done the exact same thing, but done it in a way that was consistent with our laws."
Originally Posted By ecdc >>God help us if we ever get attacked again, not one of you will have the right to say we didn't do enough.<< BTW, yes we will have the right. It goes with being in a country of free speech. It also goes with the fact that torturing people who may be innocent isn't the only way to prevent terrorist attacks. There could be any number of other failures.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I love how they imply that by restoring Habeas Corpus> Habeas Corpus hasn't been restored, since it was never suspended. What has happened is that it's been extended to foreigners on foreign land, which goes against precedent and had never been considered before.
