Just Lame
That's wordplay, to oppose torture does not mean one supports or approves of terrorism.Originally Posted by j2k4
Consider that perhaps the price to countenance terrorism is too high for civilized men.
I don't think anyone would say that we should not use every legitimate method we have to fight terrorists, that would be mad talk.
en(un)lightened
True enough.That's wordplay, to oppose torture does not mean one supports or approves of terrorism.
Consider that perhaps the price to countenance terrorism is too high for civilized men.
I don't think anyone would say that we should not use every legitimate method we have to fight terrorists, that would be mad talk.
Do we expect terrorists to be impressed with our excellent treatment of them?
I would imagine the idea that we are "bound" by agreements they themselves do not ascribe to has it's appeal; in fact, it serves their compulsion rather well, I think.
After all, it's not as if they've a mental impairment which impedes their understanding of such policy...
BTW-why is the idea of military tribunal so objectionable?
We could have gotten much more of this stuff done properly long ago.
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
Frog Shoulder
BT Rep: +4
True enough.
Do we expect terrorists to be impressed with our excellent treatment of them?
I would imagine the idea that we are "bound" by agreements they themselves do not ascribe to has it's appeal; in fact, it serves their compulsion rather well, I think.
After all, it's not as if they've a mental impairment which impedes their understanding of such policy...
BTW-why is the idea of military tribunal so objectionable?
We could have gotten much more of this stuff done properly long ago.
Why would terrorists be the subject of military tribunals. Terrorism has nothing to do with military actions, it is murdering people.
Oh and it's us who decide on our standards of behaviour, us who decide what is civilized and what is barbaric, not the terrorists.
"there is nothing misogynistic about anything, stop trippin.
i type this way because im black and from nyc chill son "
en(un)lightened
True again.
Why would terrorists be the subject of military tribunals. Terrorism has nothing to do with military actions, it is murdering people.
Why should they have access to our civilian courts?
Once again, we have a need for a unique solution to a unique problem.
If they want to be special, why don't we create a special prosecutorial process?
You might think twice before you point to your I.C.C., BTW.
Oh and it's us who decide on our standards of behaviour, us who decide what is civilized and what is barbaric, not the terrorists.
What, then, if we decide the terrorists are barbaric?
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
Frog Shoulder
BT Rep: +4
True again.
What, then, if we decide the terrorists are barbaric?
They are, however they are also innocent until proven guilty. As such they are entitled to the benefits of due process. In the same way as other mass murderers, serial rapists, paedophiles etc are.
They are entitled to be tried in a civilian court because other suspected murderers are entitled to the same.
What the feck does the I.C.C. have to do with anything.
We in the UK have a history of treating suspected terrorists differently from others. We interned them without trial and tortured them for intelligence. Do you know how much good it does, fuck all. In fact it galvanizes their supporters. It causes more trouble, by making living martyrs. It ruins people lives and leads to imprisonment of the innocent, often caused by incorrect intelligence.
"there is nothing misogynistic about anything, stop trippin.
i type this way because im black and from nyc chill son "
en(un)lightened
Yes, we've been through all that, and feel similarly.
They are, however they are also innocent until proven guilty. As such they are entitled to the benefits of due process. In the same way as other mass murderers, serial rapists, paedophiles etc are.
They are entitled to be tried in a civilian court because other suspected murderers are entitled to the same.
What the feck does the I.C.C. have to do with anything.
We in the UK have a history of treating suspected terrorists differently from others. We interned them without trial and tortured them for intelligence. Do you know how much good it does, fuck all. In fact it galvanizes their supporters. It causes more trouble, by making living martyrs. It ruins people lives and leads to imprisonment of the innocent, often caused by incorrect intelligence.
I guess I'd have questions (as would the international community, I'm quite sure) as to their ultimate disposition:
Death penalty applies?
Where to detain them?
I wouldn't be wild about entertaining the idea of the international community interjecting itself into any aspect of the process apart from requiring humane treatment.
After all, they are our courts, yes?
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
there is no god
Either way has pros and cons and valid arguements.
If a foreigner comits a crime on US soil he is tried in a US court. If one considers a terrorist a murderer and not a combatant then there is a case to try him in a civil court. If however he is considered a combatant then there is a case for military court.
On the last.... If a military court is the proper method then could it not be argued that a terrorist is subject to the geneva convention ?
Of course there is a case with AQ that it is not a country but a "virtual army" and this is where i feel the splitting of hairs is being made to excuse torture as though perhaps not being moral, at least not illegal to practice on "these people"
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
Just Lame
Yes, we've been through all that, and feel similarly.
I guess I'd have questions (as would the international community, I'm quite sure) as to their ultimate disposition:
Death penalty applies?
Where to detain them?
I wouldn't be wild about entertaining the idea of the international community interjecting itself into any aspect of the process apart from requiring humane treatment.
After all, they are our courts, yes?
Indeed they are your courts and the international community has no right to interject unless you want them to. Like for example signing up to an international treaty against torture. Oh wait ....
One assumes that you chaps won't interfere with other people's systems, quid pro quo and so forth.
en(un)lightened
Indeed they are your courts and the international community has no right to interject unless you want them to. Like for example signing up to an international treaty against torture. Oh wait ....
One assumes that you chaps won't interfere with other people's systems, quid pro quo and so forth.
One does assume, doesn't one?
Do you agree with what is going on in Iraq vis a vis Saddam's trial?
BTW-
I hope you have not defaulted to a "guilty" verdict on the torture question?
Ambiguous langauge is no sin in the absence of actual, proven torture.
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
Fat Secret Agent
The Lords ruled that we would not assume that torture had been used, just because someone claimed it had. However such claims would be investigated. Similar situation to claims of Police brutality, methinks. It really is all about due process and rights.
One does assume, doesn't one?
Do you agree with what is going on in Iraq vis a vis Saddam's trial?
BTW-
I hope you have not defaulted to a "guilty" verdict on the torture question?
Ambiguous langauge is no sin in the absence of actual, proven torture.
"Do you agree with what is going on in Iraq vis a vis Saddam's trial?" - in what way, the question is a tad sweeping, to my naive eye.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks