|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 12:37 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
JMO"][
| Quote: |
So Bin Laden solely planned the 9-11 attacks? |
Probably not but he is a big part of AQ
| Quote: |
| and I have a US govt official saying the same thing |
| Quote: |
| This is an argument from authority andis logically false. |
well what do you have that says getting OBL would have made no difference?
| Quote: |
| Which Clinton official and why isn't the current admin saying the same thing, if that is what you are implying? |
I would say they are both saying the same thing
| Quote: |
| Sorry you cannot have it going both ways. If you fghting a war then the people you are fighting and catch are prisoners of war. I assume the US govt knows this which is why they are trying to change the convention. |
there are criminals and there is a war going on. Why not have both included they are not only criminals but fighting the US?
Sorry I wasn't clear about the next part.
| Quote: |
You weren't contradicting yourself but you were making my point for me. Basically you are saying that middle eastern regimes create terrorist and then kill them. This is what the US would be doing also. |
Mideast regimes incite violence as military tactic and also a way to stay in power.
They can change their actions and they can also crush the terrorists if they choose to.
| Quote: |
You can't see a link? |
Please see above
| Quote: |
| AQ started this before the US entered Iraq or after? How many american soldiers have been killed in Iraq? |
after but AQ was attacking others before the US went in.
The US never invaded Iraq to invade Iraq but to invade the mideast.
The mideast is a threat to the US. and it was before 9-11 . 9-11 happened cause the mideast is the way it is.
| Quote: |
| What is America's Secret War? A policy paper? Leaked documents? 9-11 was a main reason yes, but a flawed reason. There was no link between the people who did that and Saddamn. |
It is a book by Stratfor.
The mideast was a threat . Change the mideast and you there are less terrorists. Or at least get mideast regimes to kill off the terrorists within their own nations.
| Quote: |
| If my goal is to feed one african child, then cutting off the heads of 19 other african children to give it enough food is a good idea? Whatever it takes after all... |
different situation. There was a war being waged aginst the US. It is asking a lot that the US pull its puches and not do everything it can to win.
| Quote: |
| bingo..they are spot on |
Yes .
| Quote: |
| This guy is saying that they invaded Iraq because it was near Saudi Arabia. He backs up what I said. I said there was no connection between 9-11 and the invasion. This is true if the only reason they invaded Iraq was because of geography. It also begs the question...why not invade Saudi Arabia? |
You make a good point . Why not invade Saudi Arabia?
Well it would be more inflamatory than invading Iraq.
Not everyone in the Saudi government is on the side of AQ.
The US doesn't know where AQ is in Saudi Arabia.
The US thought that Saudi govt would get rid of the AQ backers if they were scared.
| Quote: |
| Once again you are missing the point. The Patriot act could not have existed pre 9-11 for a good reason. |
perhaps it should have.
The US has RICO laws and Patriot act for the most part gives the govt the same tools to go after AQ that they have to get mobsters.
| Quote: |
argument from authority. |
again it is reasonal to believe that getting rid of OBL would have made difference.
| Quote: |
| You are asking me to prove a negative. I don't think it would have made no difference. I'm sying it seems unlikely that it would have prevented attack. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim which is you. |
Well it certainly is reasonable to believe. and I got a US govt offical . Now that is not perfect proof . but it is a likely possiblility.
| Quote: |
| How many american soldiers died before the entry into Iraq and after in this war? |
More after Iraq that doesn't change that Saddam , the Khomeni followers and the Al Qaedists have been at war against the US before the US invaded iraq.
| Quote: |
| Or attract AQ like bugs to a searchlight. |
Mideast regimes can get rid of AQ if they choose to.
| Quote: |
| By going outside the geneva convention. Lets get back to the point. |
again geneva convention didn't conceive of AQ.
| Quote: |
I don't care about y
our goals no matter how shiny and good(and futile) they are. |
The US is at war and the US ought to do what it takes to win.
| Quote: |
| You havn't been able to justify torture. Prove torture works(it doesn't). You can';t define what the enemy is.(criminals or POWs). You are against ethical treatment of criminals/pows. You have yet to establish how treating prisoners unethically will help you win this 'war'(is it a war really, when you can't even define what you are fighting). |
Why do you think the US govt did what it did to prisoners . Just for revenge?
| Quote: |
| Who needs a low level war and sometimes serious war, when a high level and always pointless war will do.. |
the US doesn't have to accept a war being waged against it. ba change in the mideast could end that war.
No one ought to expect the US just to accept it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 4:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Same things, again and again.
| Quote: |
| Probably not but he is a big part of AQ |
So prove that he was integral to 9-11 happening. You make a claim such as that you need to prove it.
| Quote: |
| well what do you have that says getting OBL would have made no difference? |
You don't seem to understand my point. First and I'll repeat this, I didn't say it would make no difference. secondly I said your argument was logically flawed as it is an argument from authority. You are not providing evidence just authority. Here is a list of logical fallacies.
I would say you are guilty of quite a few of these, but the one I am specifically taking about is ...number 3
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp
| Quote: |
| Stating that a claim is true because a person or group of perceived authority says it is true |
In other words, evidence please.
Also do you have the name of the official and when he made this statement? And also when the present admin said this.
Also do you deny that it would be to the advantage of the present admin to say this?
| Quote: |
there are criminals and there is a war going on. Why not have both included they are not only criminals but fighting the US?
|
well then, define what they are. Are they criminals and POWs? You still aren't being very clear. You need to define very clearly what they are and what rights they have under the law.
| Quote: |
| different situation. There was a war being waged aginst the US. It is asking a lot that the US pull its puches and not do everything it can to win. |
I didn't say pull it punches. I say entitle the people they capture to a charge, a trial and not to be tortured. I don't see how the ethical treatment of prisoners is pulling punches. Especially and you still havn't shown me this, there is no evidence that torture works.
| Quote: |
| Well it would be more inflamatory than invading Iraq |
!
| Quote: |
| The US doesn't know where AQ is in Saudi Arabia |
There was no AQ in Iraq. For a person so willing to cite this governments authority they seem to know very little. WMDs, where AQ is in Saudi, where the hell Bin Laden is, what they are doing in Iraq.
| Quote: |
The US thought that Saudi govt would get rid of the AQ backers if they were scared.
|
Have they? Sweet mission accomplished..lets go home.
| Quote: |
| perhaps it should have. |
And again you are missing the point, the pat act would not exist before 9-11.
Are you saying that the RICO laws and the Pat act are the same?
| Quote: |
again it is reasonal to believe that getting rid of OBL would have made difference.
|
you said prevented 9-11. Evidence please.
| Quote: |
| Well it certainly is reasonable to believe. and I got a US govt offical . Now that is not perfect proof |
That's not any proof. Seriously read that list of logical fallacies.
| Quote: |
again geneva convention didn't conceive of AQ.
|
Explain how. Geneva convention is set up for POW. If you are saying they are not POWs but criminals they go through a different system. What you are trying to do is put them outside the system for your own ends.
This is also ridiculous. Like we've never heard of terrorism before. The geneva convention had much more horrific than AQ idiots in mind when it was set up.
| Quote: |
| Why do you think the US govt did what it did to prisoners . Just for revenge? |
They did it under the misguided notion that torture works and decided to waive these prisoners rights. this is unethical and unproven. Unethical is obviously the worst part but it adds insult to injury that it doesn't even work.
| Quote: |
the US doesn't have to accept a war being waged against it. ba change in the mideast could end that war.
No one ought to expect the US just to accept it. |
This is a massive, massive false dichotomy. This is number 9 on the list of logical fallacies above and seeming your favorite.
| Quote: |
| Arbitrarily reducing a set of many possibilities to only two |
Why are there only two options? Why is it 'invade Iraq or let the terrorists win', torture prisoners or AQ wins, waive prisoners rights or let the terrorists win. There are other options. No-one is expecting the US to accept 9-11, but that does not mean you can take away prisoner's rights or torture them. You are not going to lose your war on terrorism because you decided to treat prisoners ethically. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
JMO"]
| Code: |
| Same things, again and again. |
Well , I think I have good reasons for saying and believing what I say.
| Quote: |
| Probably not but he is a big part of AQ |
| Quote: |
| So prove that he was integral to 9-11 happening. You make a claim such as that you need to prove it. |
that would be impossibile to prove but Al Qaeda became much more powerful when Bin Laden moved to Afghanistan.
| Quote: |
| You don't seem to understand my point. First and I'll repeat this, I didn't say it would make no difference. secondly I said your argument was logically flawed as it is an argument from authority. You are not providing evidence just authority. Here is a list of logical fallacies. |
| Quote: |
I would say you are guilty of quite a few of these, but the one I am specifically taking about is ...number 3
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp
| Quote: |
| Stating that a claim is true because a person or group of perceived authority says it is true |
In other words, evidence please. |
It is very reasonable to believe that if OBL were gone Al Qaeda would not have developed into the organziation it did.
And the someone from the Clinton Admin agrees.
Can I prove it no. On the other hand it is very likely that OBL being gone would have made a difference.
| Quote: |
| Also do you have the name of the official and when he made this statement? And also when the present admin said this. |
| Quote: |
Though far from the central figure he is now, bin Laden had a high and rising place on the U.S. counterterrorism agenda. Internal State Department talking points at the time described him as "one of the most significant financial sponsors of Islamic extremist activities in the world today" and blamed him for planning a failed attempt to blow up the hotel used by U.S. troops in Yemen in 1992.
"Had we been able to roll up bin Laden then, it would have made a significant difference," said a U.S. government official with responsibilities, then and now, in counter-terrorism. "We probably never would have seen a September 11th. We would still have had networks of Sunni Islamic extremists of the sort we're dealing with here, and there would still have been terrorist attacks fomented by those folks. But there would not have been as many resources devoted to their activities, and there would not have been a single voice that so effectively articulated grievances and won support for violence."
Clinton administration officials maintain emphatically that they had no such option in 1996. In the legal, political and intelligence environment of the time, they said, there was no choice but to allow bin Laden to depart Sudan unmolested.
"In the United States, we have this thing called the Constitution, so to bring him here is to bring him into the justice system," said Sandy Berger, who was deputy national security adviser then. "I don't think that was our first choice. Our first choice was to send him some place where justice is more" -- he paused a moment, then continued -- "streamlined."
Three Clinton officials said they hoped -- one described it as "a fantasy" -- that Saudi King Fahd would order bin Laden's swift beheading, as he had done for four conspirators after a June 1995 bombing in Riyadh. But Berger and Steven Simon, then director for counter-terrorism on the National Security Council staff, said the White House considered it valuable in itself to force bin Laden out of Sudan, thus tearing him away from his extensive network of businesses, investments and training camps. |
| Quote: |
| Also do you deny that it would be to the advantage of the present admin to say this? |
No so what?
| Quote: |
| well then, define what they are. Are they criminals and POWs? You still aren't being very clear. You need to define very clearly what they are and what rights they have under the law. |
They are enemy combatants . Those like them require a new classification.
In fact the US also did it is World War II
| Quote: |
The unlawful combatant designation affixed to Padilla certainly was not unprecedented. In June 1942, German saboteurs landed from submarines off the coasts of Florida and Long Island and were eventually apprehended. Because they were not acting as ordinary soldiers fighting in uniform and carrying arms openly, they were in violation of the laws of war and not entitled to Geneva Conventions protections.
Indeed, at the direction of President Roosevelt they were not only not held as prisoners of war but were tried before a military court in Washington, D.C., convicted, and--except for two who had cooperated--executed, notwithstanding the contention by one of them that he was an American citizen, as is Padilla, and thus entitled to constitutional protections. The Supreme Court dismissed that contention as irrelevant. |
| Quote: |
| I didn't say pull it punches. I say entitle the people they capture to a charge, a trial and not to be tortured. I don't see how the ethical treatment of prisoners is pulling punches. Especially and you still havn't shown me this, there is no evidence that torture works. |
Again why did the US govt do what it did?
!
| Quote: |
| There was no AQ in Iraq. For a person so willing to cite this governments authority they seem to know very little. WMDs, where AQ is in Saudi, where the hell Bin Laden is, what they are doing in Iraq. |
The US never invaded Iraq to invade Iraq the US invaded Iraq to invade the mideast
Iraq is next to Saudi , Syira and Iran.
The US could pressure Saudi from Iraq.
It could show that Suicide bombing will not even things up.
It got rid of an enemy of the US.
There are a lot of reasons.
| Quote: |
| Have they? Sweet mission accomplished..lets go home. |
It is more complicated than that. The US ought not leave the mideast the way it was. Otherwise it will be hit again.
| Quote: |
| And again you are missing the point, the pat act would not exist before 9-11. |
Ok so what. It should have existed. 9-11 showed the need for such laws.
| Quote: |
| Are you saying that the RICO laws and the Pat act are the same? |
almost.
| Quote: |
| you said prevented 9-11. Evidence please |
.
IT is impossible to prove but it is reasonable to believe . I don't need to prove it. This is war and better error on the side of being safe.
| Quote: |
That's not any proof. Seriously read that list of logical fallacies. |
It is not proof but it is reasonable even likely to believe.
What is your point?
I like the chances of the US against AQ a lot more with Bin Laden out of the picture.
| Quote: |
Explain how. Geneva convention is set up for POW. If you are saying they are not POWs but criminals they go through a different system. What you are trying to do is put them outside the system for your own ends. |
Geneva wasn't set up for terrorists like AQ.
Whatever it takes to win. If it helps the US govt against AQ and similar types then it is good. Period.
The current system would be over taxed if every AQ member was brought in front of it. It was a great burden to convict even 36 terrorists.
To put them away the US would have probably to disclose its methods and its sources of information.
and if terrorists go free they will go out and try to kill again.
This is not just about putting the guilty away it is protecting the US from terror. It is not just criminal justice we are talking about but also national security.
The US was wrong to let Bin Laden go. tell me (with a straight face ) that him being out of the picture would not be a huge loss for AQ.
The US was wrong not to go after Khomeni.( Tell me with straight face ) that the US would not be better off he never came to power.
It would not be in the interests of the US to let mideasters caught in Afghanistan fighting for the Taliban go free.
The US is at war.
| Quote: |
| This is also ridiculous. Like we've never heard of terrorism before. The geneva convention had much more horrific than AQ idiots in mind when it was set up. |
But not for those who use the techniques of AQ.
and again this is not only a matter of criminal justice but also national security.
| Quote: |
| They did it under the misguided notion that torture works and decided to waive these prisoners rights. this is unethical and unproven. Unethical is obviously the worst part but it adds insult to injury that it doesn't even work. |
Why did they have such a "misguided notion" ? Maybe they had a good reason.
| Quote: |
| This is a massive, massive false dichotomy. This is number 9 on the list of logical fallacies above and seeming your favorite. |
what exactly?
The US was at war with Iraq before 9-11.
Although Iraq did not have a substatial relationship with AQ . Iraq still was at war with the US.
He shot at US planes
He tried to kill a US president
He continued to threaten Kuwait.
His regime incitied violence and was connected to terrorists.
Saddam had it coming . If he didn't want to get invaded then he ought to have given up his war.
Iraq could the US military bases to project power. Or a least the US the US no longer needs Saudi to contain Saddam . So the US can put pressure on Saudi if it needs to.
| Quote: |
| Why are there only two options? Why is it 'invade Iraq or let the terrorists win', torture prisoners or AQ wins, waive prisoners rights or let the terrorists win. There are other options. No-one is expecting the US to accept 9-11, but that does not mean you can take away prisoner's rights or torture them. You are not going to lose your war on terrorism because you decided to treat prisoners ethically. |
What are the other options?
As I said what the US had in place probably was a failure. It allowed Bin Laden to go free.
It would not have allowed the US to get rid of Khomeni before he came to power.
Futhermore the US justice system
1. Many terrorists could not be convicted with evidence that would be allowed in a trail. Then they go free.
2. Trails could also compromise sources and methods of intel gathering.
How did you find out that xxx terrorist suspect planned to do what he did?
Answer: We have this source inside AQ. -> OK that source is gone.
We have the abiltiy to listen to -> Ok after AQ hears that you think they are going to do things the same way?
ect , ect.
| Quote: |
In fact, terrorism prosecutions in this country have unintentionally provided terrorists with a rich source of intelligence. For example, in the course of prosecuting Omar Abdel Rahman (the so-called "blind sheik") and others for their role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and other crimes, the government was compelled--as it is in all cases that charge conspiracy--to turn over a list of unindicted co-conspirators to the defendants.
That list included the name of Osama bin Laden. As was learned later, within 10 days a copy of that list reached bin Laden in Khartoum, letting him know that his connection to that case had been discovered.
Again, during the trial of Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, an apparently innocuous bit of testimony in a public courtroom about delivery of a cell phone battery was enough to tip off terrorists still at large that one of their communication links had been compromised. That link, which in fact had been monitored by the government and had provided enormously valuable intelligence, was immediately shut down, and further information lost. |
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010505
also while 70,000 trained in AQ camps in the 1990s only 36 have been found guilty of terror plots in US courts since the early 90's.
It would overwhelm the US system to deal with them all
The way the mideast is is why there are terrorists.
As I said mideast regimes and elties teach hate and incite violence as a tactic that kind of behavior has to stop. It is the main reason for terrorism.
Mideast regimes can if they choose to can get rid of AQ and similar types in their nations. All the US has to do is find a way of forcing them to do it. If the US can scare them enough then mideast regimes will get rid of the terrorists.
And whatever level of force to bring that about it pretty much ok. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Simple question.
Why not hold AQ prisoners as POWs and not torture them?
Prove to me that torture works? If it does work, then give me reasons why the US should use it? I want proof. No 'take our chances..hands are tied..whatever it takes' bullsh8t please.
I don't have the time or patience to ask questions which you will ignore.(or even worse, deem whatever it takes to be a good answer.)
You do not understand what logical fallacies are and seemed to have been brainwashed to believe that the admin is at the same time allowed to lie, but what they say is the truth.
So 2 questions... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 1:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Cause prisoners of war aren't criminals . Cause prisoners of war have a right not to cooperate. Al Qaeda is a terror hate group , as evil or worse than the Klu Klux Klan.
I said I would not support the use of stuff like the Iron maiden but the other techniques aren't torture or at least they aren't in the same category as that.
At any rate I don't know what works , but I wonder why you think you know what does and what doesn't more than the US government.
I am sorry you didn't like the answers I gave. I think I answered them well enough.
And while you love questions and criticism you don't give any solutions to the security problems the US faces . Indeed you can't or won't even admit that the US wouldn't have been better off with Bin Laden and or Khomeni out of the picture.
Maybe you shouldn't lecture me about fallacies since it seems you haven't been all that sincere in this thread. Please see above.
What the administration says or not it is pretty clear that Bathists , Khomeni followers and Jihad international have been after the US for a while and the US doesn't have to take it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 2:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Maybe you shouldn't lecture me about fallacies since it seems you haven't been all that sincere in this thread. Please see above. |
I'm not lecturing you. You literally do not understand them. What is above?
case in point
| Quote: |
| but I wonder why you think you know what does and what doesn't more than the US government |
You have said the US government lies. You say I should trust what they say without proof. You don't see the problem with this.
| Quote: |
| At any rate I don't know what works |
So why advocate it?
| Quote: |
| I said I would not support the use of stuff like the Iron maiden but the other techniques aren't torture or at least they aren't in the same category as that |
Sensory deprivation is torture. What category would you put it in?
| Quote: |
Indeed you can't or won't even admit that the US wouldn't have been better off with Bin Laden and or Khomeni out of the picture.
|
You said that Bin Laden's capture would have prevented 9-11. I asked for proof. You failed to provide proof.
| Quote: |
| Cause prisoners of war aren't criminals . Cause prisoners of war have a right not to cooperate. Al Qaeda is a terror hate group , as evil or worse than the Klu Klux Klan |
Well if they are criminals they go through the justice system, if they are enemy combatants they are POWs.
The world war II example is bad for the following reasons.
In world war II the enemy was well defined, the spies who were caught were outside the definition o an enemy solider(no uniform, not openly carrying weapons). In this 'war' the enemy is not well defined. You cannot say they are not wearing a uniform so they are not POWs. They never had a uniform. In fact calling this a war is a bit of a stretch in itself.
You need to define what the enemy is legally and treat them humanely.
Just because AQ is a terror hate group it does not give you the right to torture them. If you are really fighting a 'war' then they are by any sane definiton POWs. If you don't want that stop calling that catastrophe a war.
| Quote: |
| I am sorry you didn't like the answers I gave. I think I answered them well enough |
You said that you don't know if torture or at least inhumane treatment works but you advocate its use. You say that the government can lie, but tell me that I should trust them. Yea your answers are great.
| Quote: |
| And while you love questions and criticism you don't give any solutions to the security problems the US faces |
. All I said is that if captives are defined as criminals then they should be charged and go to trial. If they are enemy combatants then they should be put in camps. In both cases they should not be tortured or treated inhumanely. That is my argument.
| Quote: |
| What the administration says or not it is pretty clear that Bathists , Khomeni followers and Jihad international have been after the US for a while and the US doesn't have to take it. |
You sound like a kid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 3:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| but I wonder why you think you know what does and what doesn't more than the US government |
| Quote: |
You have said the US government lies. You say I should trust what they say without proof. You don't see the problem with this. |
depends on who and what they say.
| Quote: |
| At any rate I don't know what works |
| Quote: |
| So why advocate it? |
I don't know if I advocate it, but I don't want to tie the hands of those doing interrogating.
| Quote: |
Sensory deprivation is torture. What category would you put it in? |
It is not the same as the iron maiden I don't know if it works , but if it does then the US ought to go for it
| Quote: |
You said that Bin Laden's capture would have prevented 9-11. I asked for proof. You failed to provide proof. |
No one can say that but the US would have been far better off if he were out of the picture
| Quote: |
Well if they are criminals they go through the justice system, if they are enemy combatants they are POWs. |
They something different they are enemy combatants. .
If they go through the justice system then they have the right to know who said what about them.
and if they are POWs then they enjoy the right not to cooperate. That ignores that they are criminals . They don't fit into either category.
| Quote: |
The world war II example is bad for the following reasons.
In world war II the enemy was well defined, the spies who were caught were outside the definition o an enemy solider(no uniform, not openly carrying weapons). In this 'war' the enemy is not well defined. You cannot say they are not wearing a uniform so they are not POWs. They never had a uniform. In fact calling this a war is a bit of a stretch in itself.
|
The US defined enemy combatants in WW II . It is a war that is why 3000 Americans died on 9-11.
Again the US can not have trials for all 70,000 who trained in AQ camps.
And doing so would reveal how the US collects information or who the sources of the information are.
| Quote: |
You need to define what the enemy is legally and treat them humanely. |
it is hard to define who the enemy is . But they are already treated better than they ought to be.
| Quote: |
Just because AQ is a terror hate group it does not give you the right to torture them. If you are really fighting a 'war' then they are by any sane definiton POWs. If you don't want that stop calling that catastrophe a war. |
IT is a criminal war and they are war criminals . POW are not criminals but Al Qaeda are criminals they are also waging a war against the US.
| Quote: |
You said that you don't know if torture or at least inhumane treatment works but you advocate its use. You say that the government can lie, but tell me that I should trust them. Yea your answers are great. |
That is not a good enough answer.
POW are not criminals but AQ are.
But if they go to trial then the US has to say who its sources are and how it got the info. That is info the enemy can use.
It is not only a criminal justice problem it is also a national security problem
The government can lie and all governments do
but you have zero evidence the government is lying when they said that if they got Bin Laden that it would have prevented 9-11.
That means you are proposing that there is some kind of conspiracy and the government is saying that just to support the Patriot act or what they are doing against AQ even though it wasn't part of a conversation on that topic.
It is also reasonable to believe that is also the case as well.
That is a good answer and it is better than anything you have come up with.
| Quote: |
. All I said is that if captives are defined as criminals then they should be charged and go to trial. If they are enemy combatants then they should be put in camps. In both cases they should not be tortured or treated inhumanely. That is my argument.
But if they go to trial then the the US government will have to reveal its sources and how it got info.
If they are POWs then they have the right not to cooperate. and the fact that they are criminals isn't a factor.
|
| Quote: |
You sound like a kid. |
Well even a kid could see that the US would have been better off if the US had gotten Bin Laden and Khomeni out of the picture.
Even a kid could see that the US was wrong to let Bin Laden go free.
Even a kid would not be so foolish as to say the US ought to let mideasterners who they caught in Afghanistan go free.
So where does that leave you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 3:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
March 2002: Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, purported mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks and Al-Qaida's operational planner and organizer, allegedly suggests Jos� Padilla target up to three high-rise buildings that use natural gas with a radiological "dirty bomb."
May 8, 2002: Padilla arrives at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport after an overseas trip, carrying $10,526, a cell phone and e-mail addresses for al-Qaida operatives. He is arrested on a material witness warrant.
June 9, 2002: Padilla is listed as an "enemy combatant" and transferred to the Defense Department.
Dec. 18, 2003: The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals orders Padilla to be released from military custody within 30 days and if the government chooses, tried in civilian courts.
Jan. 22, 2004: The 2nd Circuit suspends its ruling after the Bush administration appeals the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
March 3, 2004: Lawyers for Padilla meet with him for the first time since his incarceration at a naval brig in June 2002.
June 28, 2004: In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court rules that Padilla should have filed his appeal in federal court in Charleston, S.C., because he is being held at a Navy brig there, rather than in New York.
Sept. 9, 2005: A panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules that the government can continue to hold Padilla indefinitely.
Oct. 25, 2005: Padilla appeals the appeals court decision to the Supreme Court. The Bush administration's deadline for filing arguments is Nov. 28.
Nov. 22, 2005: Padilla is indicted by a federal grand jury in Miami on charges that he conspired to "murder, kidnap and maim" people overseas. The charges do not include any allegations of a "dirty bomb" plot or other plans for U.S. attacks.
Dec. 21, 2005: 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge J. Michael Luttig chastises the administration for using one set of facts to justify holding Padilla without charges and another set to persuade a grand jury in Florida to indict him. Luttig said the administration has risked its "credibility before the courts."
Jan. 4, 2006: Supreme Court agrees to let the military transfer Padilla to Miami to face criminal charges, overruling the 4th Circuit.
Jan. 12, 2006: Padilla pleads not guilty to charges alleging he was part of a secret network that supported Muslim terrorists. The charges could bring a life in prison sentence.
April 3, 2006: Supreme Court rejects Padilla's appeal, although Chief Justice John Roberts and other key justices said that they would be watching to ensure Padilla receives the protections "guaranteed to all federal criminal defendants."
Aug. 16, 2006: Federal trial court in Miami, Florida dismisses conspiracy to murder charges against Padilla, leaving the most serious charge still pending a charge that could bring a 15 year prison sentence.
Oct., 2006: Padilla moves to dismiss the federal criminal case against him alleging that he had been tortured and that proceedings had been delayed too long from his arrest in May of 2002.
Jan. 30, 2007: The U.S. Court of Appeals reverses the August 2006 decision and reinstates the conspiracy to murder charge with a potential life sentence.
May 15, 2007: Trial commences in federal trial court.
July 13, 2007: Prosecution rests case in federal criminal trial.
August 16, 2007: Jury reaches verdict in federal criminal trial. Padilla is found guilty on all charges relating to conspiracy. Padilla has yet to be found guilty of any specific act or action. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 4:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I don't know if I advocate it, but I don't want to tie the hands of those doing interrogating.
|
Same thing.
| Quote: |
| t is not the same as the iron maiden I don't know if it works , but if it does then the US ought to go for it |
What is your obsession with the iron maiden? That is not the only form of torture. If you are advocating use of sensory seprivation then you are advocating the use of torture.
| Quote: |
No one can say that but the US would have been far better off if he were out of the picture
|
Climb down. You said it would have prevented 9-11.
| Quote: |
They something different they are enemy combatants. .
If they go through the justice system then they have the right to know who said what about them.
and if they are POWs then they enjoy the right not to cooperate. That ignores that they are criminals . They don't fit into either category |
Well you cannot pick and choose. Whatever they are you have to define it under the law and give them rights. Why would you refuse to do this?
| Quote: |
| The US defined enemy combatants in WW II |
Good point. Do it here also.
| Quote: |
It is a war that is why 3000 Americans died on 9-11.
|
That's your definiton of a war? That americans died...
| Quote: |
| Again the US can not have trials for all 70,000 who trained in AQ camps |
And..that is not the point. They should still have rights.
| Quote: |
Again the US can not have trials for all 70,000 who trained in AQ camps.
And doing so would reveal how the US collects information or who the sources of the information are.
|
i'm sure some sort of amendment could be made to protect this information. Also not a reason to suspend people's rights or work around it.
| Quote: |
| IT is a criminal war |
I would be inclined to agree.
| Quote: |
| POW are not criminals but Al Qaeda are criminals they are also waging a war against the US |
I'm sure POWs can be tried for war crimes.
| Quote: |
The government can lie and all governments do
but you have zero evidence the government is lying when they said that if they got Bin Laden that it would have prevented 9-11. |
I think I can question their claims, especially when that claim aligns with their agenda. I don't see why they can't prove this.
I don't know if there is a conspiracy. I am simply looking for more than the word of a very suspect admin.
| Quote: |
That means you are proposing that there is some kind of conspiracy and the government is saying that just to support the Patriot act or what they are doing against AQ even though it wasn't part of a conversation on that topic.
It is also reasonable to believe that is also the case as well.
That is a good answer and it is better than anything you have come up with. |
I actually don't understand this part. Are you agreeing with me..it would seem from the wording you are. Although I'm not claiming that a conspiracy is a reasonable explanation, just not something I would rule out.
| Quote: |
| Well even a kid could see that the US would have been better off if the US had gotten Bin Laden and Khomeni out of the picture |
When I said you talk like a kid I meant your use of phrases such as, 'whatever it takes, tie their hands, etc'. These phrases are childish and do not a good argument make.
| Quote: |
| Even a kid would not be so foolish as to say the US ought to let mideasterners who they caught in Afghanistan go free |
Who said they should go free? I'm sure if you have a case against them or they are POWs then it should be very simple to detain them. The choices are not
a detain them with no rights and torture them
b let them go free
| Quote: |
So where does that leave you? |
Not agreeing with the use of torture, and advocating rights for prisoners. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="JMO"]
| Quote: |
I don't know if I advocate it, but I don't want to tie the hands of those doing interrogating.
|
Not the same thing
| Quote: |
| t is not the same as the iron maiden I don't know if it works , but if it does then the US ought to go for it |
| Quote: |
What is your obsession with the iron maiden? That is not the only form of torture. If you are advocating use of sensory seprivation then you are advocating the use of torture. |
Example of the kind of thing that I would be against. Cutting off limbs is another thing.
Sensory depravation isn't torture or at least is not in the same catagory. I have a copy of the AQ torture manual - really I will show it to you if you are interested.
anyway you aren't any expert on what works .
http://slate.com/id/2106702/
Anyway do you have an info on sensory depratvation I mean how effective it is ?
| Quote: |
Climb down. You said it would have prevented 9-11. |
It would also have made the US far better off.
| Quote: |
Well you cannot pick and choose. Whatever they are you have to define it under the law and give them rights. Why would you refuse to do this? |
Why do I have to choose between POW and criminal when separate category is needed.
And the US has defined them as enemy combatants.
| Quote: |
Good point. Do it here also. |
The US govt already did it.
| Quote: |
That's your definiton of a war? That americans died... |
In a military action. By a group that was trying to do it again.
| Quote: |
| And..that is not the point. They should still have rights. |
Ok and the govt ought to have a system that would be able to handle them all. The US ought to be able to protect natl secuity.
They ought to have certain rights but US natl security comes first
| Quote: |
i'm sure some sort of amendment could be made to protect this information. Also not a reason to suspend people's rights or work around it. |
Well good. But it depends on the case
| Quote: |
| I would be inclined to agree. |
AQ's war.
| Quote: |
| POW are not criminals but Al Qaeda are criminals they are also waging a war against the US |
| Quote: |
I'm sure POWs can be tried for war crimes.
|
and also have laws that protect sources of info . You are getting close to the Patriot act.
Of course if the US ever has a chance and at big one like Bin Laden or Khomeni the US ought to just get them.
| Quote: |
I think I can question their claims, especially when that claim aligns with their agenda. I don't see why they can't prove this. |
The claim that the US that killing Bin Laden would have probably prevented 9-11 was made by a Clinton official that was talking about Bin Laden not advocating the Patriot act.
| Quote: |
I don't know if there is a conspiracy. I am simply looking for more than the word of a very suspect admin. |
And that was the word of someone who served when Clinton was the president.
[quote]
| Quote: |
I actually don't understand this part. Are you agreeing with me..it would seem from the wording you are. Although I'm not claiming that a conspiracy is a reasonable explanation, just not something I would rule out. |
They were talking about Bin Laden and what it would be like were he out of the picture in 1996. Not the Patriot act.
Even Sandy Burger Clintons natl security advisor wanted Bin Laden sent to Saudi where he would be killed w/o a trial or any trial.
| Quote: |
Who said they should go free? I'm sure if you have a case against them or they are POWs then it should be very simple to detain them. The choices are not |
You did .
Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:25 am Post subject: Reply with quote Report Post
Quote:
I asked
W
| Quote: |
with what?
Again the US justice system isn't set up with dealing with them.
Then let them go?
The US ought to let those mideasters they picked up in Afghanistan go? |
JMO answered
| Quote: |
Yes, if they have no charge yes. Its not illegal to be a member of the taliban in Afghanistan?
|
a detain them with no rights and torture them
b let them go free
declare them enemy combatants.
And give them certain rights but not all the rights criminals or POWS
| Quote: |
| Not agreeing with the use of torture, and advocating rights for prisoners. |
and saying the US ought to continue with a system that isn't up to dealing w/ the threat it faces.
It was the opinion of the US govt that the US could not convict Bin Laden.
It was a strain on the US system to convict 36. There are 70,000 Al Qaeda and remember there is also Hizzbollah out there.
IF you just call them POWs you say that all they are are soldiers. despite the fact that their target is always civilians.
If they all go to trial the US will have to disclose how the US got the information.
If they are POWs then they have the right to withhold information. You can't even throw an Israeli flag on them.
In those kind of cases the US ought to just take action and not worry about the criminal justice system.
You look at this as just a criminal justice problem but it is also a national security problem.
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Thu Aug 23, 2007 11:34 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant
| Quote: |
An enemy combatant has historically referred to members of the armed forces of the state with which another state is at war.[1][2]
In the 1942 Supreme Court of the United States ruling Ex Parte Quirin the court uses the terms with their historical meanings to distinguish between unlawful combatants and lawful combatants:
Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.(Emphasis added) |
| Quote: |
he use of the term "enemy combatant" by the Bush administration
In the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks the United States Congress passed a resolution known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) on September 18, 2001[3]. In this, Congress invoked the War Powers Resolution. Using this authorization granted to him by Congress, on November 13, 2001, President Bush issued a Presidential Military Order: "Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism"[4]. The administration chose to call those who it detained under the Presidential Military Orders "enemy combatants". Since then the administration has formalized its usage of enemy combatant by using the term specifically for detained alleged members and supporters of al Qaida or the Taliban. For example
Under the provisions of the Secretary of the Navy Memorandum Implementation of Combatant Status Review Tribunal Procedures for Enemy Combatant Detained at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base Cuba ... An enemy combatant has been defined as "an individual who was part of or supporting the Taliban or al Qaida forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who committed a belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy armed forces." [5]
This lead has been followed by other parts of the Government and some section of the American news media. The result of this new usage means that the term "enemy combatant" has to be read in the context of the article in which it appears as to whether it means a member of the armed forces of an enemy state, or if it means an alleged member of al Qaida held prisoner by the United States.
On June 11, 2007, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a case involving Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, a Qatar citizen held on US soil as an enemy combatant. The court found that the Military Commissions Act cannot deny al-Marri his constitutional rights to challenge his accusers. The court ruled that al-Marri must be released from military detention to either be freed or to be placed in US civilian detention where the federal government would have to charge him with crimes.[1]
Under current US law, no compensation is necessary for action taken under war powers act.[citation needed]
|
| Quote: |
ush administration officials are trying to redefine the Geneva Conventions, which bans �cruel practices,� to allow seven different procedures: 1) induced hypothermia, 2) long periods of forced standing, 3) sleep deprivation, 4) the �attention grab� (forcefully seizing the suspect�s shirt), 5) the �attention slap,� 6) the �belly slap� and 7) sound and light manipulation. As NEWSWEEK reported this week in its story The Politics of Terror, a harsh technique called �waterboarding,� which induces the sensation of drowning, would be specifically banned. |
Seems fair enough.
| Quote: |
The Guantanamo ThirteenPacking on the pounds at America's toughest prison.
By Manny Howard
Posted Thursday, May 29, 2003, at 2:52 PM ET
Illustration by Mark Alan Stamaty
Is America the only country in the world that could run a prison camp where prisoners gain weight? Between April 2002 and March 2003, the Joint Task Force returned to Afghanistan 19 of the approximately 664 men (from 42 countries) who have been held in the detention camps at the U.S. Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay. Upon leaving, it has been reported, each man received two parting gifts: a brand new copy of the Koran as well as a new pair of jeans. Not the act of generosity that it might first appear, the jeans, at least, turned out to be a necessity. During their stay (14-months on average), the detainees (nearly all of them) had gained an average of 13 pounds. |
http://www.slate.com/id/2083612/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 11:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Not the same thing
|
how?
| Quote: |
Sensory depravation isn't torture or at least is not in the same catagory. I have a copy of the AQ torture manual - really I will show it to you if you are interested.
|
Once again this is not a contest. Sensory deprivation is torture and can has serious psychological side effects.
Here is an interesting article that deals with the effectiveness of tortue in general and with the current usage in particular.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7516880/page/2/
Here are a couple of interesting points from this article.
| Quote: |
| The fact is that no �trial by ordeal,� be it physical, psychological or chemical will insure that we can: (1) actually get information from the detainee, and (2) guarantee that what ever information extracted is true, a reality with which most interrogation �experts� will agree |
| Quote: |
| If we have no guarantee of getting information, if we have no reason to believe what someone tells us under duress is true, if we are allowed to decide the limits of such stress and duress techniques on a local level without oversight, and if we�re really not sure that the detainee even has the information we want� is there justification for the use of torture, or does it just become summary punishment administered perhaps by immature, misguided and untrained individuals (at best), or by manipulative self-serving sociopaths (at worst)? |
| Quote: |
Our collective challenge is to find ways to obtain such information without adopting the same methods as those of our adversaries, and thereby losing our identity by letting our enemies make us just like them.
It appears that our ultimate question becomes how do we draw the line, save our child, win the war� and still justify wearing our white hat?
|
I'd personally say that the FBI has a long history of finding information wothout the use of torture and this work should be left to them.
| Quote: |
Why do I have to choose between POW and criminal when separate category is needed.
And the US has defined them as enemy combatants. |
Well I don't think we are as far away as we'd like to think on this. If they are enemy combatants then hold them in camps sure. Treat them ethically(don't subject them to physical, mental abuse). You can charge them with a crime but you must prove that crime. If there is sensitive information you can withhold it, but there should be a provision like showing that info to a judge or a group of judges and letting them decide if it is sensitive. I'm not sure if you can use illegal wire tapping, and you definitly should not be able to use private conversations between the prisoner and his legal help or anyone else.
| Quote: |
and also have laws that protect sources of info . You are getting close to the Patriot act.
|
Well I kinda got into this above. You can protect sources of info from the defendant maybe, but you would have to show to some kind of independent body why it is sensitive. They would decide if it is sensitive or not. That seems fair. I apologise if this is included in the act..maybe i misunderstand it. I do believe there is always a compromise.
I said let them go free, if you don't have a charge. If they are enemy combatants I'm sure you can hold them, but not indefinitly. You still need some kind of timetable to prove that these people are terrorists. You can't hold them forever without charge.
| Quote: |
| And give them certain rights but not all the rights criminals or POWS |
What rights exactly?
I'll boil this down to a compromise and see if you can agree ..maybe we aren't too far away from each other.
1 If the enemy is defined as enemy combatants you can hold them in camps under the following provisions.
a Prisoners will be treated ethically and not subjected to mental or physical abuse.
b Prisoners must be charged with a crime. Each prisoner can have his own timetable for trial. The timetable can be longer than usual because of the unique situation. Foe example holding someone for 2 years would be reasonable. You would have to pay compo if unable to prove a crime. If there is absolutely no case it should be possible to release someone earlier.
c Sensitive information can be withheld(the source of that info) but this must be determined by an independent body. They decide whether it should be disclosed or not.
d Private conversations between the prisoner an legal help cannot be used as evidence.
There would prob be some other provisions. This seems to get over your major objection, in that sensitive info would be disclosed in trials as well as giving prisoners rights.
I would be interested in your take on each of these, and would like if you could be very specific in your reasons for agreeing or disagreeing. Thanks.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 11:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant
| Quote: |
An enemy combatant has historically referred to members of the armed forces of the state with which another state is at war.[1][2]
In the 1942 Supreme Court of the United States ruling Ex Parte Quirin the court uses the terms with their historical meanings to distinguish between unlawful combatants and lawful combatants:
Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.(Emphasis added) |
| Quote: |
he use of the term "enemy combatant" by the Bush administration
In the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks the United States Congress passed a resolution known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) on September 18, 2001[3]. In this, Congress invoked the War Powers Resolution. Using this authorization granted to him by Congress, on November 13, 2001, President Bush issued a Presidential Military Order: "Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism"[4]. The administration chose to call those who it detained under the Presidential Military Orders "enemy combatants". Since then the administration has formalized its usage of enemy combatant by using the term specifically for detained alleged members and supporters of al Qaida or the Taliban. For example
Under the provisions of the Secretary of the Navy Memorandum Implementation of Combatant Status Review Tribunal Procedures for Enemy Combatant Detained at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base Cuba ... An enemy combatant has been defined as "an individual who was part of or supporting the Taliban or al Qaida forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who committed a belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy armed forces." [5]
This lead has been followed by other parts of the Government and some section of the American news media. The result of this new usage means that the term "enemy combatant" has to be read in the context of the article in which it appears as to whether it means a member of the armed forces of an enemy state, or if it means an alleged member of al Qaida held prisoner by the United States.
On June 11, 2007, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a case involving Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, a Qatar citizen held on US soil as an enemy combatant. The court found that the Military Commissions Act cannot deny al-Marri his constitutional rights to challenge his accusers. The court ruled that al-Marri must be released from military detention to either be freed or to be placed in US civilian detention where the federal government would have to charge him with crimes.[1]
Under current US law, no compensation is necessary for action taken under war powers act.[citation needed]
|
|
I think the example of world war II is a bad example as enemy not wearing uniform was not the norm. This fell outside the definition of the POW. In this war there is no enemy in uniform. So it seems unfair to compare the 2.
For the second post, I would sure the new definition of enemy combatant is ok, but you would still have to prove it. You can't just say he is a member of the Taliban or AQ. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="JMO"][
how?
Ok
I say it might be good for you to get surgery. I will let the doctor decide
You must get surgery
You must not get surgery.
| Quote: |
Once again this is not a contest. Sensory deprivation is torture and can has serious psychological side effects.
|
How effective is Sensory deprivation?
H
| Quote: |
ere is an interesting article that deals with the effectiveness of tortue in general and with the current usage in particular.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7516880/page/2/
Here are a couple of interesting points from this article.
| Quote: |
| The fact is that no �trial by ordeal,� be it physical, psychological or chemical will insure that we can: (1) actually get information from the detainee, and (2) guarantee that what ever information extracted is true, a reality with which most interrogation �experts� will agree |
| Quote: |
| If we have no guarantee of getting information, if we have no reason to believe what someone tells us under duress is true, if we are allowed to decide the limits of such stress and duress techniques on a local level without oversight, and if we�re really not sure that the detainee even has the information we want� is there justification for the use of torture, or does it just become summary punishment administered perhaps by immature, misguided and untrained individuals (at best), or by manipulative self-serving sociopaths (at worst)? |
|
Why does the Bush admin want exceptions for things like grabbing the shirt and Belly slaps?
| Quote: |
Our collective challenge is to find ways to obtain such information without adopting the same methods as those of our adversaries, and thereby losing our identity by letting our enemies make us just like them.
It appears that our ultimate question becomes how do we draw the line, save our child, win the war� and still justify wearing our white hat?
|
You make a good point. On the other hand I want to know that the US is doing everything to win.
| Quote: |
I'd personally say that the FBI has a long history of finding information wothout the use of torture and this work should be left to them. |
I would say just limit what the US can do by going along with the exceptions that the Bush adminstration asked for.
| Quote: |
Well I don't think we are as far away as we'd like to think on this. If they are enemy combatants then hold them in camps sure. Treat them ethically(don't subject them to physical, mental abuse). You can charge them with a crime but you must prove that crime. If there is sensitive information you can withhold it, but there should be a provision like showing that info to a judge or a group of judges and letting them decide if it is sensitive. I'm not sure if you can use illegal wire tapping, and you definitly should not be able to use private conversations between the prisoner and his legal help or anyone else. |
Ever heard of the case of Lynn Stewart? She used her private converations to help Abdul Rahman get information out to his followers.
I think it is ok to allow a judge to review things.
on the otherhand if the US does get real info about a terror action then the US ought to be the guy off the streets .
| Quote: |
Well I kinda got into this above. You can protect sources of info from the defendant maybe, but you would have to show to some kind of independent body why it is sensitive. They would decide if it is sensitive or not. That seems fair. I apologise if this is included in the act..maybe i misunderstand it. I do believe there is always a compromise. |
Ok well maybe I ought to take a look at the Patriot act.
| Quote: |
I said let them go free, if you don't have a charge. If they are enemy combatants I'm sure you can hold them, but not indefinitly. You still need some kind of timetable to prove that these people are terrorists. You can't hold them forever without charge. |
Keep them for the duration of the war or at least until they are no longer threat. If they are have repented truely then perhaps let them go but if they still believe in the ideals of Al Qaeda then the US can not let them go free.
| Quote: |
| What rights exactly? |
I guess we need to look at the Patriot act and the enemy combatant laws.
| Quote: |
I'll boil this down to a compromise and see if you can agree ..maybe we aren't too far away from each other.
1 If the enemy is defined as enemy combatants you can hold them in camps under the following provisions.
a Prisoners will be treated ethically and not subjected to mental or physical abuse. |
but interrogations ought to be allowed. Especially in the case of someone like the Khalid Sheik Mohamad. Maybe the US could get permission from a judge in certain cases when there is a high value target or when there is a real threat.
We are talking about a limited number of high value targets.
| Quote: |
b Prisoners must be charged with a crime. Each prisoner can have his own timetable for trial. The timetable can be longer than usual because of the unique situation. Foe example holding someone for 2 years would be reasonable. You would have to pay compo if unable to prove a crime. If there is absolutely no case it should be possible to release someone earlier. |
Hold them until the war is over. Maybe keep them as prisioners for a while if there is no charge after a certain time then switch them to POW status.
| Quote: |
c Sensitive information can be withheld(the source of that info) but this must be determined by an independent body. They decide whether it should be disclosed or no |
t.
Ok
| Quote: |
d Private conversations between the prisoner an legal help cannot be used as evidence.
|
unless the are misusing the privilege to get info out to their group.
the US can not use such evidence for criminal prosecution but can use such evidence to keep someone off the streets.
And this is only about criminal justice system this is not about whether the US can use targeted killings overseas.
I am sorry but that is the one of the best methods of fighting against AQ.
A few years ago Saudi Clerics issued a fatwa against the US forces in Iraq calling for attacks on them , then one of the Clerics sons went to fight against the US in Iraq. The cleric called the Saudi security services and begged them to get his son back to him. The Saudi government obliged and brought the clerics son back to him safe and sound.
What does this show ? It show that despite tough words from AQ supporters they can be intimidated and they do care about their lives.
IF you can make people afraid to give material support for AQ then they won't do it.
and in the case of a target like a Bin Laden or a Khomeni then the US ought to just assassinate them |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 12:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Why does the Bush admin want exceptions for things like grabbing the shirt and Belly slaps? |
because they misgudely believe these things help get info. Again from that article
| Quote: |
| The FBI, which has been critical of such physically aggressive interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, asserted in late 2003 that these tactics had failed to produce any intelligence that has assisted in the neutralization of any threat to date |
The FBI seem to be the experts in interrogation.
Torture by any means had never been shown to be effective.
| Quote: |
| On the other hand I want to know that the US is doing everything to win |
If that thig is not effective nor ethical then it is not ok. If you really wanted to do everything to win, why not just just exterminate ryone you suspect to be a member of AQ, all 70,000 of them. There has to be an ethical boundary to what you are doing.
I really don't see where you are coming from here. You physically abuse prisoners in any way and you are just as bad as them.
| Quote: |
| I would say just limit what the US can do by going along with the exceptions that the Bush adminstration asked for |
those exceptions include clear physical abuse. Not ok.
| Quote: |
on the otherhand if the US does get real info about a terror action then the US ought to be the guy off the streets .
|
Fair enough. If it is later proved to be not real info, what do you do with the guy?
| Quote: |
| Keep them for the duration of the war or at least until they are no longer threat. If they are have repented truely then perhaps let them go but if they still believe in the ideals of Al Qaeda then the US can not let them go free |
I think it needs to be more specific than the duration of the war as this war could last for a very long time. It is not about repentance. It is about proof.
| Quote: |
but interrogations ought to be allowed. Especially in the case of someone like the Khalid Sheik Mohamad. Maybe the US could get permission from a judge in certain cases when there is a high value target or when there is a real threat.
|
Fair enough. As long as he isn't tortured or physically/mentally abused.
| Quote: |
Hold them until the war is over. Maybe keep them as prisioners for a while if there is no charge after a certain time then switch them to POW status |
Well i would say there would have to be a specific timetable as there seems to be no definite way of knowing this war will be over. Its not like world war II where victory is obvious when it is achieved.
| Quote: |
unless the are misusing the privilege to get info out to their group.
the US can not use such evidence for criminal prosecution but can use such evidence to keep someone off the streets.
|
maybe this is something that could go to the independent body also. I'd say as well as an independent body, you would need a review board above them also. A system such as this would need to closely monitored to prevent abuse.
But overall I don't think we are too far away.
The only sticking point seems to be the whole torture/mental/physical abuse thing. I don't think we will ever agree on that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
