obama\'s call for suspending trials on alleged terrorists

[Avelorn]

Yeah if we can\'t fight the evil-doers why not become the evil-doers! As they torture and kill people, why shouldn\'t we torture and kill people! Cause they are all the same! That\'s the best part of us.. we\'re not the same. We\'re different! Eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth till we are all blind and toothless! Wohoo! Look at Israel and Palestine, vengeance always works out so well in the end!

All in all I think it\'s their fault! They made me do it! Any land that harbour and support terrorists is a hostile nation and our enemy! Orlando Bosch, who is that? Surely not living in America, eh? Geneva convention, pah! If we just say anyone walking about that hasn\'t got a uniform are illegal combatants we\'re fine! They still have rights, what?? Er.. that\'ll do the trick! Yes we offer hard cash for terrorists, but surely no one in this rich prosperous country will use this opportunity to denounce innocents?

and DANCE!

and yeah anyone should bloody well afford a uniform...

 

[Evil Dave]

They need no uniform. A simple armband will do.
They do however need to brandish their weapons openly, and of course stop hiding behind woman and children and/or blowing them up.

As to torture, I have no reservations about causing pain or disorienting effects that leave no permanent damage. Last I\'ve heard decapitation with a knife is pretty painful and permanent.
Most of the things I\'ve heard happening at Gitmo would be laughed at by the average frat initiate.

 

[slah]

this one made me chuckle:

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/mackay/goodbad/Combatant.html

however the \"unlawful combattant\"-discussion notwithstanding, the fact of the matter still is that the american state for 7 years have been \"detaining\"(?) several hundred people without the prospect of ever standing trial for any crimes, and without the chance of defending themselves - that´s wrong no matter how you slice it.

You can´t keep people in guantanamo because you don´t know what to do with them. Try them or set them free. Uniforms or not be damned.

 

[ScottRadom]

Originally posted by Evil Dave
They need no uniform. A simple armband will do.
They do however need to brandish their weapons openly, and of course stop hiding behind woman and children and/or blowing them up.

As to torture, I have no reservations about causing pain or disorienting effects that leave no permanent damage.
Most of the things I\'ve heard would be laughed at by the average frat initiate.

I think it\'s the moral precedent that horrifes most people. Sure the bad guys are... well... bad, but to utilize methods that would frankly scare the living $hit out of us if we saw them at the local police station is what off sets most.

Canadian soldiers did some awful things to prisoners, especially in Rwanda. When it hit the spotlight the general mood as I recall was the disgust and the perception that we had become as horrible as the people we were supposed to be fighting. Perhaps this is mostly the case with Gitmo?

Americans/Canadians and all the other historical good guys/winners have always used horrible methods to help achieve whatever victories were possible. My German Grandfather told me a story about Canadians dragging some german casualties from a hospital in WWII and leaving them out in the freezing cold throwing buckets of water on them and leaving them to die.

Good guys have always done bad stuff. It\'s just now that in this information age it\'s not likely to be kept behind closed doors for very long at all.

 

[Avelorn]

@ED: So if the terrorists have armbands there would be no Gitmo? Who are \"they?\". Put yourself in the position of an say Iraqi patriot, what would you do? There are several formations in Iraq and Afghanistan and not everyone uses the same means to their ends. Or are we talking only Al-Qaeda?

There are effective tortures that are within the Geneva convention afaik.

@ScottRadom: That\'s true. But IMO that\'s because in general there are no \"good guys\" and \"bad guys\" but there are perhaps noble and less noble causes. But you will find that the history books of different countries will not agree on that either. I like to think Sweden as a good and fair country, but still we used eugenetics and sterilized people who fell out of the norm until the 70\'s. We have in the name of the war on terrorism frozen innocent peoples assets and deported them for torture. But \"we\"? Hey, some of us have, some of us opposed. I don\'t look at the U.S. or Sweden as a whole, everything is more complex than that. I mean some do rape, steal and murder and under the right circumstances we would all be monsters. I don\'t view another fellow human as \"good\" or \"bad\" in that manner (as of yet). I like to think myself as a good guy but still I can come up with so many wrong choices and my lifestyle is tearing on planet earth etc.

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by Avelorn
@ED: So if the terrorists have armbands there would be no Gitmo?

Of course there would be a Gitmo.
However, if the prisoners were fighting a war in a civilized manner following the Geneva Conventions themselves instead of decapitating/blowing up/hiding behind innocents then there\'d be no need to question them in such a manner, would there?
It is not their dress that makes them unlawful combatants, it is their actions and targets which makes them unlawful combatants.
Striking at the enemy military makes you an opponent.
Striking at your own people and intentionally targeting innocent civilians to get one enemy soldier makes you an animal.

As to \"good\" and \"evil\", just words.
If it comes down between trampling on one person to save innocents, I simply have no problem with this.


People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
-George Orwell

 

[Avelorn]

Originally posted by Evil Dave

Originally posted by Avelorn
@ED: So if the terrorists have armbands there would be no Gitmo?

Of course there would be a Gitmo.
However, if the prisoners were fighting a war in a civilized manner following the Geneva Conventions themselves instead of decapitating/blowing up/hiding behind innocents then there\'d be no need to question them in such a manner, would there?
It is not their dress that makes them unlawful combatants, it is their actions and targets which makes them unlawful combatants.
Striking at the enemy military makes you an opponent.
Striking at your own people and intentionally targeting innocent civilians to get on enemy soldier makes you an animal.

Some do that others do not. Some are animals, others are not. Just like some rape and others do not. Most fight with guerilla tactics and/or terrorism because it works better against a military might that is far superior. Bombs do not hurt less because they are dropped from a plane. I am appalled by violence in general and terrorist attacks against civilians in particular. But I am also appalled at what collateral damage that is deemed to be justifiable. Look at Gaza, what a complete disaster! I don\'t think the methods will work to counter terrorism unless we take account for the underlying reasons for it. It is common propaganda to remove the humanity and intelligence from ones foes, common practice used in every war. But that\'s fairytales and fantasy novels, real people aren\'t like Orcs.

 

[Legacy Account]

Originally posted by Evil Dave

It is not their dress that makes them unlawful combatants, it is their actions and targets which makes them unlawful combatants.

There\'s a level of hypocrisy about what the US (and the British...) has been doing over the last 6 or 7 years and this is what has created such a fervent atmosphere of anti-Americanism across the globe.

I hope Obama can go some (a long!) way to restoring the USA\'s reputation. This would seem to be a logical first step. No point having principles if they\'re cast aside at the first sign of trouble...

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by Spacemunkie

Originally posted by Evil Dave

It is not their dress that makes them unlawful combatants, it is their actions and targets which makes them unlawful combatants.

There\'s a level of hypocrisy about what the US (and the British...) has been doing over the last 6 or 7 years and this is what has created such a fervent atmosphere of anti-Americanism across the globe.

We do not specifically take out market places. Nor do we specifically target unarmed civilians. These people are innocents and regrettably get caught in the crossfire. A fact the terrorist use to their advantage, and count on.

. No point having principles if they\'re cast aside at the first sign of trouble...

Heh, easy to say when you\'re warm, safe and snug in your home. In reality, in a fight for your survival, principles are often dropped first and very easily.
There is a point in which every man will become a monster, be thankful you\'ve never had to reach that point.

Politicians and civilians make rules for wars that they never have to fight.
Soldiers on the ground often find themselves in situations where the rules are rubbish.
It\'s one thing to die for your country. It\'s completely different to die because of some silly rules written by people who have no concept of what war truly is.

 

[Avelorn]

..and you\'ve just made a perfect argument for any wannabe terrorist. You cannot argue for values and then deem them to be so easily to throw away. If your life is a living hell like in Gaza, what do you do?

And I don\'t think you should make any rash conclusions in beforehand of what either me or Scott has gone through and which situations we have faced. There are more horrors then war out there. Frankly when I learn what some people have gone through I am surprised that there are not more nutters around.

 

[nosirrahkcaz]

The U.S. has and will for the foreseeable future be in a precarious position when dealing with the affairs in the middle east. Someone one here mentioned it earlier that we\'re kinda damn if we do damned if we don\'t in the region. Its quite unfortunate that some extremist like A.Q. ruin it for everyone. As far as Gitmo what was being thrown out there as torture was rather weak in my opinion as it was all tactics used on U.S. troops going through SERE training, which I am a graduate of myself. The prisoners themselves aren\'t going anywhere fast, their just going to figure out a way to try them in a \"fairer\" way. Honestly its going to be hard to get evidence one way or another as you cant really set up a crime scene investigation in Tora Bora. Obama has been dealt a tough hand. I believe he will change things for the better but I think people are building the expectations up to a very unreasonable level.

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by Avelorn
..and you\'ve just made a perfect argument for any wannabe terrorist. You cannot argue for values and then deem them to be so easily to throw away. If your life is a living hell like in Gaza, what do you do?

Note I said for survival. In Gaza? You leave, or you fight Hamas, whatever you do, do not attack Israel.
Even if you don\'t like them, you learn to live with them or they will kill you. If the survival of your culture means nothing, then by all means allow Hamas to keep attacking them.

And I don\'t think you should make any rash conclusions in beforehand of what either me or Scott has gone through and which situations we have faced. There are more horrors then war out there. Frankly when I learn what some people have gone through I am surprised that there are not more nutters around.

Well, through my keen observation skills, I can pretty much deduce that neither of you have been through a war.
Things more horrible than war?
Please name me three that you have personally witnessed.
And how do you know if you\'ve never been?

 

[ScottRadom]

Well, things more horrible than war....

the potential loss of life of one of your children. It sucked a TON (Everything turned out OK, but it was truly surreal for a while when we held our breath). War sucks beacuse it\'s hell and it\'s raining down around you, it\'s an event shared by all. The personal experience I had was awful partly because you look around and people are laughing, carrying on, acting normal because their lifes are great, while yours is in this crisis that can\'t be compared, and it\'s so damn personal it\'s hard to not look at parents with their kids and think \"Why not them? Why us?\".

I don\'t want to lash out here, but I am just saying that the perception of the thing is just as important as the thing itself.

I believe everyone wants to look at themselves as the good guys, and by default the other guys as bad. Easy ways to do that are to point at behaviours that are clearly (By my moral standpoint) bad. Torture ranks up there. Here in the west I feel we like to distance ourselves from the \"bad\" guys by looking at the behaviour sometimes exhibitted like public beheadings and torture etc.

Shutting down a facility that helps connect \"us\" and \"them\" through the darkest of our human tendencies will likely brighten the internal and global perception of the American role in our global community.

Is this detention facility helping get information or detter acts of violence against Americans? Don\'t know. I\'ve only ever heard strong attacks against the activites and results from the facility but I am not naive enough to believe that is 100% the case.

It seems this is a classic \"end justifies the means\" and I am not willing to adopt that philosophy. I am results oriented for sure, and I always believe a plan of imperfect action is better than no action but I don\'t know that this facility and the base ideology of it\'s use is a positive action.

On this topic I am uninformed, and mostly uninterested. Doesn\'t mean I don\'t like to debate so everyone can take or leave anything I say, and I gaurantee ANYTHING I pass of as fact is pure lie.

I do appreciate the passion in this though!

 

[DrEvilmonki]

Originally posted by Evil Dave
Note I said for survival. In Gaza? You leave, or you fight Hamas,

They can\'t leave Gaza. Israel prevents them from doing so.

How do they fight Hamas who has the weapons and infrastructure. In fact many Palestinians DID fight Hamas and where is Fatah now - oh that\'s right, they lost.

Another thing to remember about Gaza is that it\'s inhabitants are in the majority under 25 and have lived in poverty and terror their entire lives. To expect them to suddenly be adults with perfect clarity of thought and with an accurate grasp of the political situation they find themselves in is pretty optimistic.

 

[slah]

Originally posted by Avelorn
..and you\'ve just made a perfect argument for any wannabe terrorist. You cannot argue for values and then deem them to be so easily to throw away.

You hit the nail right on the head. I always see a lot of people defend the wars in afghanistan and Iraq and things like guantanamo and rendition, because \"we are good and they are evil\" - \"we help people and they opress\", and in the next sentence they throw away peoples civil liberties (I´m sure the Taleban has the exact same rhetoric by the way) and saying things like \"collateral damage\" and \"acceptable damage\" is unavoidable.

If you go to war with the mindset that killing innocents is ok - because it´s unavoidable - then we really aren´t better than those who target them specifically.

We get to \"accidentally\" kill and hurt and torture people because we are the good guys, but the other guys are evil because they kill hurt and torture people?

That´s mindnumbingly hypocrytical.

 

[supervike]

If one\'s values are so easily tossed aside when the going gets tough, are they truly values?

What should always set the \'good guys\' apart from the \'bad guys\' is that while they both want to win, the \'good guys\' should do so while not sacrificing those morals and values that make them the good guys. If they do otherwise, they are just bad guys in a white hat.

 

[Legacy Account]

As I\'ve said before, one person\'s terrorist is another person\'s freedom fighter.

And in case anyone forgot, Iraq isn\'t a \'terrorist\'. You don\'t combat terrorists by invading countries. That\'s how you create them. Same with Israel and Gaza. (I still find it unbelievable that the Israelis could build and enforce a ghetto after what the Jewish went through in WWII....)

Thankfully the US seem to have elected someone who understands this logic.

 

[Avelorn]

@ED: You misread me, I didn\'t say more horrifying, just that there are other horrors than war.

Well we\'ll see what this new administration will do.

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by supervike
If one\'s values are so easily tossed aside when the going gets tough, are they truly values?

What should always set the \'good guys\' apart from the \'bad guys\' is that while they both want to win, the \'good guys\' should do so while not sacrificing those morals and values that make them the good guys. If they do otherwise, they are just bad guys in a white hat.

Ok, Vike, hypothetical situation:
Somehow you get transported back in time and you end up in Germany and you have the chance to kill Hitler before he comes to power.
Do you commit murder, which I am sure is against your \"principles\" or do you let your \"principles\" condemn millions to death?

Another example: I know you\'re a big union guy, but say your job locks you out, you\'re about to lose your house, your kids haven\'t had a meal in three days. There is a job, however, you have to cross a picket line. You have to be a scab.
Do you take the job, or do you let your kids starve because of principle? Would you steal to feed them?

The simple truth is since the fall of the Soviet Union there are some very, very nasty weapons on the market, bio, chemical possibly nuclear. Every terrorist attack has the very real potential to be 100X worse than 9/11.
So for me it\'s not a question of morals or principles, it\'s a question of is one mans or even a group of mens civil liberties worth more than the lives of potentially hundreds of thousands or more? A simple cost vs. benefit analysis.

\"Principles\" and \"Morals\" are man made luxuries, and more often than not change due to circumstances. Mere codes of civility in civilized circumstances. Most of our morality focuses on personal behavior, but that changes once other peoples lives are at stake because of your decisions. Most of us just haven\'t been in a situation where others lives are dependent on our actions and decisions.

There are things I normally would not do, however, I do know myself well enough to realize that if pushed the right way, for the right reasons, there isn\'t much I wouldn\'t do if I deem it necessary. If the circumstances required it, I\'d make Jack Bauer squeamish.

I don\'t believe our opponents are \"evil\". I don\'t believe we are \"good\".
I do believe, however, they are dangerous, and have exhibited a willingness to kill hundreds/thousands of innocents for their cause, and because of that willingness I believe we have no choice but to do whatever is necessary to prevent this. I also believe that people\'s lives are more important than intangible ideals.
Therefore, I will always choose innocent peoples lives over a terrorists (foreign or domestic) man-made, intangible civil rights that they themselves do not respect. Whether it be for our people or their own.

edit: Honestly, if promising the terrorist ice cream worked, we\'d be doing that instead.
Unfortunately, it doesn\'t.

edit edit: Another side of Gitmo is that for some reason or another quite a few of the \"innocent\" men there are not wanted back in their home countries.
What do we do with them? Are any of you comfortable with them moving into your neighborhood?

 

[Dragonsreach]

Originally posted by Evil Dave
So for me it\'s not a question of morals or principles, it\'s a question of is one mans or even a group of mens civil liberties worth more than the lives of potentially hundreds of thousands or more? A simple cost vs. benefit analysis.

And yet You have made such strenuous arguments here against the potential removal of [/b]Your[/b] rights, should the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States be altered.
So by that stance you would demand the protection of your own rights and yet willing be complicit in the denial of others rights, such as to open and free judical trials.

Is that a Double Standard?