Padilla Case: Government Right or Wrong?

[GenocideAlive]

I stumbled across this article while I was reading through Yahoo! news and decided I'd post about it real quick while it was fresh in my mind. If you have problems with the thread, bug Neo. I'm breaking for a bit.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070813/ts_csm/apadillaone

While I was reading it, I experienced a conflicting sense of interest. Despite it having an obvious liberal slant for purposes of hyping up the story, I still find that it poses interesting questions.

The elephant in the room is always the best way to start. Do you think that Jose Padilla was tortured? If he was tortured, do you think that it was severe? Additionally, do you think that the government has done the right or wrong thing? Why?

I am at heart a Hawk Party member. I believe that the best interests of the State in times of conflict are defended by action, military ones. When Jose P. was apprehended, I felt it was the right thing to do. We as a nation had been attacked; 5,000 innocent people were murdered in a grisly fashion for no other reason than getting up and going to work in the morning. Watching flaming people leap out of a 40 story window certainly put the hook in me.

I felt the war in Iraq was the right thing to do. There were and are hundreds of anti-US terrorist fomenters using it as a breeding ground for further attacks. That nation's government would not cooperate, so we had to force the issue. Fine. If our positions were reversed, US citizens were going over there and setting people on fire and destroying their country's infrastructure out of sheer spite, there's no doubt about what their course of action would have been. I have no regrets there, either.

However, what we have here is of a different vein. We have a US political dissident that took foreign terrorist training and returned to the US. He did not execute the crime that had been planned, but leaving the country to attend terrorist training certainly indicates a powerful commitment. Should he have been detained? I think so. A person that attends a "How to Gun Down Students With Dualies" seminar and returns to a University certainly warrants detention.

The questions that weigh heavily on my mind: should he have been shipped to Guantanamo? Should he have been detained that long? If he experienced mild torture (nothing harmful), was that wrong?

I personally think his psychiatrists are blowing it all out of proportion. Did he have some aftereffects from being stuck in the brig? Oh yeah, you don't go into jail and come out the same, them's the breaks. Did this come from some crazy, harsh undo torture? I don't think so.

Regardless, I do not wish to see another 9/11 and I think that we as a country are going to have to accept two facts: we are being killed horribly by an opponent that strikes from within and has no clear base of operations, and our current system of laws is inadequately equipped to deal with it.

Keeping these two facts in mind, how would a government deal with a situation like Jose Padilla? If you detained him and let the current legal system "handle" him, he would have been released within hours. To do what? Set off his bomb, signal his compatriots, execute his part of the plan? You can follow him, but you can no more intervene in a coded message than you can keep him in jail.

Thoughts?

[Prozerran]

There is a fine line that the U.S. is teetering on but has yet to cross with the Padilla case. It's not that I disagree with you about protecting the interests of the nation, but the security of our nation is about more than simply improving our borders and expanding our laws. There is a deeper threat to our nation, the threat that Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations can see as the true end in sight from their Jihad: destroy the U.S. from within - which is not merely the presence of terrorist cells IN the U.S., but the complete and utter necessity of infringement on the rights of citizens in order to combat the militant threats.

And have we not followed suit? The Patriot Act? Abu Graib? This situation in Guantanamo? Look, by our own suspicions, we have shredded the constitution, the cornerstone of our democratic government. We have detained a U.S. citizen, without providing legal counsel, indefinitely. Forget whether he is or is not a terrorist, the very definition of 'enemy combatant' is vague at best. How do we pick and choose which citizens deserve the rights afforded to any U.S. citizen, the presumption of innocence before proven guilty? Follow this course and we end up with the terror of Stalin's Russia or the witch hunt for Communists in U.S. history - all we have to do is continue to broaden our laws, give our president more wartime powers, and detain more U.S. citizens at the drop of the word "terrorist" - this is the collapse that truly threatens our nation. When we lack the ability, let alone the resolve, to abide by our own laws when combating terrorism, they win.

We are a Republic, we depend on the voices of many over the acts of few to ensure that representation is equal and our government remains democratic. We teeter on the edge of tyranny, and THEY KNOW IT. That is the war they wage, and we are the ones playing right into their hand. Padilla, I don't give a shit about Padilla. He's nobody to me. Is he a terrorist? They say he is. That's all I know, and that's all I care to know.

I've always tried to follow this little rule of thumb: "It's not what happens, it's how you handle it." We are looking at two very different sides of the same coin, but from where I'm standing, it all scares the fucking shit out of me. At the very worst, the Government is taking advantage of terrorism to increase its power. At best, acts such as those by the government in this Padilla case are a Pyric Victory for the U.S. We may save lives by preventing this man from carrying out his plans, but we still lose the freedom we're afforded by our constitution from the precedent set by detaining people in this manner.

[Icarus]

Prozerran, I think you forget that this man is from the middle east, and only after being trained, came to the US. It's not as if the government is just picking people off the streets and torturing them for any possible information. The US government's morals may be questionable at times, but It has always shown it does what it does for american interests.

Infringement on comforts like personal freedoms are entirely necessary. Countless nations have crumbled simply because their government didn't centralize during wartime, and didn't tread on the comfortability of the populace in order to sustain their country.

We still live in the most powerful nation of a world, which is still a republic, and we still have our fundamental rights, our wealth, our history, etc. Has the quality of your life diminished because of this war?

Considering the history of our intervention in the middle east, I'ts obvious that our goal isn't to turn our nation into an orwellian novel. We are simply trying to preserve ourselves. This is a fight for survival. The afteraffects of what we do with these militants and their lands will dictate what our political future will be like. The article didn't give any real evidence, due to it's obvious spin, but our government, the US government mind you, doesn't torture people just for fun, IF he was tortured.

The psychologists said "we have evidence he was tortured", and that they have evidence his disorder happened after being detained, yet they failed to give any in the article. The quote from the interview with his mother only told us he didn't recieve medical attention.

What the government did with Padilla, if their accusations are founded, wholly or partially, was right. Our troops are deployed. We are in a state of war. We know they want to attack us. We know they'd kill themselves doing it. You can't take chances like that, ESPECIALLY when there's evidence of nuclear involvement.

Also, his problems appear to only be behavioral, and it didn't expound on that. It didn't say he was unable to fulfill basic actions like working or living without restraint, so it seems to me it could be just an act to get the liberals to cry about him and get him out of prison.

[Prozerran]

Prozerran, I think you forget that this man is from the middle east, and only after being trained, came to the US. It's not as if the government is just picking people off the streets and torturing them for any possible information. The US government's morals may be questionable at times, but It has always shown it does what it does for american interests.

Sorry, no. This man is an American citizen who travelled to the middle east. Yes, he is of a middle eastern appearance, and no, I'm not defending him. I'm looking at the bigger picture.

Infringement on comforts like personal freedoms are entirely necessary. Countless nations have crumbled simply because their government didn't centralize during wartime, and didn't tread on the comfortability of the populace in order to sustain their country.

Name ONE nation that has crumbled solely because its government didn't centralize during wartime. Furthermore, establish that this lack of centralization was not the result of civil war in these cases. From Russia to Rome, these problems manifest themselves from the threat of violence on a populace. Paranoia leads to further powers instilled on the government, and when the crisis is abated, these governments don't relinquish their power. This leads to civil unrest, eventually strife and revolution, and it is those times when civilizations fail to centralize and eventually crumble. Don't kid yourself.

We still live in the most powerful nation of a world, which is still a republic, and we still have our fundamental rights, our wealth, our history, etc. Has the quality of your life diminished because of this war?

On the surface, no. How will history judge these events? Will we follow the same, self-destructive path of our ancestors? When do we decide to set an example for future generations? This isn't as "open and closed" as you would like to believe. There is more here to contemplate.

Considering the history of our intervention in the middle east, it's obvious that our goal isn't to turn our nation into an orwellian novel. We are simply trying to preserve ourselves. This is a fight for survival. The afteraffects of what we do with these militants and their lands will dictate what our political future will be like. The article didn't give any real evidence, due to it's obvious spin, but our government, the US government mind you, doesn't torture people just for fun, IF he was tortured.

Bah, I don't care about Padilla. I care about how the U.S. treats this conflict as though it won't have drastic ramifications. Think about how much our government has failed to accurately predict in this conflict. I'm not saying we should just sit here and let them bomb us, but there's a right and wrong way to handle it, and history is our resource. We CAN learn how to approach these events in a new way. We DON'T pursue them any differently than they have already been treated in the past.

The psychologists said "we have evidence he was tortured", and that they have evidence his disorder happened after being detained, yet they failed to give any in the article. The quote from the interview with his mother only told us he didn't recieve medical attention.

O.k. Too bad for him, it's not really the point I'm addressing.

What the government did with Padilla, if their accusations are founded, wholly or partially, was right. Our troops are deployed. We are in a state of war. We know they want to attack us. We know they'd kill themselves doing it. You can't take chances like that, ESPECIALLY when there's evidence of nuclear involvement.

Which is the greater evil? Really, we've been led by a leesh right where these terrorist factions want us to go. I don't see how we maintain any sort of "moral high-ground" by abandoning our principles. If it prevents nuclear war, I'm all for it, but not if the price we pay is greater than the result. The ends do not justify the means.

Also, his problems appear to only be behavioral, and it didn't expound on that. It didn't say he was unable to fulfill basic actions like working or living without restraint, so it seems to me it could be just an act to get the liberals to cry about him and get him out of prison.

Again, I don't care. This isn't about Padilla, believe it or not. It's about American involvement in the middle east and our failure to maintain our resolve in protecting the very freedoms others are fighting (and dying) for. Let's not assume that just because we prevented nuclear holocaust that we won the war simply because we prevented mass destruction. I know this sounds like a contradiction in every sense, but think bigger.

[Icarus]

The majority of my post was a response to the article and the topic, only that point was directed at you.

Baltic regions during the 2nd world war, Rome, various italian principalities, sparta, etc.

How is our populace being threatened by their government?

i was referring to the dirty bomb they claimed he was trained in use of, not ballistic nuclear weapons owned by nations. That's not that much of a worry in this war.

i didn't say we gain moral high ground, but we gain security.

You're talking about the course of war, yet you only critizise, you don't really outline a model that you think is right or even a direction. In fact, your entire argument is very obscure to me.

[Prozerran]

The majority of my post was a response to the article and the topic, only that point was directed at you.

Baltic regions during the 2nd world war, Rome, various italian principalities, sparta, etc.

How is our populace being threatened by their government?

i was referring to the dirty bomb they claimed he was trained in use of, not ballistic nuclear weapons owned by nations. That's not that much of a worry in this war.

i didn't say we gain moral high ground, but we gain security.

You're talking about the course of war, yet you only critizise, you don't really outline a model that you think is right or even a direction. In fact, your entire argument is very obscure to me.

Interesting. Why is everyone so obsessed with propositions of models? That's not my job, and a solution isn't really being called for by the original post of this thread:

The questions that weigh heavily on my mind: should he have been shipped to Guantanamo? Should he have been detained that long? If he experienced mild torture (nothing harmful), was that wrong?

Was it wrong? Yes, I believe it was, and I stated my reasons for why. I don't quite understand the confusion you're experiencing.

As far as the reference to the "moral high ground", I am referring to the moral position we take against terrorism, the moral high ground. And when we take this position that democracy is a symbol of freedom but don't back that up when we detain U.S. citizens in other countries, we desecrate what soldiers are fighting and dying for. Security may be an after-product in this particular case, but where's the security when any U.S. citizen can be suspected of terrorism and be indefinitely detained without legal justification? It may not seem so bad until it happens to your friends or neighbors.

Shostakovich, a Russian composer in Stalinist-Russia during WW2, remarked in his memoirs about how he would have many sleepless nights as he heard Russian soldiers knock on doors. The following mornings, his friends and neighbors would be mysteriously gone, never heard from again. We should take it as a lesson from his experiences to tread carefully so that we never repeat these horrors in our future.

[GenocideAlive]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070816/ap_on_re_us/padilla_terror_charges

For whatever it means, the jury found him guilty of supporting terrorism.

With this in mind, does the government gain new ground for justification?

In response to the "debate" thus far, I'd have to say I'm not surprised to hear the Constitution brought up. But frankly, the Constitution nowhere addresses homegrown terrorism, so I find it to be a moot point. If the government had imprisoned thousands (or even hundreds) of American citizens, I think we'd have a point. But one guy over trying to mass murder the rest of us and there's a cry of destruction of the Constitution?

I think our forefathers probably would have had him hanged for treason, they wouldn't have bothered with a trial. This is new ground, so I don't really see how the Constitution applies directly.

[lammas]

Baltic regions during the 2nd world war

You believe that with better concentration of power baltic regions would have been able to beat soviet unions army? The same army of soviet union that some years later had destroyed germanys forces at eastern front? Baltic countries (why do you refer them as regions btw? Whos regions?) would have done this with what armies?

Rome

"simply because their government didn't centralize during wartime". Ive seen many explanations for the fall of Roman empire but this is new one for me. How much more centrall than dictatorship does it get by the way?

various italian principalities

Which + sources plz.

etc.

Do go ahead.

Anyways the way I see USA going is really quite scary to me. USA torchering or doing illegal things to (foreign)people is nothing new but the fact that USA officials are no longer any shamed of admitting doing that to its own citizen and that people are now actually having serios debate about the change of using torchering and imprisoning of randomly chosen people without trial is really scaring shit out of me. Luckily I live in Finland tho.

But frankly, the Constitution nowhere addresses homegrown terrorism, so I find it to be a moot point. If the government had imprisoned thousands (or even hundreds) of American citizens, I think we'd have a point.

You either have a state with human rights, constitution and law or then you dont. Laws cant have exceptions "just one time" because of random accusations like "he is terrorist and will kill us all!". Unless you want to live in police state of course.

I think our forefathers probably would have had him hanged for treason, they wouldn't have bothered with a trial.

Your forefathers committed genocide so maybe your not supposed to take example from them on everything?

[GenocideAlive]

Anyways the way I see USA going is really quite scary to me. USA torchering or doing illegal things to (foreign)people is nothing new but the fact that USA officials are no longer any shamed of admitting doing that to its own citizen and that people are now actually having serios debate about the change of using torchering and imprisoning of randomly chosen people without trial is really scaring shit out of me. Luckily I live in Finland tho.
Could you please explain what "torturing or doing illegal things to foreign people" is supposed to mean and how it's currently or historically exclusive to the US? Additionally, please define the phrase "random chosen", as I'm really struggling with those two words being used to describe the same noun. I'm going to give you the chance to defend these remarks as opposed to simply deleting your post and assuming your a nationalist with a fat mouth.
You either have a state with human rights, constitution and law or then you dont. Laws cant have exceptions "just one time" because of random accusations like "he is terrorist and will kill us all!". Unless you want to live in police state of course.
I like how I say "the Constitution doesn't mention homegrown terrorism and it's relatively new legal and ethical territory", and your reply is "you have a state with human rights, a constitution, and law or you don't", which is nonsensical and an absolutist sidestep of the entire issue. You finish strong with a solid random mention of a police state after a "law" remark which I had already pointed out as inadequate and dated. At no juncture during the formation of the Constitution did a US citizen have the ability to abuse their privileges as a citizen to set off a bomb that would horribly maim and kill millions. But hey, you threw out some innuendo about a police state. Zing!
Your forefathers committed genocide so maybe your not supposed to take example from them on everything?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking#Viking_expansion

Careful, there, Sven. It's not entirely clear why you're bringing up genocide in a debate about a terrorist criminal, but you might want to watch from which muckpile you dig before you start slinging.

[lammas]

Could you please explain what "torturing or doing illegal things to foreign people" is supposed to mean and how it's currently or historically exclusive to the US?

Killing is quite illegal: vietnam, kosovo, iraq (abu graib for torchering). For the cases I can think of right now where US army was directly responsible. The list of cases where USA has only armed murderers and supported death squads is a bit more impressive.

a nationalist

Yes obv Iam huge nationalist. Like my ultranationalist avatar btw?

I'm going to give you the chance to defend these remarks as opposed to simply deleting your post and assuming your a nationalist with a fat mouth.


Thank you so much for not deleting the opinions you dont like!

I like how I say "the Constitution doesn't mention homegrown terrorism and it's relatively new legal and ethical territory", and your reply is "you have a state with human rights, a constitution, and law or you don't",

Point of my reply was that you dont make exceptions in human rights and constitutional rights. If you do (even if these exceptions would be justified by saying that murdering people is new kind of crime requiring new kind of approach) they no longer exist. Its kinda matter of opinion if you find living in police state worth of the assumed safety it will provide. I would not.

It's not entirely clear why you're bringing up genocide in a debate about a terrorist criminal

Why you're bringing out the ways of punishing criminals during 18th century when we are talking about a terrorist criminal? If you had not I would have not brought about any points about genocide

Careful, there, Sven. It's not entirely clear why you're bringing up genocide in a debate about a terrorist criminal, but you might want to watch from which muckpile you dig before you start slinging.

You might want to be a bit less retarded about your pathetic tryes to make somekind of insult out vikings. I mean... not that I would mind but you look really ignorant when you try. Cause Finns never really were vikings tt btw Sven is swedish name.
(you didnt actually even read that wikipedia article? "Danish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish), Norwegian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian), and Swedish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish)"). "you might want to watch from which muckpile you dig before you start slinging." You couldnt have put it any better :) And besides I never said that we should take example from my forefathers or justify our actions by the way finns acted in the past?

[Prozerran]

Ok, this is getting very gay. Back on point.

Like I already pointed out, I don't really give a shit about the outcome of this case with Padilla. I mean, great, our justice system convicted him based on evidence I've never heard and probably never will. Even if this evidence is credible to me and Padilla was knowingly affiliated with terrorism (yes, that's right, knowingly affiliated), it doesn't change the precedent this sets for our country.

Taking this lightly is even more dangerous. Saying "We can make this exception when it comes to investigating a 'suspected enemy combatant' because it saves lives." This is noble, I'll admit, and it tends to trump whatever liberties and freedoms provided by the constitution, seemingly for our benefit.

So, lets take it 20 years into the future. We've either deluded ourselves into thinking we've won this "War on Terrorism" or we have come to our senses and realized that these regimes in the middle east are always going to exist, and diplomacy is a much better solution. Either way it turns out, what happens when we have an even more powerful government and there's a terrorist attack on U.S. soil? The ramifications of the events of today won't have an immediate impact, but they WILL have an impact.

I believe it's a mistake not to view this as a constitutional issue. If it weren't, college professors wouldn't be talking about it in Constitutional Law Classes. But even if that's just an endorsement to you, it's undeniable that this is a constitutional issue since the Patriot Act amends the government's powers to detain U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism indefinitely, and not just in times of war, from what I know of it. That means every time some government agency suspects you of any involvement in terrorism, they can come to your home, detain you, your friends, your relatives, everyone you've ever spoken to if they suspect them of involvement. Mind you, they don't need evidence, only probable cause, which can be merely an utterance of something, taken out of context.

How does that NOT scare you out of your fucking mind?

[Icarus]

IT doesn't scare me because despite the public image of some of our representatives, our government, especially our defense forces, aren't stupid. They're not going to detain you unless it'll have an impact. What does the government get out of detaining a nobody with no power? Do you have the means to carry out an attack against the united states? most likely not, so they aren't going to detain you.

You can't engage in diplomacy when the majority of the middle east has declared jihad against the western powers, and with good reason, too. And powerful first-world governments do not openly engage in terrorism, especially against other international powers in peacetime.

Even if we were to control all the governments in the middle east and each ruler was our puppet, there would still be powerful organizations engaging in terrorist violence because of the fundamentalism that is rooted there. You have to give an example of a peaceful, nonviolent democratic society before social progress can be made, and that's what we are trying to do occupying iraq.

I agree with you on the unconstitutionality of the patriot act, but I don't think the 4th amendment, later interpreted as the "Right Of Privacy", has any USE in our society. Honestly what do americans get out of it? It has virtually no impact. I don't think it should have been included in the constitution.

Given that, and the current circumstances we are in, infringement of the right to privacy is a matter of survival.

[lammas]

What does the government get out of detaining a nobody with no power? Do you have the means to carry out an attack against the united states? most likely not, so they aren't going to detain you.

Of course it is nice that you have trust for your officials but are you sure that when they are given free hands they will only go after likely terrorists? What do you do when goverment starts detaining people who have "antiamerican" opinions? How do you make sure that the leaders suddently given free hands in arresting people wont ensure his or theirs power in the future too by putting some disturbing people into jail?

btw I would love you to answer my comment on previous page about your list of the nations that have crumbled because of the lack of concentration of power.

[Protogod]

All legal matters should be a constitutional issue. Especially when it comes to matters of power in government. The government is supposed to protect the liberties granted in the constitution. Allowing the government to clearly and deliberately cross that line defeats the very purpose of our government.

Regardless of circumstance, the constitution is (or should be) our #1 priority. This "clear and present danger" mentality is dangerous, and it's been used often throughout history as a means to attain power in a not-so-temporary-after-all manner.

How can we say that we're saving people from a foreign enemy who would wish to break our American freedoms and liberties when it's our own government that is infringing upon these liberties? It is simply illogical.


"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin)

[Neo]

Of course it is nice that you have trust for your officials but are you sure that when they are given free hands they will only go after likely terrorists? What do you do when goverment starts detaining people who have "antiamerican" opinions? How do you make sure that the leaders suddently given free hands in arresting people wont ensure his or theirs power in the future too by putting some disturbing people into jail?

btw I would love you to answer my comment on previous page about your list of the nations that have crumbled because of the lack of concentration of power.

For one, we aren't fucking Nazi Germany. We still have protests all over the place, from anti-war protests, to anti-gay protests from moronic religious/faith-based groups. No one disappears in the middle of the night. No one is killed because of their beliefs (except by another fanatic idiot on occasion).

And secondly, my father asked me this awhile ago when we discussed this, since I don't entirely support it, tell me 1 person who was detained that was innocent?

Did you know that people we captured and stuck in Gitmo and who were later released where discovered right back in Iraq killing?

You people get all up in arms over Abu Ghraib and all the atrocities, and while I'm not proud of it, it is a war. It may not be a full blown out war, but these people are fanatics. These people disrupting the life of Iraqis and killing the troops over there.

I'm not saying everyone stationed in Iraq are angels, but I remember something I heard from an ex-soldier who was stationed in Iraq -- he said that he believes we should stay there are long as their are Iraqis volunteering to be trained/to fix their country/etc...

You people all act like us being over there is worse then when Saddam was in power, seriously, what the fuck?

What truly scares me though is that Cheney is going to try to push for an invasion of Iran. I can't believe no one has fucking impeached these bastards yet.

Your comments on past empires that have fallen bare no relevelancy to this discussion. This is not 800 AD where an empire can crumble because there is a drought or because hordes of invading people topple it.

The fact is that the world today is to interconnected. Global Economy would crumble if anything like a WW3 happened.

And the truth is there are people in power that shouldn't be. Dictators, despots, people you would call evil in every sense of the word.

Well excuse me, but anywhere where someone like Saddam is in power, or similarly, is not right. While it shouldn't be up to the US to go in and clean it up, after 9/11 what did they expect? You don't fucking launch a terrorist attack on the USA and not expect an extreme reaction.

We were in Afghanistan THE NEXT DAY, were we not?

They were so intent on launching a holy war on the infidels that it happened. We answered their call for violence, and now everyone is bitching about it.

-Neo

[Prozerran]

Did you know that people we captured and stuck in Gitmo and who were later released where discovered right back in Iraq killing?

You people get all up in arms over Abu Ghraib and all the atrocities, and while I'm not proud of it, it is a war. It may not be a full blown out war, but these people are fanatics. These people disrupting the life of Iraqis and killing the troops over there.

Oh, let's group ALL of them into ONE LARGE GROUP OF BADDIES. Please. You couldn't answer your father's question because none of the media (our ONLY source of information nowadays) has bothered to really cover it in great detail. Anyone with any objectivity about this will take the slanted media coverage (which has noticeably shifted BEFORE OUR EYES) into consideration before leaping to the conclusion that all these people in Gitmo and Abu Ghraib were bad Iraqis.

Also. It's a bullshit question. Did it ever occur to you that these people saw no other choice but to side with the regimes that now occupy Iraq? Where the fuck would you turn if the occupying force captured you, did "bad" things to you (tortured you, w/e), and then cut you lose? Would you go back to them, pick up a weapon, and stand on their wall to fight their war?! Hell no, you wouldn't. If anything, these occurrences at these facilities only multiplied our opposition. It did little to nothing to achieve the objective of securing Iraq. This is notably observable in the fact that, to date, we still haven't 'secured' Iraq, and soldiers are still dying. End dissertation.

I'm not saying everyone stationed in Iraq are angels, but I remember something I heard from an ex-soldier who was stationed in Iraq -- he said that he believes we should stay there as [sic] long as their are Iraqis volunteering to be trained/to fix their country/etc...

You people all act like us being over there is worse than [sic] when Saddam was in power, seriously, what the fuck?

Totally NOT how anyone here is acting. I'm completely tired of this argument, in all of its fallacious glory. It's similar to the whole, "People against this war in Iraq are unpatriotic and don't support our troops." What a crock. This is NOT about patriotism or Hussein even, it's ABOUT the TREATMENT of this situation. The issue is about using the appropriate measures when the time calls for it. As soon as military action ended in Afghanistan, we drive right into Iraq like they're asking for it. First, we had no reliable evidence of WMDs, we had no reliable intelligence, and we went into the quagmire without planning our way out of it.

Great, Saddam is out of power. Whoop die doo! Now what? You tell me. Tell us what to do now, Neo, because while we're all sitting around with our thumbs up our asses because we failed to THINK THIS WAR THROUGH, our soldiers are dying over there. Tell us how Saddam out of power was the objective that won us the war, because I don't see how it has at all. If anything, it's only rallied more Iraqis to the cause of terrorism to end the now-perceived occupation of their country. How has that secured a damn thing?!

What truly scares me though is that Cheney is going to try to push for an invasion of Iran. I can't believe no one has fucking impeached these bastards yet.

I completely agree, and I share that fear for obvious reasons.

Your comments on past empires that have fallen bare no relevelancy to this discussion. This is not 800 AD where an empire can crumble because there is a drought or because hordes of invading people topple it.

The fact is that the world today is to interconnected. Global Economy would crumble if anything like a WW3 happened.

And the truth is there are people in power that shouldn't be. Dictators, despots, people you would call evil in every sense of the word.

Well excuse me, but anywhere where someone like Saddam is in power, or similarly, is not right. While it shouldn't be up to the US to go in and clean it up, after 9/11 what did they expect? You don't fucking launch a terrorist attack on the USA and not expect an extreme reaction.

We were in Afghanistan THE NEXT DAY, were we not?

They were so intent on launching a holy war on the infidels that it happened. We answered their call for violence, and now everyone is bitching about it.

-Neo

Close enough. We were in Afghanistan the next week, but our response was swift. I think of terrorists as barbaric cowards, afraid to enter discussion with western society, because at the first rejection of their demands, they throw little temper tantrums like childish little two-year-olds over what they think they are divinely entitled to. I agree that our response in Afghanistan was appropriate, and it was successful in a lot of ways. When Iraq began, it went to shit. We lost the war on terrorism the moment we brought that war into Iraq and decided to remove its dictator. Like it or not, Saddam was a necessity for maintaining structure, and had we justly removed him from power with the support of the UN, our work in Iraq would be a reconstruction, not a fight for survival. Sorry, Neo. I don't buy your father's question or his belief that Saddam being removed from power is justified by the way the U.S. proceeded in doing it.

EDIT:

And the collapse of these civilizations, believe it or not, occurs during times of peace in most notable instances. It is in times like when Roman government collapsed that other nations decided to move in, occupy, and reorganize that government into a new order. Similarly, it is when this war ends and America enters a period of peace that the effects of the laws imposed on the constitution will begin to surface. It is at those points that we tend to forget about it, and that makes our freedom even more in question when future terrorism threatens our nation.

Make no mistake, terrorism isn't going away, no matter how much our government may think they can end it by simply killing Osama Bin Laden or others who organize these cells. Our fear of terrorism, of mass destruction, is only leading us down that path of escalation where mass destruction is inevitable, and it's exactly what terrorists are willing to see through that we are most afraid of. That is why we are no closer to achieving peace in the middle east.

[GenocideAlive]

Protogod and lammas, your entire post is a mix of an extremely poorly defined argument and the Slippery Slope. Is it not an impeachment of freedom to deny felons the right to vote? The right to bear arms? The right to hold certain jobs? To join the military? You have as of yet to point out any proven wrongful detention that has direct relationship to the War on Terror. You just keep swearing that the next step is Bush clapping everyone in irons, despite that he's going to be out of office in a fucking jiffy anyway.

At some point we as a society have to recognize that there are those whose sole purpose is anarchy or the destruction of our government. Claiming that the government is overstepping "the line" (whatever the fuck that is) to defend itself and its people is pointless alarmism. Define "the line", how the government is overstepping it, and what they should do instead if you're going to go down that road. Otherwise, you just look like yet another self-absorbed pundit with an agenda to push on the waiting mouths of the like-minded.

And I will ask that people refrain from going into depth regarding the war in Iraq. I am concerned about what is happening stateside and the ramifications of our government's actions in dealing with the legal system. I do not particularly care who believes what about Iraq. War is a fact of life, it has been for tens of thousands of years. Might makes right, in one way or another.

[Ghost_Assasain]

Might does not make right, Might gives you the ability to beat everyone into the ground until they agree with you.

This is what should be worrying everyone.
held without charge as an enemy combatant at the brig for three years and seven months

He was held without charge for three years and seven months. In Guantanimo Bay an Australian was held for Five years without charge because he was handed over for payment by people in Afgahnistan. He was held in Guantanimo Bay for five years before they charged him for supporting terrorist actions. The evidence that they had was circumstantial and obtained through coercion (sp?) which was admitted and allowed my the Military tribunal. Before he was returned to Australia he was told by both his lawyers and the prosecution lawyers to plead guilty and receive nine months in prison in Australia, or be proven inoccent and spend an indefinite amount of time in Guantanimo. This was for all intesive purposes wrongful detention due to the war on Terror, in the end he plead guilty to supplying aid to terrorists (although it was never released as to w hat this aid was) and for being armed and gaurding a tank. However to most it was clear that this guilty plea was to move him out of Guantanimo Bay.

The Pandilla case is not so different to this, he was a man held without charge in a Military facility and claims that he was totured. By the description of his mental health before and after I am inclined to believe that on some level there was torture or at the lvery least something that caused this mental degredation of the man.

He was held as an enemy combantant because he was alleged to have trained with "terrorist forces". But commited no crime in doing so, at least no law I am aware of forbids the training of people in methods of killing people. If there is one think of places like shooting ranges and gun clubs. These places teach people to shoot, its not so different. If there was a conspiracy to commit murder and kidnap, etc. he should have been held like other felons not placed into a military prison.

The existance of Guantanimo Bay and holding civilians in a military prison is evidence that the government, due to the War on Terror, has decided that the legal system is incapable of this and decided that it is incapable of dealing with terrorism in a way that the government has seen fit. Which could be either a good thing or a bad thing depending on how you look at it.

GA, while there are people out there whose goal is anarchy and destroying your government, through acts of terrorism what do you think their chances are? If Muslim terrorists are attempting to incite revolution and the creation of a muslim state in the US they are deluded. There is no threat on American freedoms for Terrorism. They have ZERO chance of invading or taking control of the US. The only threat on Freedom of the US people right now is coming from the government. And no it is not likely that it will turn into something like the Nazi state of Germany. However I would not be wholey surprised if it tended towards McArthy era style. Just as there was essentially no chance of communism taking control of the US there is no chance that the US will become even vaguely destablized at home let alone displaced to become a Muslim state.

The line the government stepped over is when it decided it had the right to choose who was an 'enemy combatant' in an unrecognised war and decide that then the Geneva convention means nothing and to finally decide that even their own citizens do not require a charge to be held nor do they require a trial within any time that can be considered reasonable given the conditions they arrested them under.

The government is not acting as it should when it can pick and choose who is an enemy combatant and who is a regular felon and treat them differently.

GA I ask you why should the government be able to choose who is an enemy combatant and then treat them differently. And yes this is a matter where the government has gone to far, to arrest someone without charge and hold them is not something that should be allowed.

[CaimDark]

I will try to resist the temptation to go into the Iraq war "debate" (though it may be difficult when there are so many "us versus them", simplistic considerations flying around, and when the creator of the topic actually mentions it in his first post), forefathers bashing, and so on. Also, I am not american, so feel free to ignore everything that I say...:D

My biggest worry about such cases is that it sets a really bad precedent. Some people here have been crying police state, and others have cried "yeah right" in response. The problem with this is that most people seem to be going for the black and white extremes, rather than try to take a deeper look at the issue.

Ever since this whole mess started, the cry of the day has been "we can do anything, this is war! We're talking about national security here. Our very survival is at stake!". The nation has gone in a state of hysteria. I have watched in surprise how quickly the americans have stepped on their supposedly beloved democracy without a second thought.

Of course, the country is not going to turn into a police state anytime soon, but just think about them for a moment. What is the justification most dictatorships use to maintain their iron rule? National security! War (real or imagined)! survival! Notice a pattern here?

In my opinion, a real democracy (and by real democracy I mean the fake, flawed democracy that the western countries have in place today. The one Churchill labeled "the worst form of government. Except for all the others that have come before it") is not sustained by the goodwill of the government. A real democracy is sustained by the commitment of a nation to respect it. What I see here is people quickly willing to make exceptions "for the greater good". But that is how a democracy is eroded. Not overnight by government decree (of course, not taking into account events such as coups or revolution), but by the "exceptions". Little by little, by the small disrespects to what one poster tellingly called the "conforts like personal freedom". He might just as well have said "conforts like 'rights'" or "conforts like democracy". For what is a democracy without "freedom"? The moment notions such as these begin to be regarded as "conforts", the armor in the democracy is already being chipped. And while that certainly doesn't mean America became a police state or that the hour of doom is at hand, the door is opened to many more "exceptions". And I worry about the rest of the world (me). The democratic convictions of the American people (not including the government. It never had any when dealing with foreign countries) somehow protect us from even greater abuses by the world's sole superpower. In fact, while it angers me greatly when I think about what the U.S does to the rest of the world (such as my country, for example), I realize that many Americans don't even know about it, or think that America has noble intentions. When Americans see their government commuting what they consider to a wrongdoing, they cry foul. But if that conviction ceases to be, god protect us. Sometimes I even find myself hoping that the Chinese catch up to the americans as soon as possible...:o

Much like the Iraq war, here too we have people defending this act based on blatantly wrong "facts", such as when 124167 blissfully ignored that Padilla is an american citizen and labeled him "this man from the middle east". Isn't democracy all about "checks and balances"? Asking hard questions? The right to dissent? What happens when there are no checks and balances left and asking hard questioned is treated like an act of treason? If the government can just hold anyone indefinitely, without charge, merely for suspicion, how can you be sure it will not use that power for political reasons? You can't. You're left only with trust in your officials, but no real tools to do anything about it if they abuse that trust. Or worse, if YOU end up being the unlucky scapegoat.

I am also baffled by how threatened Americans seem to think that they are. I find it hard to believe that a nation of 300 hundred millions and an economy and military bigger than many nations combined can feel threatened by a bunch of rag-tag, cave dwellers (to use a term fondly used by the president and the media) America-haters. I know I am going to inflame some passions by saying this, but taking a cold, hard look at the numbers, the attack on the world trade center was nothing more than a psychological blow. 3 thousand people died, out of 300 hundred millions, and two buildings were destroyed, out of a 10 trillion dollar+ economy. The unlucky Iraqis, (who had nothing to do with 9/11, btw, but America has just turned many of them into 9-11 hopefuls) by comparison, have had their already small economy and infrastructure completely and wholly destroyed, and lost hundreds of thousands of lives, out of a much smaller population. Whose survival exactly is threatened? Sure, America needs to take steps to protect itself and to prevent more American loss of life, but quite frankly, this whole "our very survival is at stake" is waaaaayyy overblown.

There is a lot more to be said on the subject, but I am sleepy and tired, so I'll end my post here. Perhaps after the hateful responses have come in (hey, I made some criticism, so obviously I am an America-hater terrorist mongrel, right!?) I will further elaborate on my argument and try to better explain my position.

BTW, I found it very fucking funny to see how everyone fucking likes to say fuck, even the fucking moderator. Some of the posts and topics I read looked like a fucking fuckfest!! :angel:

[Neo]

Oh, let's group ALL of them into ONE LARGE GROUP OF BADDIES. Please. You couldn't answer your father's question because none of the media (our ONLY source of information nowadays) has bothered to really cover it in great detail. Anyone with any objectivity about this will take the slanted media coverage (which has noticeably shifted BEFORE OUR EYES) into consideration before leaping to the conclusion that all these people in Gitmo and Abu Ghraib were bad Iraqis.

Also. It's a bullshit question. Did it ever occur to you that these people saw no other choice but to side with the regimes that now occupy Iraq? Where the fuck would you turn if the occupying force captured you, did "bad" things to you (tortured you, w/e), and then cut you lose? Would you go back to them, pick up a weapon, and stand on their wall to fight their war?! Hell no, you wouldn't. If anything, these occurrences at these facilities only multiplied our opposition. It did little to nothing to achieve the objective of securing Iraq. This is notably observable in the fact that, to date, we still haven't 'secured' Iraq, and soldiers are still dying. End dissertation.
So the question is bullshit because you can't answer it? I actually attempted to research it, but didn't find one case or mention of one person who was held in Gitmo who was completely innocent and/or originally from the US. The problem is that people scream some wierd crap about how if we let it happen, then we are next -- citizens.

Isn't that kind of a jump? To go from detaining terrorists (or possible terrorists) to imprisoning your own citizens?

And Prozerran: I was talking specifically of people detained in Gitmo. As far as I know, Gitmo is not Abu Ghraib, and as such, the people there were not tortured as they were at Abu. The point I was making is that they were, in fact, guilty. They were captured, sent to Gitmo, then released, and discovered right back over there doing the same terrorist crap they were held for in the first place.

Your arguement seems to consist of "well wouldn't you..." -- This is not a fair question. Because I can't imagine myself ever waltzing into someone else's country (As these insurgants have), causing trouble, getting arrested, released, etc... The point is that these people -- even when caught -- don't want to reform. They don't want to go back home and live a peaceful life -- they want to lead a fucking Jihad on all us infidels.

Which is sad, because now I get to argue Islam as a whole with my Grandfather, who thinks they are all fanatical terrorists.

Totally NOT how anyone here is acting. I'm completely tired of this argument, in all of its fallacious glory. It's similar to the whole, "People against this war in Iraq are unpatriotic and don't support our troops." What a crock.
You do realize I don't want us to be over there right? So touting off on some comparison of my statement to the morons who claim I'm unpatriotic for not supporting it isn't helpful.

This is NOT about patriotism or Hussein even, it's ABOUT the TREATMENT of this situation. The issue is about using the appropriate measures when the time calls for it.
So when do we use these measures? Before or after Iraqis are killed? Before or after they are raped?

As soon as military action ended in Afghanistan, we drive right into Iraq like they're asking for it. First, we had no reliable evidence of WMDs, we had no reliable intelligence, and we went into the quagmire without planning our way out of it.

The point? Personally I would've been fine with being told "we are going their to out Saddam" but instead they had to lie to us. As if we had to believe they had WMDs or some shit first.

Great, Saddam is out of power. Whoop die doo! Now what? You tell me. Tell us what to do now, Neo, because while we're all sitting around with our thumbs up our asses because we failed to THINK THIS WAR THROUGH, our soldiers are dying over there. Tell us how Saddam out of power was the objective that won us the war, because I don't see how it has at all. If anything, it's only rallied more Iraqis to the cause of terrorism to end the now-perceived occupation of their country. How has that secured a damn thing?!

Funny you are yelling at me. The point is that we went in there, we outted Saddam and we must take responsibility for the mess we caused. Is it fair that our soldiers are dieing? No. But how many Iraqi civilians have died since 9/11? How many are killed due to suicide bombers, or other insurgent attacks?

Many of the Iraqi people appear to want to move forward, to change their country for the better. Are you saying that we should just up and leave because no one in our government can step up and show us a concrete plan?

Personally, I believe that if we were over there to capture "terrorists" such as Osama and other members of Al Queda we would have. We are the most powerful-fucking-nation on earth, and they want us to believe a 6-foot arab terrorist on dialysis can't be found?

Close enough. We were in Afghanistan the next week, but our response was swift. I think of terrorists as barbaric cowards, afraid to enter discussion with western society, because at the first rejection of their demands, they throw little temper tantrums like childish little two-year-olds over what they think they are divinely entitled to. I agree that our response in Afghanistan was appropriate, and it was successful in a lot of ways. When Iraq began, it went to shit. We lost the war on terrorism the moment we brought that war into Iraq and decided to remove its dictator. Like it or not, Saddam was a necessity for maintaining structure, and had we justly removed him from power with the support of the UN, our work in Iraq would be a reconstruction, not a fight for survival. Sorry, Neo. I don't buy your father's question or his belief that Saddam being removed from power is justified by the way the U.S. proceeded in doing it.
This is where I'm losing you. We lost the war on terrorism (what a fucked up phrase) because we moved into Iraq?

Tell me, you do realize we did catch more Al Queda members, and we did at least get rid of Saddam? My Father has nothing to do with this -- only the original question about innocents being held at Gitmo.

Saddam was a necessity? That is bullshit. No matter what the state of Iraq is currently, it is far better then Saddam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein%27s_Iraq) ever was.

EDIT:And the collapse of these civilizations, believe it or not, occurs during times of peace in most notable instances. It is in times like when Roman government collapsed that other nations decided to move in, occupy, and reorganize that government into a new order. Similarly, it is when this war ends and America enters a period of peace that the effects of the laws imposed on the constitution will begin to surface. It is at those points that we tend to forget about it, and that makes our freedom even more in question when future terrorism threatens our nation.

Just so you realize, that comment was directed at the Sweedish dude, who apparently thinks all of america is evil or something.

Make no mistake, terrorism isn't going away, no matter how much our government may think they can end it by simply killing Osama Bin Laden or others who organize these cells. Our fear of terrorism, of mass destruction, is only leading us down that path of escalation where mass destruction is inevitable, and it's exactly what terrorists are willing to see through that we are most afraid of. That is why we are no closer to achieving peace in the middle east.

Many terrorists are religious fanatics. They even kill their own.

No body said terrorism wasn't going to go away, but for America, before 9/11, terrorism was something you heard about, something that happened "over there" something that was never really that big a deal here in the US.

The problem with that is that Terrorism is a very big deal. There are very rich men funding these organizations that kill innocents.

Personally I don't think going after terrorists is a bad idea, however the way we've gone about has been, for the most part, seemingly botched.

By the way, that quote of mine about the ex soldier from Iraq, I posted that as sort of an FYI: Iraqis, at the moment, want us over there. This soldier mentioned that the men who volunteered were some of the bravest he ever met -- or perhaps (imo) the most foolish. He says that it was not surprising to learn that some of them were killed for volunteering.

All we focus on is the negative in Iraq, and I'm sure there is awful lot, but you know? I would imagine that these men risking, and sacrificing thier lives for their... I don't know, families? Country? I bet they are glad we are there.

What saddens me most are the innocents caught in the middle. Insurgents who aren't even from Iraq causing trouble, recruiting naive citizens, all for the glory of Allah.

Personally I figure we should focus on ourselves first and foremost. Yeah it's nice to think we can go help some group of people on the other side of the freaking planet, but so what? Why should we bother? Don't we have special agents that could infiltrate these organizations and assassinate their leaders? Why risk so many of our soldier's lives?

To bad that will never happen. At this point I figure we should just pull out. I mean, at the least, we've shown that if you fuck with us we'll come after you. I don't envy the next President. Having to clean up after Bush will not be easy.

The question should be have Americans lost freedoms?

The patriot act and other intiatives put forward that seem to strip "us" of our rights are scary -- no doubt.

But most, if not all (?), stipulate that there must be, like, a reason -- for example, if you are communicating with a terrorist/suspected terrorist outside the country, then the FBI or whoever are allowed to wiretap your ass.

Is that really such a bad thing?

I strongly doubt they'd be wiretapping some soccer mom in nowheresville.

-Neo

[Prozerran]

So the question is bullshit because you can't answer it? I actually attempted to research it, but didn't find one case or mention of one person who was held in Gitmo who was completely innocent and/or originally from the US. The problem is that people scream some wierd crap about how if we let it happen, then we are next -- citizens.

Isn't that kind of a jump? To go from detaining terrorists (or possible terrorists) to imprisoning your own citizens?

Apparently, it's not that big of a leap, considering we've detained/imprisoned our own citizens suspected of terrorism, regardless of the outcome. Detaining and imprisoning are one in the same when you're talking about an indefinite amount of time.

And Prozerran: I was talking specifically of people detained in Gitmo. As far as I know, Gitmo is not Abu Ghraib, and as such, the people there were not tortured as they were at Abu. The point I was making is that they were, in fact, guilty. They were captured, sent to Gitmo, then released, and discovered right back over there doing the same terrorist crap they were held for in the first place.

Your arguement seems to consist of "well wouldn't you..." -- This is not a fair question. Because I can't imagine myself ever waltzing into someone else's country (As these insurgants have), causing trouble, getting arrested, released, etc... The point is that these people -- even when caught -- don't want to reform. They don't want to go back home and live a peaceful life -- they want to lead a fucking Jihad on all us infidels.

This is getting off topic, but think about it like this. If Iran invaded the U.S. and started imprisoning and torturing you, then released you, would you then go and fight Iran's war? You claimed that these people that were arrested ended up being terrorists anyway. Do you know, for a fact, that they were terrorists prior to being detained? That's all I need to know, and you need to cite your information.

You do realize I don't want us to be over there right? So touting off on some comparison of my statement to the morons who claim I'm unpatriotic for not supporting it isn't helpful.

Your position on this isn't clear. The comparison is accurate and relevant. First, Saddam Hussein is not the first leader to commit mass murder. There are several leaders guilty of mass murdering their citizens, and we haven't gone to war over it. Let's face it, it's not something we go to war over. It's a black ops kind of issue, something to be handled silently, and not in a global war.

So when do we use these measures? Before or after Iraqis are killed? Before or after they are raped?

The point? Personally I would've been fine with being told "we are going their to out Saddam" but instead they had to lie to us. As if we had to believe they had WMDs or some shit first.

I wouldn't have been "o.k." with our only reason to out Saddam. Yeah, I don't like him, I'm glad he's gone, but I don't find anything comforting about it when it's not done with the approval of the UN, which is supposed to agree on these things before we just go in like we own the world.

Funny you are yelling at me. The point is that we went in there, we outted Saddam and we must take responsibility for the mess we caused. Is it fair that our soldiers are dieing? No. But how many Iraqi civilians have died since 9/11? How many are killed due to suicide bombers, or other insurgent attacks?

Many of the Iraqi people appear to want to move forward, to change their country for the better. Are you saying that we should just up and leave because no one in our government can step up and show us a concrete plan?

Yelling at you? I can't believe you state that "Saddam had to go," and when I reply that maybe we should have kept him in just long enough to get in and out of these areas of the middle east and take out who we needed to take out, you tell me that's unacceptable? Saddam must be outed!

Personally, I believe that if we were over there to capture "terrorists" such as Osama and other members of Al Queda we would have. We are the most powerful-fucking-nation on earth, and they want us to believe a 6-foot arab terrorist on dialysis can't be found?

We don't have the resources to find him because we're too busy trying to hold Iraq. Yes, a 6-foot arab terrorist on dialysis has successfully evaded our military.

This is where I'm losing you. We lost the war on terrorism (what a fucked up phrase) because we moved into Iraq?

Tell me, you do realize we did catch more Al Queda members, and we did at least get rid of Saddam? My Father has nothing to do with this -- only the original question about innocents being held at Gitmo.

You can't bring up your father's points as support for your argument and then say he has nothing to do with this. You took us to this point, Neo, and I'm simply replying. We aren't winning any battles when we kill these terrorist leaders, because someone just promotes up in the network on the other side of the world to take their place and plan more retaliation. We aren't stopping terrorism by ignoring our laws. We aren't really even slowing it down with the actions we've taken. But sure, Saddam is no longer in power. Goodie, we can thank the high heavens that we took out Saddam in the middle of our war on terror. Whatever man...



Saddam was a necessity? That is bullshit. No matter what the state of Iraq is currently, it is far better then Saddam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein%27s_Iraq) ever was.

Saddam is not the first leader to commit atrocities against its people. It's happening in South America and Africa, but we aren't going there and taking out their leaders.


Just so you realize, that comment was directed at the Sweedish dude, who apparently thinks all of america is evil or something.

Oh ok. I don't think he's saying America is evil. He's just explaining why this detaining of suspected terrorists is so bad because it ignores our fundamental principles of "innocence before guilt", etc...

Many terrorists are religious fanatics. They even kill their own.

Heh. Ok. Do they eat their babies, too?

No body said terrorism wasn't going to go away, but for America, before 9/11, terrorism was something you heard about, something that happened "over there" something that was never really that big a deal here in the US.

The problem with that is that Terrorism is a very big deal. There are very rich men funding these organizations that kill innocents.

Personally I don't think going after terrorists is a bad idea, however the way we've gone about has been, for the most part, seemingly botched.

By the way, that quote of mine about the ex soldier from Iraq, I posted that as sort of an FYI: Iraqis, at the moment, want us over there. This soldier mentioned that the men who volunteered were some of the bravest he ever met -- or perhaps (imo) the most foolish. He says that it was not surprising to learn that some of them were killed for volunteering.

All we focus on is the negative in Iraq, and I'm sure there is awful lot, but you know? I would imagine that these men risking, and sacrificing thier lives for their... I don't know, families? Country? I bet they are glad we are there.

What saddens me most are the innocents caught in the middle. Insurgents who aren't even from Iraq causing trouble, recruiting naive citizens, all for the glory of Allah.

Personally I figure we should focus on ourselves first and foremost. Yeah it's nice to think we can go help some group of people on the other side of the freaking planet, but so what? Why should we bother? Don't we have special agents that could infiltrate these organizations and assassinate their leaders? Why risk so many of our soldier's lives?

To bad that will never happen. At this point I figure we should just pull out. I mean, at the least, we've shown that if you fuck with us we'll come after you. I don't envy the next President. Having to clean up after Bush will not be easy.

The question should be have Americans lost freedoms?

The patriot act and other intiatives put forward that seem to strip "us" of our rights are scary -- no doubt.

But most, if not all (?), stipulate that there must be, like, a reason -- for example, if you are communicating with a terrorist/suspected terrorist outside the country, then the FBI or whoever are allowed to wiretap your ass.

Is that really such a bad thing?

I strongly doubt they'd be wiretapping some soccer mom in nowheresville.

-Neo

Uhm... out of all of this long ramble of words, it stuck out that we should just pull out. I'm confused about what your real position on this is, Neo. Too bad the IR isn't a democracy.

Our dictator, GenocideAlive, has already asked that we make this discussion stay more focused on the topic of civil liberties stateside. I'm not going to continue this discussion with you here, Neo, but if you feel like making your own thread I'll reply there and we can continue if you want.

[Neo]

Apparently, it's not that big of a leap, considering we've detained/imprisoned our own citizens suspected of terrorism, regardless of the outcome. Detaining and imprisoning are one in the same when you're talking about an indefinite amount of time.
Who is it then are we detaining? Who is it that has been detained who is 100% innocent? This is the part that I have trouble with -- you, like others, get all up in arms about Gitmo, but the problem -- the disconnect -- is that it is a prison for terrorists, or suspected terrorists, who were caught in Iraq or Afghanistan or wherever.


This is getting off topic, but think about it like this. If Iran invaded the U.S. and started imprisoning and torturing you, then released you, would you then go and fight Iran's war?
The people that were imprisoned were imprisoned because they were already terrorists, or were suspected of being terrorists. We aren't talking about the average Iraqi citizen here -- we are talking about the insurgents, the real terrorist, the fanatics, the members of Al Queda and other terrorist organizations. We aren't talking about innocents.

You claimed that these people that were arrested ended up being terrorists anyway. Do you know, for a fact, that they were terrorists prior to being detained? That's all I need to know, and you need to cite your information.
I claimed that they were released from Gitmo and were found right back on the front lines in Iraq (or whatever the front lines would be considered). This is something that my father throws up in my face everytime I try to discuss Gitmo and Abu Ghraib with him.

I'm not, sure, however why you want me to cite sources for this tidbit of information -- I'm sure its touted anywhere on any of the major media news sites for America. I wont search for it since I know it's true, but if you feel the need to look it up, feel free.

The problem here is that you don't offer any proof that these detainees are truly innocent. I'm sure there will be 1 or 2 cases that popup -- we are after all Humans and are entitled mistakes. But what about the terrorist(s) we captured that prevented them from launching an attack? What about the individual we stopped from killing innocent iraqis? What about the fanatic who wants to kill the infidels?


Your position on this isn't clear. The comparison is accurate and relevant. First, Saddam Hussein is not the first leader to commit mass murder. There are several leaders guilty of mass murdering their citizens, and we haven't gone to war over it. Let's face it, it's not something we go to war over. It's a black ops kind of issue, something to be handled silently, and not in a global war.
Saddam was responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths. What was it, 80-some thousand people from that chemical gas attack or whatever? He used chemical warfare on his own people. There were numerous Human Right's violations against him, but was anyone going to stop him?

My retort was simply a backlash against you assuming I was trying to claim the same bullshit that is spewed from the brainwashed idiots that "if yer not with us, yer against us!!!!1"

I wouldn't have been "o.k." with our only reason to out Saddam. Yeah, I don't like him, I'm glad he's gone, but I don't find anything comforting about it when it's not done with the approval of the UN, which is supposed to agree on these things before we just go in like we own the world.

You have a funny way of showing it. So it was ok that Saddam killed thousands of people, had people tortured, etc... As long as it doesn't directly affect you? Yeah our reasons for going over there were wrong, but Saddam was not someone who should be left in power.

For that matter, if not directly related to 9/11 (whether or not that link will ever be established or not is irrelevant) I would assume at some point Saddam would go even further then he had.

And what does the UN have to do with anything? Don't they basically hate the US anyways? UN Sanctioned attack or not -- what the UN was doing didn't affect Saddam and Iraq at all. The time came for action.

Personally I find anyone who delights in the destruction of another human being detestable. Did Saddam not make some kind of statement about 9/11 like "the american dogs got what they deserved" -- after all the shit we go through for others, regardless of how backwards ass we can be in our own country...

Fuck, weren't even dropping food into Iraq/Afghanistan?

Yelling at you? I can't believe you state that "Saddam had to go," and when I reply that maybe we should have kept him in just long enough to get in and out of these areas of the middle east and take out who we needed to take out, you tell me that's unacceptable? Saddam must be outed!
So again, you don't care what Saddam does, who he supports, or what happens as a result, as long as it doesn't personally affect you then right? Bush and company made a lot of mistakes, and the reasoning behind Iraq is flawed, but the truth is that Iraq will -- eventually -- be far better off without that psychotic leader.

In and out of what areas? There terrorists all over the middle east, countries (or at least the leaders of certain countries) allow them safe harbor for whatever demented reasons -- money, beliefs, etc... Do you suggest we simply run into every country and area we know terrorists are and simply try to deal with only them? Do you honestly think Saddam would've allowed us access to his country while we "outted" terrorists?

We don't have the resources to find him because we're too busy trying to hold Iraq. Yes, a 6-foot arab terrorist on dialysis has successfully evaded our military.
You are deluded. "we are to busy trying to hold Iraq" -- How large is our military? Our intelligence bureaus? You are telling me that we couldn't find a man who needs dialysis who seems to mainly be located in the middle east?

Thats complete bullshit. We could find him if he was really our target. But he isn't. Because as long as Osama is still free then we still have a "reason" to be over there.

I strongly doubt our Military is wasting so much effort on Iraq that it has no time to focus on anything else.

You can't bring up your father's points as support for your argument and then say he has nothing to do with this. You took us to this point, Neo, and I'm simply replying.
You are missing the point. For fucks sake man, I mentioned him because he asked me that question when I brought up similar concerns. You then took my entire post as if it was coming from my father.

I was simply pointing out, that I was the one stating things.

We aren't winning any battles when we kill these terrorist leaders, because someone just promotes up in the network on the other side of the world to take their place and plan more retaliation. We aren't stopping terrorism by ignoring our laws.
How would you suggest we stop terrorism them? Ask them politely to stop? Sue them? What laws to terrorists follow? What rules?

We aren't really even slowing it down with the actions we've taken. But sure, Saddam is no longer in power. Goodie, we can thank the high heavens that we took out Saddam in the middle of our war on terror. Whatever man...
You are focusing on one aspect of the entire issue.

Tell me, have you researched anything about the conditions in Afghanistan since we went in to out the Taliban? Are they worse off for that or not?

Saddam is not the first leader to commit atrocities against its people. It's happening in South America and Africa, but we aren't going there and taking out their leaders.
yes, because most likely, these leaders don't have connections -- however thin -- with organizations that plan out attacks on the US. Probably because they weren't as supremely egotistical as Saddam was.

Oh ok. I don't think he's saying America is evil. He's just explaining why this detaining of suspected terrorists is so bad because it ignores our fundamental principles of "innocence before guilt", etc...
Have you heard him talk on IRC? (at least i think it's the same dude) He kept refusing anything I said was truth -- kept claiming that all americans were lazy, and it is our fault that the environment is so bad (because obviously, we dictate what countries like china do).

Heh. Ok. Do they eat their babies, too?
Oh, so it's ok that they kill other members of their religion because they believe they aren't being true to the faith? That it is alright for them to do so?

Your comment rather aggravates me -- fanatics and terrorits to kill people, and they will even kill members of their own religion -- it happens all the time in Iraq "Soldier killed in iraq, along with 41 citizens" that sort of thing.

So as long as you make some flip remark it makes my comment completely invalid?

Uhm... out of all of this long ramble of words, it stuck out that we should just pull out. I'm confused about what your real position on this is, Neo. Too bad the IR isn't a democracy.
Reading comprehension would be awesome you know.

My stance is that I don't think our reasons for being over this is right, we probably shouldn't have gone in there under the guise of WMDs. However we are there now and we can't just pull back, because if we do, someone else will simply step forward and take Saddams place. However I realize at this point that it will be to difficult for us to try to clean up the mess -- they won't stop until we are gone, and we won't leave, at least until Bush is out of office or the congress finally steps up.

You seem to think I am pro-war on terror. I am not. I am pro common sense. What would you suggest we do? Just pull out? What would that accomplish? Will the average Iraqi citizen benefit from us not being there?

Besides, I'm allowed contradictions dammit.

Our dictator, GenocideAlive, has already asked that we make this discussion stay more focused on the topic of civil liberties stateside. I'm not going to continue this discussion with you here, Neo, but if you feel like making your own thread I'll reply there and we can continue if you want.
Sadly, I do not have to follow the wishes of GA, I'm sure he would like lots of the things -- mainly, less idiots on the forums -- but this is a forum for discussion, as we are having one, albeit strangely. There is no reason for a new thread.

-Neo

[Ghost_Assasain]

Who is it then are we detaining? Who is it that has been detained who is 100% innocent? This is the part that I have trouble with -- you, like others, get all up in arms about Gitmo, but the problem -- the disconnect -- is that it is a prison for terrorists, or suspected terrorists, who were caught in Iraq or Afghanistan or wherever.

One case I know of. An Australian, David Hicks was held it Gitmo for over Five years without charge. Then when he was charged he was charged using laws that were not present at the time of his arrest. He was arrested on suspicion of being a terrorist because he fought against anti-muslim forces in Bosnia (Or somewhere like that).

A lot of these people who were 'caught' in afgahistan or Iraq where handed over by people who lived in the countries for a bounty not respending to a direct warrant, bounties for nameless people who could be suspected of being terrorists. If that alone doesn't start raising som alarm bells I don't know what else should.

The problem here is that you don't offer any proof that these detainees are truly innocent.
Here I was thinking especially in the US that it was Innocent UNTIL proven Guilty. If you wish to change the burden of proof on these people, welll there goes the entire legal system. Then to tie this back to Gitmo as above, the rules on admission of evidence in cases like this are laughable. They are allowed to admit evidence obtained through coersion, circumstantial evidence and a lot of this the defence is not allowed to view because it is of National Security.

[Neo]

One case I know of. An Australian, David Hicks was held it Gitmo for over Five years without charge. Then when he was charged he was charged using laws that were not present at the time of his arrest. He was arrested on suspicion of being a terrorist because he fought against anti-muslim forces in Bosnia (Or somewhere like that).

A lot of these people who were 'caught' in afgahistan or Iraq where handed over by people who lived in the countries for a bounty not respending to a direct warrant, bounties for nameless people who could be suspected of being terrorists. If that alone doesn't start raising som alarm bells I don't know what else should.


Here I was thinking especially in the US that it was Innocent UNTIL proven Guilty. If you wish to change the burden of proof on these people, welll there goes the entire legal system. Then to tie this back to Gitmo as above, the rules on admission of evidence in cases like this are laughable. They are allowed to admit evidence obtained through coersion, circumstantial evidence and a lot of this the defence is not allowed to view because it is of National Security.

Except for the fact that these people are caught outside and are not citizens of the US, and correct me if I am wrong, but Military-based tribunals are a lot different from the civilian courts.

We aren't talking about American courts here -- the disconnect lies in that this is our military taking action.

And obviously I know about the austrailan, and while it is maddening to know he was kept their for 5 years, it wasn't as if he was being tortured. In fact, I'm sure he had access to more then many american citizens do.

Medical assistance being one of those things.

-Neo

[Ghost_Assasain]

I wouldn't go so far as to say that there isn't torture in these places. There have been many reports of techniques such as sleep deprevation or blasting loud noise into the room constantly. These are as much forms of torture as breaking someone's kneee cap is. Our government has gone so far as to effectively gag him in regards to talking about his time in Guantanimo.

Neo when do we allow the Government to gi ve the Military parametres to act like this? They choose who is regarded as an Enemy combatant in a war were the opposition is not reall defined. Then they decide that they should be tried by a Military Tribunal when these people may or may not actually belong to any form of Military.

The problem comes when they can detain people WITHOUT charge. And then in Hicks' case they can charge you retroactively with laws. That is something that should not be tolerated.

The problem in fact is that we are not talking about American Law courts. Why is it that they should be tried by the Military and not by the Legal fraturnity (pardon the wording) a very important part of the way the system works is that the Military is seperate from teh government and the courst. just as the police are seperate from the Judiciary. When the Military is allowed to act as Arbiter of Justice outside of the common law we run into very large problems.

Even then if we choose to accept the idea of letting them be tried by Military tribunal can you justify the burden of Proof? Or the ridiculous laws that place the defense at a clear disadvantage.

I would like to know how you can justify holding these people on suspision or without charge.

As to better health care then most Americans thats not really claiming that much. But we probably shouldn't get into that.

[GenocideAlive]

I wish I could agree with you, CD. Unfortunately, you seem to be committing to the same murky cause that others are. Saying "what happens when...?" is relatively pointless when dealing with thousands of lives being on the line every minute. The military and the government are dealing with U.S. citizens who have become foreign sympathizers. They intend to harm the U.S. and its government for purposes of foreign interests. Why should the government allow this? Because you don't like the reality of warfare?

You keep claiming that we are eroding our democracy by slamming these people in jail and sidestepping the justice system. However, you completely ignore the points at which I address the inadequacy of our current laws. How will we subject an enemy terrorist cell to justice when our justice system has nothing in place to deal with said terrorists? Surely, sending the blueprints of a building along with a message that says "The Eagle has left the nest" is not in itself an act of terrorism. Sending it to foreign nationals who have access to weapons and a clear, overt history of acts of mass murder after attending their training camps is extremely suspect. Especially considering that after it has happened, a chain of events could be triggered that is irreversible.

Of course, you have no problem with "three thousand Americans" dying. They're not your countrymen and as you have hinted at, Americans already live a privileged life, so they clearly deserve much less sympathy. After all, leaping out of a building while doused with flaming jetfuel isn't a particularly cruel or grisly way of dying. We as a country should not prioritize lives of our citizens over our inadequate justice system.

According to you, instead we should cling to the word "democracy" while our people die en masse. We should allow our country to be bombed, our citizens slaughtered, and our country slowly demolished. Meanwhile, we should very carefully measure each law and idea one-by-one to ensure that each person's precious "liberties" are preserved. "Emergency action" should be outlawed in all forms, because any amount of power being granted in a moment of delicate tension is wrong and a gross error that will lead to an inevitable, irreversible police state.

Why don't you just face up to the truth? You don't like America because it's a superpower. You dislike America's power because it represents a power you do not have. It represents a power that cannot be checked. So when you believe America has done something unjust, all you can do is rail against their government and try to undermine its dignity with unsupported claims that it's well on its way to a brutal police state. Oh, and I'm really glad you're so interested in the word "fuck". In English, there are lots of curse words, we don't freak out over it.

GhostAssassin, I am relatively unmoved by Jose Padilla's mental condition. Isolation alone could cause said mental problems, there's nothing that proves he's been tortured. There's also nothing that proves he had a stable mental condition before he was imprisoned. There is only conjecture that "he seemed OK" and now he "doesn't seem OK". Well no shit, you can't be too mentally stable if you've changed your name to a Muslim one then started attending terrorist training camps to bomb your own country. There is no evidence or proof that he has been damaged as a direct result of torture. Otherwise, if he's not all there anymore, well BFD. I doubt people enter normal prisons and come out the other side mentally shiny, happy people.

I have as of yet to hear anyone suggest an alternative to simply spending years attempting to regain control of the problem with terrorism and not granting terrorists the equivalent of amnesty. And frankly, doesn't the citizen choose whether they are a "regular felon" or an "enemy combatant" by their behavior? I don't see any guys going to work as dishwashers for Arby's getting labeled as enemy combatants. I see fuckers meeting with terrorists getting canned.

A question I put to you is, why should I care if they get canned? I'm not planning on conspiring with people of questionable origin from the Middle East. I'm not planning on trying to bend an al-Queda member's ear to chat it up. I would want to get as far away from said person as possible, as I'm relatively sure they'd want to harm me or my countrymen. Why should we tolerate these people, much less protect them from government action? It doesn't make sense.

[Ghost_Assasain]

There has to be some form of balance between stopping peopl efrom blowing themselves up and from imprisoning people unjustly. Holding people for over five years without charge and then charging them over laws that suddenly act retroactively. This is something that should be adressed, creating a balance where by these people have to be proven Guilty of a crime and have a chance to defend themselves. Is there a way for people to find out IF there is torture taking place in these gaols and then use that evidence in a court of law?

To be fair I have to ask how you Justify holding people, US citizens or not, without charge in gaols.

As to Padilla from what I understood by reading the articles three independant physchologists had said that there was mental damage to the pateint and the parents and lawyer etc. saw a marked deteriation to the state he is in now. So it at the very leasts warrants an investigation into the state of the prisons they are being held in. Why should we care, because it especially a responsability of first world countries and Super powers to up hold certain human rights a person possess.

A second Question I put to you is why should I not care if possibly innocent people get canned? Regardless if I would choose to associate with them or not.

[Prozerran]

You keep claiming that we are eroding our democracy by slamming these people in jail and sidestepping the justice system. However, you completely ignore the points at which I address the inadequacy of our current laws. How will we subject an enemy terrorist cell to justice when our justice system has nothing in place to deal with said terrorists? Surely, sending the blueprints of a building along with a message that says "The Eagle has left the nest" is not in itself an act of terrorism. Sending it to foreign nationals who have access to weapons and a clear, overt history of acts of mass murder after attending their training camps is extremely suspect. Especially considering that after it has happened, a chain of events could be triggered that is irreversible.

The same inadequacy of our laws is exactly why we shouldn't be engaging terrorists in open warfare. That's why we have military intelligence, to keep our civilian liberties secured while sidestepping these "inadequacies."

Of course, you have no problem with "three thousand Americans" dying. They're not your countrymen and as you have hinted at, Americans already live a privileged life, so they clearly deserve much less sympathy. After all, leaping out of a building while doused with flaming jetfuel isn't a particularly cruel or grisly way of dying. We as a country should not prioritize lives of our citizens over our inadequate justice system.

Sharing this position with Ghost_Assasain, I have to take this little tidbit and trash you on it. This is just another fallacious, ad hominem/strawman kind of argument that is more prejudicial than relevant to the discussion. Consider yourself thoroughly trashed now. :)

According to you, instead we should cling to the word "democracy" while our people die en masse. We should allow our country to be bombed, our citizens slaughtered, and our country slowly demolished. Meanwhile, we should very carefully measure each law and idea one-by-one to ensure that each person's precious "liberties" are preserved. "Emergency action" should be outlawed in all forms, because any amount of power being granted in a moment of delicate tension is wrong and a gross error that will lead to an inevitable, irreversible police state.

Again, there is more than one solution to the problem. You seem to think the only way we can stop these attacks is by shredding the constitution, and that it's absurd to believe that doing so is wrong if it protects the masses from terrorist attacks. The problem with this is that by trying to save the masses from terrorism, the government becomes more empowered, which doesn't protect the masses at all. It's trading one threat to the masses for another when other, viable alternatives are available.

A question I put to you is, why should I care if they get canned? I'm not planning on conspiring with people of questionable origin from the Middle East. I'm not planning on trying to bend an al-Queda member's ear to chat it up. I would want to get as far away from said person as possible, as I'm relatively sure they'd want to harm me or my countrymen. Why should we tolerate these people, much less protect them from government action? It doesn't make sense.

To answer your question, we aren't trying to protect terrorists from government action. We are trying to protect ourselves from the future threat of government power and abuse of what is now being used against our enemies. When it's used against U.S. citizens, that's when it's too late to do anything about it.

[GenocideAlive]

First of all, my remarks regarding three thousand Americans dying was addressed solely to CD, whose name I actually quoted when I addressed him. Being a foreigner with several unpleasant things to say about Americans based solely on their nationality earned him that remark. There's absolutely nothing ad hominem or strawman about someone's gross bias against another country bleeding through into their arguments (which I was pointing out). I think you should reread the meanings of both the fallacies you named.

Additionally, I am completely unable to follow the logic of some of your replies. You suggest that I am declaring that we should "shred the Constitution". You in no way point out how or why the Constitution is being shredded or at what point I have said such. You are simply throwing the accusation in my face while coupling it with some offhand comment about military intelligence. Military intelligence supplants the need for up-to-date civilian laws? I'm sorry, what?

Additionally, after you get done raving about the current method being a horrid alternative, you fail to name any other alternatives. This is extremely suspect, because I have specifically requested an alternative multiple times. Why is it that out of 5 people that have made some derogatory remark about the government's method of handling (police state, fascism, etc.) have absolutely zero ideas as to what should have been done to save lives while "preserving freedoms"? I don't understand why I have to badger you repeatedly to get a basic response.

All we knew at the time was that Path A was to save lives, and basically take it to the source for terrorists with a chance of results. Path B, C, D etc. had marginal promise of safety and no real promise of results, either.

The only item of this entire scenario that I am "deathly afraid" of, is the bipartisan spinsters who erode the condition of the government by a continual destructive plot. Half of Bush's critics are die-hard Democrats whose sole aim in the entire "War on Terror" isn't to inform, make the best choices, or attempt to move ahead as a country, but rather to point out how the GOP faltered here, or blundered there to win votes in the next election. Much like how both parties bitch about the others' handling of education, but as soon as they win an election they fuck it up just as badly because they're more concerned with who-did-what-error than putting together a plan that works.

I can't really get behind a blatant power-struggle by the minority party whose entire basis for insurrection is that we'll all be imprisoned later for permitting a bunch of fucking terrorists to get imprisoned now. These aren't political dissenters, they're warmongers trying to kill us--what the hell. Next time you talk about the descent of our country into total fascism, please illustrate clearly how jailed violent criminals, on the cusp of a worldwide terrorist revolution, leads to fascism.

[Neo]

Whoever mentioned Torture and that it is all the same, you do realize that sleep deprevation and "blasting loud music" is often used? I mean, correct me if I am wrong, but both of those methods were deemed effective/OK and not overly cruel, seeing as they didn't involved actual brutality or Abu Ghraib-like cruelty.

To compare it to breaking knee-caps is a bit much. In one instance, someone isn't allowed to sleep, in another they suffer a horribly painful attack.

By that logic, incarcerating anyone is torture and shouldn't be allowed.

And I'm confused as to something, GA mentioned it to; but what exactly are you supposed to be like after entering prison for a time? There is talk that his mental state "deteriorated" or "was different" or whatever -- but isn't that the case with almost anyone who is imprisoned -- regardless of what "happens" in said prison?

Did anyone watch sicko? This man was being held at Gitmo, right? So he had more access to medical attention then many americans do -- even vets. So pardon me if I don't shed a tear over his "deteriorated mental state"

Well no shit, you can't be too mentally stable if you've changed your name to a Muslim one then started attending terrorist training camps to bomb your own country.

If this is the case, then why exactly is this an issue at all?

Is it an issue simply because there weren't any charges filed at the time?

Are you truly afraid that the average american citizen, who has no ties at all to terrorists are going to start being jailed for no reason?

It actually does come down to "you want us to protect terrorists" -- The minute someone goes to a terrorist training camp, that is when they lose all rights.

"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."

Sorry. I just don't feel for the guy. This wasnt your basic all-american guy we are talking about.

And the best defense his lawyer(s) come up with is that he was tortured because of lack of sleep? So all that he did before being imprisoned was just nothing right?

We shouldn't be worried that he went overseas, or came back with alist of Al Queda contacts, or whatever? It doesn't matter that it appears he was actually beginning to show signs of becoming a terrorist -- no we focus on how he wasn't "allowed to sleep" after the fact.

-Neo

[CaimDark]

The "you hate our country because we are powerful and free, you poor foreigner" part was entirely expected. Since 9/11, and the Iraq war in particular, any criticism by foreigners seem to be regarded as hate, and any criticism by americans as lack of patriotism. The very ironic part is that, while I am attacked as an America-hater when debating with Americans, I am attacked as an "America-lover" when discussing with my own countrymen. But that's what you get when you try to set the flames of passion aside for a moment, and try to keep things in perspective.


Why should the government allow this? Because you don't like the reality of warfare?


If you like the reality of warfare, I'd wager you have never been in one. When watching american politicians debate war, one of the more interesting patterns I see is that many of the pro-war hawks are people who have never seen war, such as President Bush, who used his family's wealth and connections to avoid risking his life in Vietnam, even as he sends thousands of Americans to risk theirs without a second thought, and many of the "weak", anti-war "doves" are precisely the people who have witnessed war firsthand, not through videogames and CNN.

You keep claiming that we are eroding our democracy by slamming these people in jail and sidestepping the justice system. However, you completely ignore the points at which I address the inadequacy of our current laws.

I don't think sidestepping the justice system and throwing democracy to the winds is the only way to deal with the threat. A democratic state cannot remain a democratic state if the laws mean nothing. You are right when you say that terrorism was never a concern when the constitution was created, and therefore it is ill-equipped to deal with such threats. I can also understand that some violations of the rule of law are bound to happen during times of crisis. But what do you do when the laws in place are innadequate to deal with something? You change them so that they become adequate. 9/11 was almost six years ago. Six years is ample time to draft and implement newer, more efficient laws. Yet there is little movement in that directions, and the government seems more interested in maintaining a state of emergency indefinitely. Doesn't that strike you as at least a little bit convenient?


Of course, you have no problem with "three thousand Americans" dying.


I have lots of problems with the loss of 3 thousand lives, wether or not they are my contrymen. However, the fact that someone's life is american doesn't make it more important than any other life. When an american loses his\her life, americans understandabily freak out. Yet they don't seem to mind when their country goes around the world killing, directly or indirectly, thousands and thousands of people. So if you are implying that I don't care when someone dies because he\she is american, you are wrong. But if you are implying that I don't share the ideia that my contrymen have a greater right to life than anyone else, you are absolutely right.


Meanwhile, we should very carefully measure each law and idea one-by-one to ensure that each person's precious "liberties" are preserved. "Emergency action" should be outlawed in all forms, because any amount of power being granted in a moment of delicate tension is wrong and a gross error that will lead to an inevitable, irreversible police state.


Again, you are going for the extreme. Of course emergency action shouldn't be outlawed. But how can emergency action still be needed after 6 years? I am not saying that the problem has gone away just because it's been six years. I am saying that 6 years is ample time to draft laws that will allow the government to deal with the new threat in a more effective manner, and without the need of sidestepping on said laws with the excuse that "this is war! to hell with laws!". Do you want to live in a "state of emergency" forever? You probably don't mind because it doesn't concern you and you are a "good american", so why should you worry, right? But you also ignored my question about the checks and balances. Okay, so the government needs sweeping powers to cope with this crisis. But if there are no laws, no checks on what the government can and cannot do, what it is obliged and not obliged to explain, how can you ensure that those powers will not be abused and\or used for personal or political gains? Just because you don't feel personally threatened, don't you care abou the people whose lives may be endangered by such abuses? Do you honestly think that, over the years, there is no possibility of such abuses? That the only way to deal with the threat is to forget about "conforts" such is rights, liberties, and laws? That new laws to cope with the threat cannot be made? It is one thing to have what you described as "emergency action". But must this "emergency action" really become the same as "permanent action"? Making a comparison to the Death Penalty, sure, most of those executed are guilty of their crimes. But even an extensive legal System, such as that of the U.S, cannot guarantee that no innocents will ever be executed, and history has recorded a few cases where a person was found innocent decades after their execution. What I am saying in this case is similar. Of course, most of those detained and stripped of their rights had connections to terrorism anyways. But that is not always the case, and if there are no safeguards in place, innocents will always be in danger. Heck, even when there ARE safeguards in place, innocents are still at risk, since no system is perfect, let alone when there is none.


You don't like America because it's a superpower. You dislike America's power because it represents a power you do not have. It represents a power that cannot be checked. So when you believe America has done something unjust, all you can do is rail against their government and try to undermine its dignity with unsupported claims that it's well on its way to a brutal police state.


That is so typical. Whenever someone says something critical of America, it's because he hates America for being a superpower. Then you wonder why you can't get enough support at the U.N. Really, don't you have anything more creative to say instead of simply lashing at critics like a cornered animal?

Despite what you may think, I don't hate your country. If I did, I wouldn't even be here. But you are right, I don't like America's superpowers, not because I don't have it, but because it cannot be checked. When a country becomes so powerful as to be able to rampage unchecked around the world, that sure is scary, and not something to like. And despite what you may think or have said earlier, I don't envy the "privileged life" americans get as a result of their superpower status. For the simple reason that that is just not true. Besides a boost to the ego, the average Amerian doesn't benefit anything from all that power. Sure, it benefits the government, it benefits big businesses, but for the working man in the street, it is irrelevant. And I am aware of the fact that America is not all wealth and glory, a fact many americans prefer to ignore. Tens of millions of americans are poor, below or bordering the poverty line. The rich are super rich, and the poor, super poor. So no, that is nothing I would envy. If you want to know the "truth", I would much rather live in America than in my own country, but among the rich countries of the world, America is the last place I'd want to live. I envy the quality of life of, say, the Canadians, Norwegians or the Dutch (in fact, Canada or Norway are the countries that I want to live in, and I'm working to get there), but I'm sure not deluded enough to believe that americans live a wonderful and privileged life because their country is a superpower.

Oh, and I'm really glad you're so interested in the word "fuck". In English, there are lots of curse words, we don't freak out over it.

Neither do I. But one would think a forum's moderator would have at least SOME repect for the very rules he is meant to uphold.

[GenocideAlive]

The "you hate our country because we are powerful and free, you poor foreigner" part was entirely expected. Since 9/11, and the Iraq war in particular, any criticism by foreigners seem to be regarded as hate...
You've refuted nothing.
If you like the reality of warfare, I'd wager you have never been in one. When watching american politicians debate war, one of the more interesting patterns I see is that...
Ad hominem, Bait-and-Switch. BTW, I'm in the process of joining the Army.
Yet there is little movement in that directions, and the government seems more interested in maintaining a state of emergency indefinitely. Doesn't that strike you as at least a little bit convenient?
Actually, the fact that Jose Padilla was removed from Guantanamo and placed under a criminal trial seems perfectly good "movement" in the proper direction. Removal or trial of the majority of Guantanamo prisoners over the past 6 years is good movement as well.
Yet they don't seem to mind when their country goes around the world killing, directly or indirectly, thousands and thousands of people.
There's a saying, in Texas: fuck with a bull, you get the horns.
Again, you are going for the extreme. Of course emergency action shouldn't be outlawed. But how can emergency action still be needed after 6 years? I am not saying that the problem has gone away just because it's been six years. I am saying that 6 years is ample time to draft laws that will allow the government to deal with the new threat in a more effective manner
Oh, you're an expert on novel legal code turnaround, now? It's kind of hard to draft new laws when the entire country is already fighting cats and dogs about the detention alone. Not to mention that Guantanamo has already released something like 60% of its prisoners. You act like they go there and never come back.
Just because you don't feel personally threatened, don't you care abou the people whose lives may be endangered by such abuses? Do you honestly think that, over the years, there is no possibility of such abuses?
I realize that part of life is accepting risk.
But you are right, I don't like America's superpowers, not because I don't have it, but because it cannot be checked. When a country becomes so powerful as to be able to rampage unchecked around the world, that sure is scary, and not something to like.
I do not fault you.

[Prozerran]

The only item of this entire scenario that I am "deathly afraid" of is the bipartisan spinsters who erode the condition of the government by a continual destructive plot. Half of Bush's critics are die-hard Democrats whose sole aim in the entire "War on Terror" isn't to inform, make the best choices, or attempt to move ahead as a country, but rather to point out how the GOP faltered here, or blundered there to win votes in the next election. Much like how both parties bitch about the others' handling of education, but as soon as they win an election they fuck it up just as badly because they're more concerned with who-did-what-error than putting together a plan that works.

I can't really get behind a blatant power-struggle by the minority party whose entire basis for insurrection is that we'll all be imprisoned later for permitting a bunch of fucking terrorists to get imprisoned now. These aren't political dissenters, they're warmongers trying to kill us--what the hell. Next time you talk about the descent of our country into total fascism, please illustrate clearly how jailed violent criminals, on the cusp of a worldwide terrorist revolution, leads to fascism.

First, it is widely debated that President Bush was appointed to office by the Judiciary rather than elected by the masses. This has not been laid to rest at all, but every republican I know says it is at rest for some reason. While in office, Bush has used his power and influence to take us from a legally sound conflict in Afghanistan to a legally questionable quagmire in Iraq. There is no question why we are there if Oil companies connected to Bush and Military companies connected to Cheney benefit significantly from this war. Everyone seems to think we're there because of terrorism - because of WMDs. Colin Powell's aide from when he was in the administration came forward about when Powell made his presentation to the UN. He said it was, "One of the most embarassing moments in his career, because we all knew (in Powell's office) that it was a tough sale, even to us." That's saying a lot about the reliability of the evidence in the matter. We only had reason to believe Iraq was an eminent threat because Bush and Cheney SAID SO, and Powell and friends followed along.

There is plenty of reason to sincerely believe the administration has abused its power to secure Oil and increase military spending. After WW2, we learned that war is GREAT for the economy. Look at the timing. Almost 10 years at a time, the U.S. has some kind of "conflict" or enemy that must be taken out. In the 60's it was communism in Vietnam, the 70's it was cuba, in the 80's it was the soviets, and in the 90's it was Hussein, who led us to this war in the 21st century to start us out with a bang. Now I'm not saying 9/11 was part of all of this, but at the very least, this war has been based on that attack alone, and as long as Osama Bin Laden is free, we are going to be at war. It's abuse of the most sacred power of our government - the power of the commander in chief, once approved by congress, to declare war and fight his own war with no checks, no balances, and no way out.

So what if we lose a few freedoms in the process? No biggie, right? It's not like we can really hold on to anything else as long as Bushie has his finger on all the buttons. Give the opponents of Bush as much grief as you want, they make a good argument, one that is evidenced by the state of Iraq. Today, another 14 American soldiers died in a helicopter crash. I don't even keep track of the death count anymore, what is it, over 3000 now or something?

[CaimDark]

You've refuted nothing.


And exactly what am I supposed to refute? That I'm not a freedom-hater sicko?


Ad hominem, Bait-and-Switch


I did adress the substance of your argument, while you seem more interested in personal attacks. Apparently the fact I am a foreigner vexes you to some extent.


BTW, I'm in the process of joining the Army


I wish you luck. And here's hoping that your "understanding" of the "reality of warfare" remains limited to the training fields and exercises.

Actually, the fact that Jose Padilla was removed from Guantanamo and placed under a criminal trial seems perfectly good "movement" in the proper direction. Removal or trial of the majority of Guantanamo prisoners over the past 6 years is good movement as well.


Perhaps. But holding people for years without charge, and with the government still being allowed to do such things, and STILL doing, I wouldn't hold my breath. If memory serves, Britain was about to draft (or drafted already, I'm not sure) a law to extend the powers of the law enforcement agencies, and one of the measures is to allow them to hold people for couple of days without charge. Do you think some kind of limits on how long someone can be detained without charge would be "good movement" for the U.S, or would it be "bad movement", putting its very survival at stake?

There's a saying, in Texas: fuck with a bull, you get the horns.


Right... as if every single murder America has commited througout its history, directly or indirectly, was a direct result of 9\11. Your texan saying would be more accurate along the lines of "The Bull doesn't care what you did, you get the horns anyway". It's so easy to look at everyone else like you are some kind of righteous paladin and they are villains, but it's harder to actually stop and try to make a critical assessement of what is going on.

Oh, you're an expert on novel legal code turnaround, now?

Do I really need to be a legal expert to believe that 6 years is enough time to draft a couple of new laws?

Not to mention that Guantanamo has already released something like 60% of its prisoners. You act like they go there and never come back.

No I don't. It's just that I picture myself in the place of those people, and I wonder how I'd feel if 5 years of my life were taken away just because I look suspicious. So what if they receive medical care, red cross visits and so on? I've seen such things said, as if they justify what's happening. I think you will at least agree that not every single detainee in Guantanamo is guilty. How would you feel if you were innocent, and spent years of your life rotting in prison? You know, I don't look like an arab, I look like... well, like a brazilian I guess... I don't even have a religion. Yet, when I went to London in january with my mother and her friend (a brazilian who has dutch citizenship), the kind officer at the airport spent 15 minutes questioning me, from my mother's city of birth to what University I study in (as if he knew any brazilian university by name...) to what I intended to do after I graduated (how that is relevant for him to decide if he will allow me to spemd our 2 days stay in London is beyond me...), merely because I had not shaved before the trip. So I can perfectly imagine someone being stripped of their rights and thrown in limbo just because he looks "wrong", was at the wrong place at the wrong time.

I realize that part of life is accepting risk.

As long as you are not at risk, right? :rolleyes: Playing the tough guy is nice and well, but that's not the point. You are saying that you don't mind giving the government the power to do whatever it wants to whoever it wants whenever it wants, and that exactly the reason why this scares me. If this kind of complacency becomes widespread, and nobody cares about rights anymore, all in the name of "national security", things will only get worse. And besides, on a secondary note, It's hard to believe (for me at least) that a mighty nation like America can be so easily intimidated into abandoning her freedoms out of fear just like that. Because it seems to me you don't