a crossover thread.

this is for the topic that appeared out of the "wrongly accused?" thread.

the statement made that the ends of torture justifies the means is absurd. what end? a confession? we practiced that for hundreds off years. made finding heretics and witches a whole lot easier. stretch them a little, use anal pears. and they would confess. none of this funny trial thing. things were much simpler back then, put them on the rack and out comes a confession. it was amazing how many heretics there were back in those days. thank god we found so many eh? or would it be that torture is absolutely useless. give me a vice and a mans testicles and in a few minutes i could have him claiming he was planning to build a huge magnet to cause the moon to be pulled into the earth. same thing if i depreived man of sleep for a week, put him in stress positions, played white noise through his cell constantly, insulted him day and night, had him urinate himself, hogtied him and use short stick tying. all methods authorized by the american government at the highest level.

islam is not an evil religion if it was so is catholicism for the ira. because terrorist choose to hide behind a certain religion, happen to be off that religion or fighting for that religion does not mean they represent that religion in anyway.

Very well said. Since terrorists hide behind religions, instantly everyone who is part of that "certain" religion are labelled as terrorist supporters. Sure there may be those that support them, but they support it through their own personal beliefs and not of the religion. During the 9/11 attack, the news showed that there were muslims who supported it. What they didn't show was that around the world, there were many muslims who prayed for the many souls lost during the attack. It showed that there were Muslims against the terrorist attacks as well. Thus proving that the religion of Islam does not support any sort of terrorism, and it is just a personal belief of the people.The news should've showed this on T.V. but they didn't. As said before, what the media shows us about the world are what influence our ideas.

I think the only legitamate use is to stop a massive immenant attack. Not for a conviction.

What I mean by massive imminatnt attack is a bomb or some other plot that if not stopped will kill several hundred people. You have less than a day to stop it. You'd have to be pretty darn sure that you have the right guy first.

Other than that -- you have time to live by Geneva.

So what is this topic about? The use of torture, or terrorism and Islam?

The IRA doesn't slaughter people simply because they're not Catholic. So, no, the "Catholics are evil too" argument wouldn't work. And nobody said that all Muslims are extremists, or that Islam was evil.

As for "torture", the kinds of interrogation techniques approved by the United States government are nowhere near "torture". What Saddam put people through, what Hitler put people through, that was torture. Real torture. Not discomfort, not humiliation, not inconvenience, not annoyance, but torture. White noise, sleep deprivation, insults, etc. aren't even comparable to torture.

And, seeing as the methods used by the United States and other Coalition Forces are not "torture", and seeing as they work, I have no problem with them. If they were actually beating people, flogging or caning or causing lasting marks, then it would be a different situation, and many more people, including myself, would disapprove of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gnostic Yevon

I think the only legitamate use is to stop a massive immenant attack. Not for a conviction.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

As for "torture", the kinds of interrogation techniques approved by the United States government are nowhere near "torture". What Saddam put people through, what Hitler put people through, that was torture. Real torture. Not discomfort, not humiliation, not inconvenience, not annoyance, but torture. White noise, sleep deprivation, insults, etc. aren't even comparable to torture.

And, seeing as the methods used by the United States and other Coalition Forces are not "torture", and seeing as they work, I have no problem with them. If they were actually beating people, flogging or caning or causing lasting marks, then it would be a different situation, and many more people, including myself, would disapprove of it.

---

How do you know that the Coalition forces do not torture people the way you see it? We only can speculate as far as what the media tells us. For all we know, the Coalition forces can be using even worse types of torture than Hitler or Saddam did. Unless you work for the government or you are part of the Coalition forces, you can't really tell what types of tortures they are doing there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T-MaN

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

As for "torture", the kinds of interrogation techniques approved by the United States government are nowhere near "torture". What Saddam put people through, what Hitler put people through, that was torture. Real torture. Not discomfort, not humiliation, not inconvenience, not annoyance, but torture. White noise, sleep deprivation, insults, etc. aren't even comparable to torture.

And, seeing as the methods used by the United States and other Coalition Forces are not "torture", and seeing as they work, I have no problem with them. If they were actually beating people, flogging or caning or causing lasting marks, then it would be a different situation, and many more people, including myself, would disapprove of it.

---

How do you know that the Coalition forces do not torture people the way you see it? We only can speculate as far as what the media tells us. For all we know, the Coalition forces can be using even worse types of torture than Hitler or Saddam did. Unless you work for the government or you are part of the Coalition forces, you can't really tell what types of tortures they are doing there.

---

People died at Abu Graib. There's a picture of a guy giving the thumbs up over a dead body, and another of the same guy attacking a group of handcuffed Iraqis.

there has never been at any point in history a time when torture has proved effective in the so called "ticking bomb" scenario. torture has never saved any lives at any time.

and sasquatch toture does not work, all former birtish prisoners in guantanamo bay signed confessions. admitted they had planned to attack the us and would continue to do so, confessed to being a meber of al-qaeda. might have had alot to do with what you don't class as torture. have you been deprived of sleep for a week? 168 hours of white noise? repeated messages and no rest? any idea what's that like. if you are so certain that this in no way causes any kind of pain or punishment on anyone then by all means do it. prove to us that a man can withstand that length of time with these methods of torture. if not then you'll prove me right. on failure to do so before you have those 40 winks i would like you to write a confession saying how you plan to nuke new york to the cia.

there was a documentary here that showed how "mild" torture is used in quantanamo bay, 50% of the contestants walked out and this was only using the disclosed and methods which were legal to put a person through willingly. a tip on the iceberg.

one of the british prisoners in fact has actually suffered serious physical harm in cuba. he had his head fractured by one the guards and now suffers from black outs and fits. i think he'll be getting paid as much as the vietnamese.

the idea that you have to break someone's skull, ribs, wrists or jaw before you can call it torture is the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard. sexual humilation including rape leaves only mental scars but under the usa's illegal self legislation. i could happily squeeze your testicles under my foot until you cried out in extreme pain and the scarring left would be minimal as long as i didn't burst them. i could deprive you of food for a few days at a time, no lasting damage there either, take away hygiene and sanitary requirements, hogtie you for a day, hold you in a short stick position. you wanna do that for 3 years of your life?

also if you are so keen on preventing torture there's korea, chine, sudan, zimbabwe, cuba, many south american and african countires, turkmenistan and it's sorruding countries all left for you to invade if you see fit. sudan was declared genocide a whole year ago but the happy US sits idly bye watching thousands die while it's methods in cuba are deemed obscene and illegal by the un, amensty, red cross, red crescent and other human rights groups. all well and good for mozzam begg and the like.

ps. the ira did randomly attack protestants in ireland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

there has never been at any point in history a time when torture has proved effective in the so called "ticking bomb" scenario. torture has never saved any lives at any time.

and sasquatch toture does not work, all former birtish prisoners in guantanamo bay signed confessions. admitted they had planned to attack the us and would continue to do so, confessed to being a meber of al-qaeda. might have had alot to do with what you don't class as torture. have you been deprived of sleep for a week? 168 hours of white noise? repeated messages and no rest? any idea what's that like. if you are so certain that this in no way causes any kind of pain or punishment on anyone then by all means do it. prove to us that a man can withstand that length of time with these methods of torture. if not then you'll prove me right. on failure to do so before you have those 40 winks i would like you to write a confession saying how you plan to nuke new york to the cia.

there was a documentary here that showed how "mild" torture is used in quantanamo bay, 50% of the contestants walked out and this was only using the disclosed and methods which were legal to put a person through willingly. a tip on the iceberg.

---

I think Torture on the ticking bomb cases works in Israel ...

as far as i've heard there has not been one documented case of it happening. but i could be wrong. got to go on what you hear really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

there has never been at any point in history a time when torture has proved effective in the so called "ticking bomb" scenario. torture has never saved any lives at any time.

---

Well i just dont think the government would tell us "Hey, alot of people almost died today, but we beat the crap out of this guy and he told us where the bomb was.". Im sure the world has been saved several times by means we know nothing about.

Which raises the question,"What other secrets are they hiding?

don't you think that the government would leap at the chance actually? a chance to prove that they were right all along? that 9-11 wasn't just a one off and that there really could be a terrorist on ever streer? the british government did the same with the ira, when they tried to bomb the prince and princess of wales, publicised it like mad. the source i used was from an ex-cia agent, though i wouldn't expect him to know off all other incidents in other countries he did say that he had never heard of it elsewhere.

got to remember that with this "group" of extremists there will be no ticking bomb, these are suicide bombers they don't leave the bomb in a van, post box or bin to wait until rush hour. they walk in at rush hour themselves. no deadlines or warnings man walks out his house, down the street and boom. if they were going to detonate a nuke on manhattan they wouldn't leave it by the side of the road for some to come and defuse it would be in the back of a van. you can't stop a bomb after that stage. therefore with suicide tactics the ticking bomb scenario is void.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T-MaN

Which raises the question,"What other secrets are they hiding?

---

(SPOILER)UFOs. Maybe a time-traveling hippie or two. Microwave energy that melts your brain. Prophecies of the end of the world hidden in movies and video games. And green slimey aliens bent on world domination

edit: I really shouldn't have told you all that :eek:


Back on topic, the government wouldn't tell you that they're torturing people because the citizens would protest, and the baddies would learn what is going to be used on them. Plus if they didn't know the jig was up, they might walk right into a trap, resulting in more arrests.

why announce they were tortured? certainly wasn't talked about round here with ira arrests and convictions which is why a few have been released as innocent men, one without any teeth. you would just announce it as intelligence like we did here and everybody believed it was due to moles.

and the other terrorists would know "the jig was up" when there wasn't a big crater where manhattan should be.

Well, they'd find out when the cops were at their "top secret meeting place" with guns drawn. Or when the bomb doesn't go off.

And I think you misunderstand what I mean by "ticking bomb". What I mean is that the plan is know to be going on or that it will be completed within a day or so. I don't mean that there is a literal ticking bomb in a van somewhere. It might even be that the suicide bomber is someone else. The point is that the time is limited and the potential casualties are large.

"Unless you work for the government or you are part of the Coalition forces, you can't really tell what types of tortures they are doing there."

(Hint: "Essayons" is the motto of the U.S. Army Engineers. I am a part of the Coalition Forces.)

"have you been deprived of sleep for a week? 168 hours of white noise? repeated messages and no rest? any idea what's that like."

I've been though things close to that. Less than two hours of sleep for eight days straight, the same annoying sounds blaring constantly for days and weeks on end. Unless I could refer to constant rockets, mortars, and carbombs, which I dealt with for more than a year...those would tend to put a little stress on a person, wouldn't you say? So yeah, I've got a pretty good idea what that's like.

"got to remember that with this "group" of extremists there will be no ticking bomb, these are suicide bombers they don't leave the bomb in a van, post box or bin to wait until rush hour. they walk in at rush hour themselves. no deadlines or warnings man walks out his house, down the street and boom. if they were going to detonate a nuke on manhattan they wouldn't leave it by the side of the road for some to come and defuse it would be in the back of a van. you can't stop a bomb after that stage. therefore with suicide tactics the ticking bomb scenario is void."

They'd put a nuke in the back of a van, and there's no stopping it after that? Really? Boy, you think the government would train people to disarm bombs...

And not all of them are suicide bombers. Many times (MANY), they do just what you said--leave a bomb by the side of the road, and hopefully it hits somebody they don't like. May be Coalition Forces, may be civilians, who knows--depending on the type of reciever, they might can detonate it when they want to and try to hit military, but some are simply timed and placed. Trust me on that.

"The point is that the time is limited and the potential casualties are large."

Well said. In which case, we need to be informed of the situation immediately, and there's no time for being "nice". What is more important, the possibility of hundreds, thousands, possibly more innocent lives being lost, or the comfort of a suspected terrorist?

Essayons is the motto of the U.S. Army Engineers? Really? Damn, I never knew that.(BTW I am NOT trying to be sarcastic or anything)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T-MaN

Essayons is the motto of the U.S. Army Engineers? Really? Damn, I never knew that.(BTW I am NOT trying to be sarcastic or anything)

---

Understood. I don't know if it's for the entire Corps of Engineers, but I know it is for Combat Engineers.

"They'd put a nuke in the back of a van, and there's no stopping it after that? Really? Boy, you think the government would train people to disarm bombs..."

well yeah because the guy sat in the van would happily have his finger over the button. kinda late to disarm once he gets sorrunded and decides to press that down. he ain't gonna let some bomb expert come into his van and happily disarm the thing.

"And not all of them are suicide bombers. Many times (MANY), they do just what you said--leave a bomb by the side of the road, and hopefully it hits somebody they don't like"

not being there when the bomb detonates is a very awkward suicide bombing wouldn't you say? you kinda need to be there to commit suicide and all. other wise it's just a bombing. a bt like trying to shooting yourself while pointing the gun up.

do people honestly believe that the mission in iraq and afghantistan so totally failed? wasn't the point to smash al-qaeda? kinda pointless if your still so scared you'd see inoccent people tortured and killed.

sasquatch would mind being a suspected terrorist? like mozzam begg? have your door kicked in? dragged off to cuba? tortured for 3 years? or don't you care? guess it would never happen to you would it? you're not some damn "towelhead" or "paki" are you? no chance of it ever happening to you. so why care? ask yourself would you be happy to be where mozzam begg was a few months ago and is that what you call the great american dream?

not like empathy for man tortured nearly half to death ever crossed the mind of the american people in their great conquest. shouldn't we trying to rise above this? proving we are better than these people? or is lowering ourself down to their level what america is best at? why not when we have convicted them lets have a public crucifiction? or stone them? that would be jolly fun. if you want to free the world free it don't imprison it's people and torture them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

well yeah because the guy sat in the van would happily have his finger over the button. kinda late to disarm once he gets sorrunded and decides to press that down. he ain't gonna let some bomb expert come into his van and happily disarm the thing.

---

That's why we would shoot the guy, then disarm the bomb. This isn't that difficult to figure out.

Quote:

---

"And not all of them are suicide bombers. Many times (MANY), they do just what you said--leave a bomb by the side of the road, and hopefully it hits somebody they don't like"

not being there when the bomb detonates is a very awkward suicide bombing wouldn't you say? you kinda need to be there to commit suicide and all. other wise it's just a bombing. a bt like trying to shooting yourself while pointing the gun up.

---

I just pointed out that they're not all suicide bombers, and you come back with some sarcastic remark about suicide bombers. It's alright though, I'm sure everybody else understood what I said.

Quote:

---

sasquatch would mind being a suspected terrorist? like mozzam begg? have your door kicked in? dragged off to cuba? tortured for 3 years? or don't you care? guess it would never happen to you would it? you're not some damn "towelhead" or "paki" are you? no chance of it ever happening to you. so why care? ask yourself would you be happy to be where mozzam begg was a few months ago and is that what you call the great american dream?

---

Was Mozzam Begg an American? Why would I give a damn about the "American Dream" for somebody that's not American? They're not entitled to the same rights under law that Americans are entitled to. And no, I wouldn't see any reason that I would be suspected to have anything to do with terrorism.

Comparing the use of "cruel" interrogation methods and the slaughter of thousands of innocent civilians every year is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

Torture is everywhere. It is used on both men and women, as well as on young teens. Sometimes it is used on completely innocent people and sometimes it isn't. Just recently I've heard that in New York, a muslim girl was taken by the cops in charges of "future terrorist" just because she wrote an essay on Jihad. Now no one knows what is being done to her.
Going back to what I was saying before. Torture is used everywhere. I just used an example from New York because I just RECENTLY heard it ( like 3 minutes before typing all this up ). People are charged depending on what they do, and where they do it. No one knows whether anyone captured is innocent or is truly a "terrorist". Most authorities just arrest people because of what they do, or how they look like.
Eventually, by hideous torturings, the captured person will say that he/she is in relation with terrorism just to escape the beatings or whatever else they do as tortures around the world nowadays. Thus forever labelling the innocent captive as a terrorist. This could be the case in most places.

mozzam begg was a british man living in pakistan, my comment on the great american dream was that is the great american dream to take foreigners from their homes, ship them half way acroos the globe for 3 years and torture them? what all of a sudden all foreigners don't have rights as well? everyone, EVERYONE is entitled to basic human rights no matter what race, nationality or creed the are even if they are mass murders, rapist, war criminals or the most hated man in the world, hitler, mugawbe, pol pot and stalin should all be treated with the same human rights that we all are. that's what's was agreed to by the united states.

now for the US to turn round for it to say "we changed our laws so know we can mentally abuse and both physically and mentally torture this for 3 years" or "he's foreign so why should i give a damn" or "we think he's a bad man so we should be able to break his skull"

and sasquatch to shoot the man would be illegal under american law. you need to give prior warning before a police officer discharged his fire arm. and if you don't give prior warning you don't know if they are a danger, and if you don't know if they are a danger you might just be shooting someone sat in their van wating for a friend. try explaing that one to his wife "yeah we thought he was a terrorist so he blew his brains out, sorry about that one, maybe next time we'll find a real terrorist"

sasquatch you never actually answered my question, there are after all american prisoners in quantanamo bay. would you mind having your door kicked in and dragged off to cuba for 3 years without any contact with the outside world and be tortured? is that the future of americans you are fighting for? because that can happy regardless of innocence, it's happened before it can happen again? is that the kind of thing you would like to happen to you? if not then why should it happen to other innocent men?

Everybody is entitled to human rights. But not everybody is entitled to the rights of American citizens, or the even the rights of enemy Prisoners of War.

You make a big deal out of this "torture", when for one thing, you don't have a clue what's going on in American prison camps--and even if you think you do, it's nothing near "torture"--and for another, it's not a method of entertainment, it's a method of extracting information that can and does save innocent lives, both military and civilian. (Don't bother bringing up Abu Gharab, that was mainly for entertainment, that was illegal, and that is being dealt with.)

Shooting a man with his finger on the trigger of a bomb that would kill millions is illegal? Where the hell did you get that? If he must be shot, he must be shot. Now, they might try to shoot the detonator out of his hand, or they might try to wound him so that they can drag him away and take control of the situation, but neither would be illegal. We're not talking about some dad sitting in a minivan waiting for his kids, we're talking about a terrorist with a nuke, are we not? Where are you getting this stuff from? Oh wait, nevermind, I think I know.

How many American civizens are in Gitmo? And what ties did they have that got them sent there?

Quote:

---

Torture is everywhere. It is used on both men and women, as well as on young teens. Sometimes it is used on completely innocent people and sometimes it isn't. Just recently I've heard that in New York, a muslim girl was taken by the cops in charges of "future terrorist" just because she wrote an essay on Jihad. Now no one knows what is being done to her.

---

Umm that isn't exactly innocent. If she was saying that Jihad is good or something like that, I can understand why NY cops would be concerned when a new yorker starts writing about jihad. I'd probably report her to the cops if she was saying that Jihad was good and that Osama was her hero. Secondly, who says she's been sent anywhere? The cops arrested her, not Homeland Security.

Anyway I can see the need for detaining someone on suspicion of terrorism for a good long time. 3 years seems a bit long if there isn't evidence, but you need some time to investigate -- and while the investigation is happening the terrorists are planning the attacks. the best way is to get them off the streets and then investigate. Like I said no torture unless you know that he was involved in a "ticking bomb" type plot, but detention is probably neccesary.

Jihad is not supporting people like Osama or anything. True, there may be suspicion on her, but what kind of idiot would write something like that in America, especially in New York City? Maybe the girl was trying to prove something else. Maybe she was trying to show that not all Muslims support people like Osama (and any other terrorist's) tyrannical ambitions.
IF she had done something like this, wouldn't you say that it is unfair for her to be held captive like that? What if she is currently being tortured? I can understand that the people of NY city will be worried and all, but seriously, what kind of idiot would write something about Jihad there unless she had something good to prove?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T-MaN

Jihad is not supporting people like Osama or anything. True, there may be suspicion on her, but what kind of idiot would write something like that in America, especially in New York City? Maybe the girl was trying to prove something else. Maybe she was trying to show that not all Muslims support people like Osama (and any other terrorist's) tyrannical ambitions.
IF she had done something like this, wouldn't you say that it is unfair for her to be held captive like that? What if she is currently being tortured? I can understand that the people of NY city will be worried and all, but seriously, what kind of idiot would write something about Jihad there unless she had something good to prove?

---

I don't think anyone would have been even questioning her had her essay been titled "Jihad teh sux" or "Jihad on Osama and Terrorism". But as you say, anyone in the USA with a brain knows better than to talk about Jihad, especially in NYC. That doesn't mean it was to prove something. Since the war on terrorism is largely waged on Jihadists, saying things about Jihad is a great way to get yourself in a lot of trouble fast. That's reality. Since we don't have her actual essay, we'll never know what she actually said.

But the thing is that it's remarkably easy to smuggle all kinds of things into the country and getting the components to make a bomb is also easy. Enough plutonium for a nuclear explosion is the size of a grapefruit. That being the case, letting a terror suspect remain on the streets until the grand jury hears all the evidence makes it easier to commit terrorism. So if there's enough to suspect them, they should not be on the streets. You can't appologize later if a 2nd 9/11 happens. It's not like Bush or Gonzales can visit the next ground zero and say "oops we really should have caught the guy when his English teacher called us about his Jihad Essay." Now as far as torture -- no she shouldn't be tortured unless the cops have evidence that there is a plot going down that she knows how to stop.

what has been documented as being going on in cuba, what is in the us "torture manuals" is torture. that's plain fact, it's defined very simply in geneva, un human rights, eu human rights, the red cross and red crescent statements. what has been documented and been snactioned by the us government is torture that's not even up for debate. just because the us government changes it's own laws does not change that fact.

shooting a man in a van which you suspect has a bomb without prior warning is illegal yes. you can't prove he has a bomb unless you see it, otherwise he's a man in van whihc you suspect has a bomb. it may or may not have a bomb in it. you could have all the intellgence in the world but until you see that bomb he is a man suspected of having a bomb. iraq qas suspected of cupporting al qaeda, of having wmd, tora bora was suspected have housing huge bunkers where al-qaeda lived, many people have been in cuba with intelligence. is that the information with which you would kill this man you suspect? you can't go round shooting suspects can you? because we aren't talking about a man in a van with a bomb, we are talking about a suspected man. killing him without warning is therefore illegal.

are we really saying here that "you're not american so you don't have the same rights because of where you live" isn't that a tad ridicolus? what happened to all men are born equal?

and as of this girl. are we to arrest everyone with a certain view? round up all the communists while we are at it? am i to be arrested for my views as well? it becomes a very very tricky area when you arrest someone for their views doesn't it? don't be so stupid as be doomed to repeat history here. i'm not even going to put in the reference to nazi germany because frankly it's so obvious here it's not necessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

shooting a man in a van which you suspect has a bomb without prior warning is illegal yes. you can't prove he has a bomb unless you see it, otherwise he's a man in van whihc you suspect has a bomb. it may or may not have a bomb in it. you could have all the intellgence in the world but until you see that bomb he is a man suspected of having a bomb. iraq qas suspected of cupporting al qaeda, of having wmd, tora bora was suspected have housing huge bunkers where al-qaeda lived, many people have been in cuba with intelligence. is that the information with which you would kill this man you suspect? you can't go round shooting suspects can you? because we aren't talking about a man in a van with a bomb, we are talking about a suspected man. killing him without warning is therefore illegal.

---

If I thought the guy was going to blow up an entire city block unless I shot him, then I'd shoot him. Like I said, you can't take back a terrorist attack after it's happened. You can appologize to the guy's family and even give them money afterward for damages etc. This isn't like shooting a guy in the back of the head because he might have robbed somebody. That is wrong. But the question isn't "justice". It's a question of safety. The question is essentially whether if the worst case was true, which worst case would you be able to live with?

Case 1: The guy in the van is a terrorist with a bomb.
a.) You shoot the guy. He can't set off the bomb and therefore no innocent people are killed.
b.) You don't shoot him. He sets off the bomb and lots of innocent people die.

Case 2: The guy is not a terrorist
a.) You shoot the guy. He dies, but no one else does. you appologize to his family.
b.) You don't shoot him. nothing happens.

Obviously in a perfect world, you'd know whether there was a bomb in the truck, and then we would know which choice to make. The world isn't perfect. The cops on the scene are going to have to make a choice here. In my mind, it's far worse to have the bomb go off than not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

are we really saying here that "you're not american so you don't have the same rights because of where you live" isn't that a tad ridicolus? what happened to all men are born equal?

and as of this girl. are we to arrest everyone with a certain view? round up all the communists while we are at it? am i to be arrested for my views as well? it becomes a very very tricky area when you arrest someone for their views doesn't it? don't be so stupid as be doomed to repeat history here. i'm not even going to put in the reference to nazi germany because frankly it's so obvious here it's not necessary.

---

There is a difference between Jihad and Communism. Communism isn't by itself violent. Jihad is more like a person advocating the violent overthrow of a government or system. There is an implied threat in supporting a jihad that just doesn't exist in Communism or any other political theory. So writing a paper advocating Jihad is similar to writing a paper supporting the violent overthrow of the US government (which is illegal and will get you a night in jail talking to the FBI). You will only be arrested if you are advocating the violent overthrow of a government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gnostic Yevon

So writing a paper advocating Jihad is similar to writing a paper supporting the violent overthrow of the US government (which is illegal and will get you a night in jail talking to the FBI). You will only be arrested if you are advocating the violent overthrow of a government.

---

How is writing an essay on Jihad similar to overthrowing the US government? It could mean other things as well you know. The first impression that people get when they see a muslim person writing a paper on Jihad is that that person is a terrorist, or that they are related to a terrorist. What if people saw a non-muslim person writing a paper on Jihad? Would they arrest that person too? I don't think that they would. Lately, most things have been focused on muslims. I could be wrong seeing how I am not part of any government, but I can get a grasp of what's going on in the world by watching the news. So far of what I've seen, any suspicious acts by muslims are immediately taken as "terrorist" aggressions. What if "OTHER" extremist groups are doing the terrorist bombings and the muslims are getting blamed for it? It seems pretty logical. Other non-muslim terrorists are taking their chances to blow stuff up and not worrying because muslims will eventually get blamed. Proper evidence is needed to figure out who is actually behind most of the bombings. Some of the extremist groups admit that they have done the attacks, but some of them don't, and the blame gets pinned on the muslims. This kind of thing is happening everywhere around the world. Most governments are now blaming muslims as the prime terrorist groups.

I could be totally wrong, but every time I watch the news or read it, there is always something about "muslims suspected of terrorist agressions ", or "More suicide bombs by muslim terrorists "

Lately, I haven't even heard anything about any other attacks made by other extremist groups around the world. All I hear is muslims did this, muslims did that... and so on. The whole world is standing on edge to see what kind of "diabolical plot the muslims will think of next" instead of what kind of "diabolical plot terrorists will think of next". The term "terrorist" is now mostly being directed at muslims.
Once again, I could be totally wrong seeing how I'm only speculating with what I see on T.V. or read on the newspapers. If anyone else can disprove what I've said, I'll glady take back everything I've said here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T-MaN

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gnostic Yevon

So writing a paper advocating Jihad is similar to writing a paper supporting the violent overthrow of the US government (which is illegal and will get you a night in jail talking to the FBI). You will only be arrested if you are advocating the violent overthrow of a government.

---

How is writing an essay on Jihad similar to overthrowing the US government? It could mean other things as well you know. The first impression that people get when they see a muslim person writing a paper on Jihad is that that person is a terrorist, or that they are related to a terrorist. What if people saw a non-muslim person writing a paper on Jihad? Would they arrest that person too? I don't think that they would. Lately, most things have been focused on muslims. I could be wrong seeing how I am not part of any government, but I can get a grasp of what's going on in the world by watching the news. So far of what I've seen, any suspicious acts by muslims are immediately taken as "terrorist" aggressions. What if "OTHER" extremist groups are doing the terrorist bombings and the muslims are getting blamed for it? It seems pretty logical. Other non-muslim terrorists are taking their chances to blow stuff up and not worrying because muslims will eventually get blamed. Proper evidence is needed to figure out who is actually behind most of the bombings. Some of the extremist groups admit that they have done the attacks, but some of them don't, and the blame gets pinned on the muslims. This kind of thing is happening everywhere around the world. Most governments are now blaming muslims as the prime terrorist groups.

I could be totally wrong, but every time I watch the news or read it, there is always something about "muslims suspected of terrorist agressions ", or "More suicide bombs by muslim terrorists "

---

First off, Jihad means holy war. It has a secondary meaning as in "a holy war against evil inside you", or something to that effect. But when they mean that, it's usually said as an "internal Jihad". So if you are talking about Jihad, unless you are talking about the "internal Jihad", you mean a war. As in a violent conflict. Communism is an economic theory. If a person is a communist, he believes in certain things, like collective ownership and so on. It's not a violent ideology, so I don't care if someone believes it. If a kid writes a paper in which he talks about Communism especially in a positive light, it would be pretty safe to assume that either he is a Communist or knows someone who is. I think writing about Jihad the same way. If a person chooses to write about Jihad especially in a positive light, I would assume that the person either believes that way himself or knows someone who does. It's a reasonable assumption that a person isn't going to write about something like that without some connection. And because the definition of Jihad is holy war, if a kid writes about Jihad, it should be checked.

As a second point, I'll be shocked if it turns out that the teacher never read the paper before he called the cops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T-MaN

Lately, I haven't even heard anything about any other attacks made by other extremist groups around the world. All I hear is muslims did this, muslims did that... and so on. The whole world is standing on edge to see what kind of "diabolical plot the muslims will think of next" instead of what kind of "diabolical plot terrorists will think of next". The term "terrorist" is now mostly being directed at muslims.
Once again, I could be totally wrong seeing how I'm only speculating with what I see on T.V. or read on the newspapers. If anyone else can disprove what I've said, I'll glady take back everything I've said here.

---

Well, that's because after the peace with Britain, the IRA hasn't been active. Other than 9-11 and the Spanish Train Bombing (depending on your view of the intifada, that could be international as well) most terrorism is domestic and internal conflicts of forgein nations aren't covered in the USA. So it's skewed a lot toward the al-qaida type terrorists. Venezuela has had a civil war for 30 years. no press at all. Rawanda was a genocide, but Ruwanda doesn't get much press in the USa. I think the reason that the ME gets so much press is pretty much Oil and Israel.

I know what Jihad means, I was just curious to see why you thought Jihad was tied with the overthrow of the US government. To me you made it sound as if the whole purpose of Jihad was to take over America or something.

not allowed to talk about overthrowing the us government.... bugger... been doing that myself, various discussions regarding attacks that would have no civillian casualties, economic and electronic attacks.

"You can appologize to the guy's family and even give them money afterward for damages etc." but american never does that anyway, look at the men released from cuba, 3 years under torture some with conditions and injuries that will last their entire life, and get nothing. vietnam, nothing, people living in the tora bora, nothing, people bombed during the iraq war, nothing. he will be shot and nothing will be done. and is one innocent man killed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time be what happens in a war? and give them compensation? this is what sickens me about that country. "we shot your daddy, go buy yourself some new shoes that will make up for it" why does money make up for shooting a man in cold blood? there is no excuse for shooting man without warning. this is the same as arrest without trial. there is absolute no possible law that can govern it. if you start that then what you can do is shoot a man then claim you thought he had a bomb. it's totally immoral, illegal, liable to corruption and unpoliceable.

and it's not just torture in cuba, american is guilty of, alot of inamtes are shiiped to syria, egypt, turkmenistan where they can use far worse forms of torture, including, boiling, branding, castration, beating, stretching and hanging.

is that really what peole are saying is correct? "it's okay we think he's a bad man lets ship him to get his balls smashed" at what point did morals get like this where you can turn your back on such attrocities and ignore it? call it part of a war? say it's not you who is commiting it even though you shipped him there to gain intelligence for you. am i missing something here? why is this allowed to persist?

my point about communism was actually refering to the way communists were rounded up in the 1960's and nazi germant and how that is comparable now to the way muslims are now treated in america.

look I'm talking about the real world example you gave me.

The guy is inside the van and you think there is a bomb inside that will kill a lot of inoocent people. You has a cop or the bombsquad or whatever have one chance to stop him. That's the situation, correct? Now I can't be 100% sure that the guy really has a bomb unless I open the door. unfortunately, if I try to do that with him still alive, and there is a bomb -- he presses the button and probably you will be seriously injured and besides which at least a dozen other people die. Annouce yourself and he'll probably push the button rather than be taken. You can let a person sit in the middle of a neighborhood with the potential to take out dozens of people (which your intelligence has a good reason to believe in this example). If the only way to prevent a tragedy from happening is to shoot the guy, then that's how it is. The alternatives are not good. I admit that. But the consequences of announcing yourself to the guy in the van is possibly the deaths of a dozen people including the guy himself. the consequence of a sniper taking him out is that AT WORST one person dies and there is no bomb.

Yes in a perfect world such choices would not be neccessary. But that's not real life. I can't just redo that situation until I come up with the perfect answer. I don't think I could live with myself if I could have prevented the bomb from going off but didn't because I didn't want to risk not following procedures.

what's wrong with a nice little evacuation? we aren't ever going to be talking a terrorist with a nuclear weapon, that idea is a totally idiiotic one which totally ignores the true semantics of nuclear weaponary.

if you thought you knew the oklahoma bombing was coming why not just empty the building? you might be wrong and you might have just wasted a few people's time but it's far better than blowing out a mans brain who might not be guilty, or leaving folk to die. killing on the presumption of guilt must be considered morally wrong.

Well If I was mr. suicide bomber in the back of that truck.. I would simply detonate the moment someone tried to evacuate.. .. nope not getting away from me.

If you mean evacuating before the truck even gets there... well If there I really wanted to just kill some people for terror.. if the place looked like it wasn't largely populated.. I would just drive to a more populated place.. and *BOOM*.

Evacuation can be nice.. but it can sometimes only change the target... making it harder to prevent.

And don't we have scanners now-a-days that could give us a REALLY good idea whether or not the bomb was in the truck(depending on time constraints such actions could or could not be applicatable).

If a van was outside with a guy holding a bomb, wouldn't it be just safer to stay inside? Unless you are talking about a suspected attack on a particular area in which evacuation does not sound like a bad idea.

Even though it is harsh, killing a known person holding a bomb may just be the only solution. Although it may be a solution, it should be kept as a last resort rather than a main priority.

Again, the reference wasn't made to a guy in a minivan waiting for his kids, we know the guy has a bomb. If you try to evacuate, he sees it, and sets it off. If you try to disarm it while he still has control over it, he sets it off. Depending on where it is, it would be extremely difficult to evacuate the area anyway--do you know how hard it would be to evacuate somewhere like New York City? Most of us have seen on TV the evacuations of parts of the Atlantic coastline when a major hurricane is expected, just relate that to more people and less area.

If he's got a bomb, most likely he has a message. Not many people would do something like that without the public knowing the source or the reason. He may just want to let people know why he's planned this, he may want to negotiate, whatever. Either way, if he is a threat to other people--whether it be one person or thirty million--the threat needs to be eliminated.

Cloud 9, in response to your question to me, I have a question for you. Would you approve of the use of "cruel" interrogation techniques to prevent something like 9/11? If you had one of the guys responsible and knew something was coming but didn't know what or when, would you rather hurt the guy a bit until he tells you, or be nice to him and end up with thousands of innocent civilian lives lost?

i don't believe in cruel techniques under any circumstance. you cannot invent a scenario where you defiently know a man knows something, that doesn't happen there is always the chance you are wrong, you intelligence might be flawed, the man who handed him over might be corrupt, mistakes might have been made. a few hundred thousand iraqi's will tell you there is no such thing as 100% proof and why you cannot rely on such things to take lives.

you would never need to evacuate new york city as a bomb of that size is not feasible. and if you are evacuating an area that size because you do not know where the bomb is then you don't know where the bomber is either.

such a scenario cannot exist in the real world. so you do not know the man has a bomb, you think he has a bomb. are you prepared to shoot a man on a think?

you need absolute proof before you can take a man's life or torture a man. otherwise you are led down a very dark alley.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

i don't believe in cruel techniques under any circumstance. you cannot invent a scenario where you defiently know a man knows something, that doesn't happen there is always the chance you are wrong, you intelligence might be flawed, the man who handed him over might be corrupt, mistakes might have been made. a few hundred thousand iraqi's will tell you there is no such thing as 100% proof and why you cannot rely on such things to take lives.

you would never need to evacuate new york city as a bomb of that size is not feasible. and if you are evacuating an area that size because you do not know where the bomb is then you don't know where the bomber is either.

such a scenario cannot exist in the real world. so you do not know the man has a bomb, you think he has a bomb. are you prepared to shoot a man on a think?

you need absolute proof before you can take a man's life or torture a man. otherwise you are led down a very dark alley.

---

Umm we can't even prove 100% that we landed on the moon. If you're going to wait for absolute proof, then for all intents and purposes you wouldn't take the guy's life even if your best intel says he has a nuke in the van. Because in the real world you'll never know for sure. Even our court system is not based on the absolute proof idea, because absolute proof is rarely possible. Instead it's beyond a reasonable doubt. meaning that if your 100% proof standard applied to all crimes, the prisons should be emtied. It just isn't realistic to wait for 100% absolute proof.

The second thing is that in the van case, being wrong has grave consequences. Let the bomb go off while you are negotiating and talking, and quite frankly you will have some civillian deaths, deaths that will not happen if you take the guy out. Now if an evacuation is possible, yes that's probably the best course of action. But I suspect that Susquach is right that the guy in the van is going to blow it up if he sees a massive evacuation. Now if it is possible to arrest the guy and not have anyone die, that's the best answer. But to be honest with you, I think the odds of that happening are fairly low. So you just can't count on the "best solution", you have to work toward the one with the greatest odds of success.

I'd say the same thing in the torture case. If I have a limited time to find the bomb, and I have strong evidence that he knows where the bomb is, then I'm going to make him uncomfortable. I don't think it will work to just sit down over starbucks and talk to him. He's been trained not to answer questions. I don't think I can rely on the rest of the police force to tear apart every building in NYC to find the bomb in a limited time. NYC is HUGE and if the bomb is a car bomb, it's probably moving the whole time. So really both situations are very similar in my mind. If the only probable way to prevent civillian deaths is to torture the suspect you have in custody, then that's how it is. I'd prefer to not have to do so, but you have to protect the civillian population of the city.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Everybody is entitled to human rights. But not everybody is entitled to the rights of American citizens, or the even the rights of enemy Prisoners of War.

You make a big deal out of this "torture", when for one thing, you don't have a clue what's going on in American prison camps--and even if you think you do, it's nothing near "torture"--and for another, it's not a method of entertainment, it's a method of extracting information that can and does save innocent lives, both military and civilian. (Don't bother bringing up Abu Gharab, that was mainly for entertainment, that was illegal, and that is being dealt with.)

Shooting a man with his finger on the trigger of a bomb that would kill millions is illegal? Where the hell did you get that? If he must be shot, he must be shot. Now, they might try to shoot the detonator out of his hand, or they might try to wound him so that they can drag him away and take control of the situation, but neither would be illegal. We're not talking about some dad sitting in a minivan waiting for his kids, we're talking about a terrorist with a nuke, are we not? Where are you getting this stuff from? Oh wait, nevermind, I think I know.

How many American civizens are in Gitmo? And what ties did they have that got them sent there?

---

on this sadly i agree with SAS...Cloud you love to bash on americans there are plenty of countries and terrorist groups that do torture people.Some countries puts 1000 volts of AC current through a persons testicles to get them to talk.torture is everywhere and you can't be a bastard and say America is the worse country to torture its prisoners.

Oh yes, let's not punish anybody because there's no way to be 100% sure of their guilt.

"you would never need to evacuate new york city as a bomb of that size is not feasible."

Ever heard of nuclear weapons? They're feasible.

Your refusal to use "cruel techniques" to possibly save millions of lives reveals a great deal about the content of your character, or lack thereof. There is no logical reason to protect the "human rights" of one man and cast aside the lives of hundreds, thousands, or millions of others, especially civilian lives.

sasquatch nuclear weapons are not feasible in terrorism i won't get into the semantics of why reprocessing uranium in your front room isn't possible, nor is recreating the technology for such a weapon if you did steal processed uranium.

lordblazer yes they are plenty of nasty countries out there which use nasty methods of torture which america happilly ships out it's suspects to for a friendly cosy chat. and america isn't the worst country in the world when it comes down to torturing suspects. but is that what you want from your country? to be "not as bad as other really nasty countries"? i'm sorry but i though in america there was some kind of pride in being a great country that hadn't sunk so low as to say "well we don't behead anyone do we?, so we're alright" "torture is okay because we think he's a bad man so who cares about him being a human being and all" to better than countries which torture in such horrible ways is not a badge of honor.

i think the term used in law is "beyond any reosnable doubt" and this should also be taken into consideration for shooting any suspect, you need means, motive and opportunity and not all based on half assed intelligence, gossip or guesses.

You're saying terrorists couldn't buy a nuclear weapon? Open your eyes a bit. Plus, you have the "dirty bomb"--I won't even bother explaining that to you--and other types of weapons designed to cause massive amounts of civilian casualties.

Cloud 9, you have already dismissed anything else you could say on this issue by telling me that you would argue against the use of "torture" on one suspected terrorist that might save the lives of thousands of innocent civilians. You place too much value on comfort and not enough on life and freedom.

sasquatch i hate to tell you that buying a nuclear bomb is rather difficult these days. you know with most of the world thinking that putting up a nuclear weapons store next to wal-mart is a little bit silly. if they ever did get hold of one from buying it would be in the form of a missle or bomb as this is how all nuclear weapons are made. now if you want to explain to be how you get a nuclear bomb or missle system into the us without anyone raising an eyebrow at it then yes you may be in trouble. this is of course if terrorists can find such a country to buy it from, afford it and convert it til a useable weapon without it sticking out like a sore thumb.

dirty bombs on the other hand..... have debateable usefullness. which we can discuss if you want but i'll leave it at that for now.

and no i don't believe in torturing an innocent man. sorry if that makes me crazy but you know.... just something i feel uneasy about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

sasquatch i hate to tell you that buying a nuclear bomb is rather difficult these days. you know with most of the world thinking that putting up a nuclear weapons store next to wal-mart is a little bit silly. if they ever did get hold of one from buying it would be in the form of a missle or bomb as this is how all nuclear weapons are made. now if you want to explain to be how you get a nuclear bomb or missle system into the us without anyone raising an eyebrow at it then yes you may be in trouble. this is of course if terrorists can find such a country to buy it from, afford it and convert it til a useable weapon without it sticking out like a sore thumb.

dirty bombs on the other hand..... have debateable usefullness. which we can discuss if you want but i'll leave it at that for now.

and no i don't believe in torturing an innocent man. sorry if that makes me crazy but you know.... just something i feel uneasy about.

---

No actually there's a ready supply of nuclear weapons and parts plus pre manufactured plutonium in the Former Soviet Union. The problem is that the people guarding it get about 100x more to sell these weapons and parts then they could get by guarding them. A Russian guard or nuclear scientist who is having trouble making ends meet legally would probably sell those weapons or help other rogue nations or terrorist groups if they get offered 1000 times more than they would get from a bankrupt government.

Secondly, the amount of plutonium needed to make a nuke is pretty small -- about the size of a grapefruit. That would actually be pretty easy to sneak across a border. Getting the rest of the parts may be slightly harder, but if you have a person or a group with the money and the desire, it's 100% duable to set off a nuke.

As far as you feeling uneasy about torturing people. Yeah I do too. I hate that such things must happen, but the truth is that in some cases it's the only way to prevent a worse disaster from happening. I'd rather have one person tortured than 1000 die. Now if it's just randomly torturing A-rabs who have long beards or something like that, I'd be against it. We should have strict rules about the conditions under which torture can be used.

My rules would be:
1.) you have to be reasonably sure that the person you will torture is actually guilty. To that end, I'd say at least a modified court martial type procedure with a US millitary appointed lawyer for the defendant.

2.) you'd have to convince a military judge that there is good reason to suspect that a terrorist attack is imminant and that the person that you wish to try to torture information from actually knows what you need to know.

3.) Once you get what you need and it proves accurate, the torture stops. It doesn't make sense to keep beating a guy after he talks. And should the person require treatment, he should get it.

It seems like that is the only way to balance the two goals of protecting the human rights of the prisonors and protecting the civillian population from bombs going off in their neighborhoods possibly killing thousands of people. It has to be balanced though.

Cloud 9 -- As Gnostic Yevon says, it's not nearly as hard as you think it is to buy a nuclear weapon. (By the way, it wouldn't be in the form of a missile or bomb, it would be in the form of a warhead. And a nuclear warhead could be no bigger than your torso.) Getting it into the U.S. wouldn't be too much of a problem, they'd simply either have to break it down to core components and transport them seperately to re-assemble it inside the States, or they could slip it through one of our extremely porous borders.

Gnostic Yevon -- While I do agree with your post, your "rules" concerning the validation of the use of torture could cause some problems. In #2, you mention that you'd have to convince a military judge that there's good reason to suspect an imminent terrorist attack. If a terrorist attack is imminent, should we be spending time on courts marshall and other court proceedings, convincing people left and right that it should be done? Of course, we should be as sure as possible about the accuracy of the information we could extract from the suspect, but, simply put, s*** happens. Nobody wants innocent people to be subjected to cruel interrogation techniques, but I would rather 1, or 10, or 100 innocent men be tortured than be partially responsible for the loss of thousands of lives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Gnostic Yevon -- While I do agree with your post, your "rules" concerning the validation of the use of torture could cause some problems. In #2, you mention that you'd have to convince a military judge that there's good reason to suspect an imminent terrorist attack. If a terrorist attack is imminent, should we be spending time on courts marshall and other court proceedings, convincing people left and right that it should be done? Of course, we should be as sure as possible about the accuracy of the information we could extract from the suspect, but, simply put, s*** happens. Nobody wants innocent people to be subjected to cruel interrogation techniques, but I would rather 1, or 10, or 100 innocent men be tortured than be partially responsible for the loss of thousands of lives.

---

Well, I wasn't necessarily talking about a trial, just some sort of procedure so that it doesn't turn into the standard excuse. Without some sort of controls, I fear that "immenant threat" would be called anytime a person decides they want to torture a suspect, or if a person gets caught doing so. The problem is that without controls on the torture of suspects, I could technically beat up anybody in a prison, and then later say that "it was to prevent a terrorist attack". Such things happen regularly in dictatorships.

Now, you are right that it's better to not be going though a month long court trial if the bomb is already planted somewhere. But I think there would be enough time to go to a Millitary Judge and say "we know that there's a bomb planted somewhere in the USA. We know that this prisoner is in al-qaida." In other words, the standard should be somewhere lower than a search warrant. I don't think that's unreasonable. I'm not even asking that they use a full court trial or give him a lawyer to defend himself.

but you cannot say you know. i will always go back to moazzam begg. the US said they knew he was an active al-qaeda memeber and a highly dangerous man, and they tortured him then let him go. sitting him in front of a kangaroo court changes nothing. you were sure then so making sure you are sure now makes no difference to that. sitting in front of a judge in a kangaroo court changes very little.

and torture acheives nothing, look at sandy mitchell, sentences to crucifiction and partial beheading in saudi arabia for a crime that he was tortured into confessing to. so an innocent man will plead guilty. and the guilty man... will tell you anything so long as it isn't the truth "so you say the bomb is washington, good glad to get that out of you, lets head to washington. boom goes new york, las vegas, disney land, somewhere else that isn't washington. torture supposedly works because people will say anything to make it stop. that's the problem, an innocent man will plead guilty and the guilty man will plead guilty to a different crime. it saves noone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

but you cannot say you know. i will always go back to moazzam begg. the US said they knew he was an active al-qaeda memeber and a highly dangerous man, and they tortured him then let him go. sitting him in front of a kangaroo court changes nothing. you were sure then so making sure you are sure now makes no difference to that. sitting in front of a judge in a kangaroo court changes very little.

---

A millitary court martial is not a "kangaroo court". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court-martial There are established rules and procedures for dealing with criminal offenses. now, even with streamlining a few of the procedures, the courts aren't just going to run around randomly convicting people of being terrorists for "Driving While Arab".

You keep ignoring the security issues. There are plenty of reasons that a terrorist suspect should not be tried by a regular court. Firstly, he could use the discovery process (which allows defendants to see evidence gathered against them and how it was collected) to find out what measures the FBI/CIA/US Special Forces are using to catch them. If they use their lawyer to send that info to another terrorist, then all we've done is make Al-Qaida better able to prevent detection.

Secondly, there would be threats to the Judge himself or other court officials, meaning that the lives of every person in that courtroom would be at risk. If a single untrained suspect can get hold of a gun and shoot a judge (and I think the court reporter too), what exactly do you think a terrorist trained in firearms could do with the same weapon?

Thirdly, there is a time-crunch issue. The longer it takes to try and convict a high level terrorist, the more likely it is that whatever plan he hatched will be carried out before the trial is over. And it isn't like we can get any intelligence before he is convicted, as his lawyer will be sitting in the questioning room telling him not to answer the questions. If the attack is a major one, that is a serious handicap to law enforcement's ability to save lives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

and torture acheives nothing, look at sandy mitchell, sentences to crucifiction and partial beheading in saudi arabia for a crime that he was tortured into confessing to. so an innocent man will plead guilty. and the guilty man... will tell you anything so long as it isn't the truth "so you say the bomb is washington, good glad to get that out of you, lets head to washington. boom goes new york, las vegas, disney land, somewhere else that isn't washington. torture supposedly works because people will say anything to make it stop. that's the problem, an innocent man will plead guilty and the guilty man will plead guilty to a different crime. it saves noone.

---

Torture should be a last ditch effort anyway. And if there's no other way to find out what you need to know, I'd rather take the chance even if it wasn't a sure bet. But the thing is that the cops will probably already know more than they tell the guy, so if they know it's East Coast, and he says Los Angeles, they'll know it's a lie.

it would be a kangarro court if like you said all you needed to do was to say to the judge "we know that there's a bomb planted somewhere in the USA. We know that this prisoner is in al-qaida." and he would grant you permission. you would need evidence of involvment, proof that an attack is immenient, that means the usual m.m.o. and if he is treated in the same way as prisoners in cuba then he would not be granted a lawyer.

why in the first place are people here defending one of the must inhumane crimes imaginable? one that can't work and is illegal?

So what? We already know that you disagree with anything and everything the United States of America does and stands for, so what's the point in listening to you any further? Kangaroo court or not, we can't wait for the entire world to give us permission to protect our own citizens, it's that simple.

Why are you standing up for terrorists, who commit one of the most inhumane crimes imagineable, one that targets innocent civilians and is illegal, against discomfort by a power that wants to protect its civilian populace?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

So what? We already know that you disagree with anything and everything the United States of America does and stands for, so what's the point in listening to you any further? Kangaroo court or not, we can't wait for the entire world to give us permission to protect our own citizens, it's that simple.

Why are you standing up for terrorists, who commit one of the most inhumane crimes imagineable, one that targets innocent civilians and is illegal, against discomfort by a power that wants to protect its civilian populace?

---

First off, he never said that he opposes everything America wants to do to defend itself, and secondly, he's never said anything to make me think that he supports terrorism. We have a difference of opinion reguarding the treatment of prisoners at guantanamo bay. That's it. I think he's a bit nieve as to how the real world works, but I don't think that is equivelent to hating America or cheering on al-qaida.

Perhaps I'm not explaining myself correctly. What I think probably happens is that the suspect goes to a millitary tribunal, and evidence is presented. (I'm not sure but I thought there were three judges at this phase of the trial.)

Quote:

---

it would be a kangarro court if like you said all you needed to do was to say to the judge "we know that there's a bomb planted somewhere in the USA. We know that this prisoner is in al-qaida." and he would grant you permission.

---

What I was referring to would only happen after the suspect was convicted of being in al-qaida. And you're still ignoring that the bomb is already planted somewhere in the USA. That little fact changes things quite a bit in my mind. The requirements would be slightly less than getting a warrent, and no proof of the guy's being in al-qaida would be needed, because it had already been established by the tribunal. Maybe I didn't make this clear enough in my initial post, and if so I appologize.

sasquatch i am standing up for terrorists. you wanna know why? because i haven't been deprived of the idea of humanity. i see a terrorist as a human being not a piece of meat to throw against a wall because you suspect or even know he is a terrorist. i would happily stand up and defend any man against cruelty no matter what his crime.

gnostic yevon - so if you had a new suspect in custody who you suspect of being behind a planted bomb do you have to prove him a member of al-qaeda first? or just presume and carry on as if he has had a trial? saying yes to this is treating an unproven man as guilty and is unsound. and does being a member of al-qaeda automatically take away your human rights? suddenly a guilty verdict deems you sub-human and not covered anymore?

you cannot defend one the most disgusting crimes with a guilty verdict.

Gnostic Yevon--hate to say it, but "I told you so."

Cloud 9, you would rather the "rights" of a known terrorist be protected, against torture, discomfort, even humiliation (which you so wrongly think is a breach of human rights), than thousands of innocent civilian lives be saved by the information that the terrorist or terrorist suspect has?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

gnostic yevon - so if you had a new suspect in custody who you suspect of being behind a planted bomb do you have to prove him a member of al-qaeda first? or just presume and carry on as if he has had a trial? saying yes to this is treating an unproven man as guilty and is unsound. and does being a member of al-qaeda automatically take away your human rights? suddenly a guilty verdict deems you sub-human and not covered anymore?

you cannot defend one the most disgusting crimes with a guilty verdict.

---

I'm not defending torture just on the fact that the man is guilty. I'm defending based on the fact that he is guilty AND the fact that the cops know that he knows where the bomb is. I'm placing discomfort of one guy verses the lives of up to 1000.

Torture has its ups and downs you know. It can save many lives. But it can just be used to find info about something that doesn't justify the means. Either way it is still good to find an alterantive way of getting info. But I think that won't happen until the future where we can read thoughts through computers or something crazy like that.

your breaking your won argument on two accounts. first of all you call it "discomfort" which i belive to be false but anyway.

if we are talking a hardened terrorist is he really going to give into discomfort? or is he going to bide his time and let it pat. his duty is far more inportant than comfort.

so you would need to seek more extreme measures (shaky ground here) at this point discomfort becomes torture and so is totally illegal, inhuman and beyond all moral code. so now you are torturing a humkan being, you are puting him through enough pain to get you to stop. so he's going to tell you anything, truth or lie, innocence or guilt.

there is no lin in torture at which point you can say "at this point he will tell us the truth and not lie or hold back information" there is line between pain and discomfort and both don't gain anything.

i find it very hard to defend a system which is both evil and doesn't and can't possibly work. it's torture for torture's sake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tama2

Either way it is still good to find an alterantive way of getting info. But I think that won't happen until the future where we can read thoughts through computers or something crazy like that.

---

Now that'll be pretty cool until everyone can read anyone's thoughts. Trust me, that won't be cool. Especially, if you knew what was going on in my head...*hmmm* StRaWbErRy FuDgE iCe CrEaM...

I call it "discomfort" because the "torture" that the United States is using is simply that--discomfort and inconvenience. Sleep deprivation? Dealt with it. It sucks. Monotonous audio? Ditto. It sucks too. Humiliation? Same thing. Everything the U.S. puts its terrorist suspects through, MANY more people have been through it, and most likely to a larger extent--it's called military combat training. You take somebody that's just been through the last two weeks of U.S. Army Ranger School and make them a prisoner in Gitmo, and it'll be a walk in the park.

There is no proof at all that tortured prisoners will say "anything" to make the torture stop--history has shown that if the guy doesn't know anything, that might be the case, but if he does, torture will get it out of him. And again, we're not just talking about grabbing somebody up off the street, this is for people who we know are involved, and we've already gotten legal permission to "interrogate" him.

You still haven't answered my question. Here, I'll just repost it word-for-word.

"Cloud 9, you would rather the "rights" of a known terrorist be protected, against torture, discomfort, even humiliation (which you so wrongly think is a breach of human rights), than thousands of innocent civilian lives be saved by the information that the terrorist or terrorist suspect has?"
(In other words, which is more important, a terrorist not being tortured, or thousands of lives being saved? It's a yes-or-no question.)

sasquacth if i was to put your balls in a vice and squeeze them until you confessed to being a terrorist would you a. let me castrate you in this manner or b. admit it and be free from that pain. i may be a coward but i know what one i would choose. here we see a flaw in why torture seems to fail. same if i was to electrocute and beat you.

america also exports torture to countries where less moral things than this "discomfort" of yours goes on. this discomfort you talk about was actually tested on a group of varied individuals for 3 days for a programme on channel 4 to see if it worked. 50% "confessed" or gave up because it was too much. it doesn't take much of this to make a man break down.

sasquatch i will answer your question again. i would rather a human being was not subject to some of the most immoral and degrading treatment in any circumstances for whatever matter.

That's right, because American prisons have ball-vice tables for just that purpose. Well, that, and cracking walnuts.

America exports torture? How do you do that? Would that fit in a railroad container, or would it have to go into a tanker? And who would need that as an import?

America lets other countries handle some interrogations, because we: A. don't want to bother with them; or B. don't think we could get the information we need with our tactics.

If I were to be tortured, it wouldn't be like "tell us you're a terrorist or we'll do something bad", it would be "We know you're involved, tell us what's going on or we'll do something bad". If I knew what was going on, I would face as much as I could and then most likely end up telling what was going on. If I did lie, they could just go to the guy in the next room that knows what's going on too, and torture the hell out of him until they get an answer, any answer, then come back to me and say "we know you're lying, now tell us the truth while we torture you some more", and the cycle continues. It ain't like they just find some guy walking down the street and say "Hey, you look like a terrorist, we're gonna torture you until you tell us everything we want to know." (By the way, there's a difference in "wanting to know" and "wanting to hear".)

A group of people volunteered to be put through sleep deprivation and such discomfort for three days? Hell, if I did it, I'd be like "this sucks, I give up." Sorry, I'm that big into science that I'd be put through that for some stupid television study. I highly doubt that too many people would disagree with me on that. No wonder half of 'em quit, it's a surprise half stayed.

You have now said more than once that you value the "rights" of a terrorist not to be tortured than the lives of thousands of civilians. I hope nobody else knows you, or you'd bring shame to them.

sasquatch you are again missing the point. torture cannot work as it only gains what the interrogator wants to hear.

america exports torture by happily sending prisoners to saudi, egypt, syria to have rather nasty things done to them. isn't that even a tad immoral to you? to send a man to be beaten and tortured?

and america is pulling people off the street because they look like terrorists or because you have habit of offering money for info (a serious problem in afghanistan with the northern alliance) that is how moazzam begg came to have his door kicked in. he was guilty of nothing and there was no evidence against him. bt he was imprisoned, beaten up, tortured, sent to saudi, tortured some more for 3 years. 3 years of his life. gone. for what? he wasn't the first and won't be the last. this is injustice of the highest kind. the brutal degradation of an innocent man for 3 years. if you had heard that story happening in germany 60 years ago you would be appauled. but instead you defend it?

and sasquatch for the last time i'll clarify my position. i will defend everyone's human rights, innocent or guilty, victim or murderer. i beluve everyone is a human being and should be treated as such. i don't just see "my people" as the only people with rights and the rest not worth scraping off the bottom of your shoe.

i don't believe in the torture of a man for any purpose. and i don't belive in the murder of innocents either.

Sad position. I agree with you in a sense #9. But I feel the few outweigh the many regardless because human life is very valuable. So to save many some person or people will be tortured. I feel bad about it but it saves lives. And cmon Sasquatch, don't be so harse on #9.