• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Are you surprised with the polls about waterboarding the detroit terrorist??

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
ProfJohn said:
What is really disgusting is the fact that they placed him into the civilian criminal justice system and gave him a lawyer who most likely told him to stop talking.
Click to expand...

Yeah man, the disgusting thing is that someone is given a fair trial. I agree.

What's really disgusting is people like you. In the name of defending America you attempt to destroy everything that it stands for. The real enemy isn't retards on planes trying to light their underwear on fire.

The real enemy are people like you. Luckily (at least so far) members of our government haven't been willing to destroy the foundations of America to please the mob... and let there be no mistake, you represent the mob.

Disgusting indeed.
 
A vote for torture is a vote rejecting the concept of the U.S. being considered a civilized society.

Can anyone cite a religious or other high moral authority that advocates torture?

Those who favor torture can STFU about human rights abuses anywhere else too.
 
jackschmittusa said:
A vote for torture is a vote rejecting the concept of the U.S. being considered a civilized society.

Can anyone cite a religious or other high moral authority that advocates torture?

Those who favor torture can STFU about human rights abuses anywhere else too.
Click to expand...

Water boarding IS NOT torture.
At no point are the recipients of water boarding in any danger to loss of life or injury.
The water boarding techniques used today differ greatly from those used by the Japanese during WWII.
 
I aclnowledge there are different situations for war and crime. The issue is the rights miguided splitting of the two.

I understand in WWII, we were not to send each captured axis soldier back to the US for criminal trial. We had special POW arrangements, which were imperfect and made less imperfect by Geneva.

But the right seems to think that because this is a 'new war', that every person caught in it ins't a human being, that morality is suspended and they are put in a 'twilight zone' nightmare of unlimited torture.

Wrong.

What we need are new pocesses that reflect the best, not the worst failings, of our values.

Justice isn't a bad thing. Fairness at a trial isn't a bad thing. Morality banning torture isn't a bad thing.

We need to protect against the next Bush who twist every word towards torture and make a system that meets the need for both values and effectiveness as we did with Geneva.

We seem less motivated because that was more of an equal agreement protecting our own soldiers as well. It doesn't give us carte blanche to do evil as some here advocate.

There are places the criminal justice system is fine, even in the 'war'. THe first WTC bombing was arguably just as much a part of the 'war' as 9/11, yet we treated is as a crime, investigated, prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned. It worked fine. We can also take foreign policy efforts when called for because it's part of a 'war'.

The fact this isn't a WWII where soldiers are released in a year or two to their old country doesn't justify the creation of right-free indefinite indention without evidence, and worse.

So ifar that's the only alternative really on the table. Come up with something better, as they did at Geneva, not subject to Bush perversion.
 
Craig234 said:
I understand in WWII, we were not to send each captured axis soldier back to the US for criminal trial. We had special POW arrangements, which were imperfect and made less imperfect by Geneva.
Click to expand...

The Geneva convention resulted in an agreement between nations. The war on terrorism is not a war against a nation and therefore the result of the Geneva convention is not applicable.
 
Patranus said:
Water boarding IS NOT torture.
At no point are the recipients of water boarding in any danger to loss of life or injury.
The water boarding techniques used today differ greatly from those used by the Japanese during WWII.
Click to expand...

No they don't, and waterboarding has been recognized as torture by a great number of nations throughout history across time periods, across cultures, and across continents.

You are allowing extreme political partisanship to distort objective reality and you know it. If you aren't being paid to promote extreme right wing talking points on this board, take a moment and think about it, to a reasonable person the facts are irrefutable.
 
Patranus

Putting an empty gun to your head and pulling the trigger doesn't endanger your life either. I don't suppose a cattle prod to your nuts does either. How about a scenario like the one in Orwell's 1984. If you never quite open the door enough for the rat to get through and eat your face? Need I go on? Find a better definition for torture than the one Bush made up.
 
jackschmittusa said:
Patranus

Putting an empty gun to your head and pulling the trigger doesn't endanger your life either. I don't suppose a cattle prod to your nuts does either. How about a scenario like the one in Orwell's 1984. If you never quite open the door enough for the rat to get through and eat your face? Need I go on? Find a better definition for torture than the one Bush made up.
Click to expand...

All torture according to USC and punishable by 20 years. (this is law was well before Bush)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002340----000-.html

I'd take 20 years though to save a plane load of Americans.
 
Holder: No, it’s not torture in the legal sense because you’re not doing it with the intention of harming these people physically or mentally, all we’re trying to do is train them —

Lungren: So it’s the question of intent?

Holder: Intent is a huge part.
Click to expand...

Even Obama's hand pick AG agrees it isn't torture.
 
Patranus said:
Even Obama's hand pick AG agrees it isn't torture.
Click to expand...

Way to be dishonest by using cherry picked quotes to misrepresent his position. To quote Eric Holder's actual opinion on waterboarding:

“If you look at the history of the use of that technique, ” Holder replied, “we prosecuted our own soldiers for using it in Vietnam. … Waterboarding is torture.”
Click to expand...
 
paperfist said:
If you are an American and commit a crime in Iran which justice system will Iran use to try you?
Click to expand...

Duh, Iranian.


So why should someone who's foreign to this country and who attempted to kill 300 people be afforded justice by our system? If they don't want to be subject to torture then they should not be willing to torture the lives of 300 people and all of their families.
Click to expand...

Gee, I don't know, maybe because he was in the US, and committed a US federal crime? Is that really that hard to figure out?

Once *anyone* enters the US, he gets the full treatment of the US justice system, just like you. Did you take basic government classes in high school?

Can we torture suspected serial killers too? How about rapists? How about you?
 
The History channel has a show running this week that discusses a hypothetical end of the world scenario where the govt collapses. They bring in Pyschologists ect to discuss what human behaviors will occur in such an event. One of them brought up a great point we view our ancestors being so brutal. And that we think our moral superiority will carry us through such events. We think that way because right now we are rich and comfortable. Take that away and we will become as barbaric as our ancestors. I dont see this as any different. When given a choice between making some scumbag suffer through waterboarding and losing potentially valueable information or providing him with comfortable accomodations and legal representation. People will gladly waterboard to preserve their safety.
 
Patranus said:
Water boarding IS NOT torture.
At no point are the recipients of water boarding in any danger to loss of life or injury.
The water boarding techniques used today differ greatly from those used by the Japanese during WWII.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. Waterboarding is torture, and has been considered torture for over 100 years. There are plenty of examples within the US where waterboarding someone has resulted in arrest and conviction, both in US Federal court and in the US Military justice system.
 
Patranus said:
Water boarding IS NOT torture.
At no point are the recipients of water boarding in any danger to loss of life or injury.
The water boarding techniques used today differ greatly from those used by the Japanese during WWII.
Click to expand...
Stop being stupid of course it's torture. Everyone knows this. At least admit it. Support it if you want but don't be a coward about it.
 
This whole situation is why the passengers of the plane should have just beat this idiot to death. I am so tired of every terrorist being treated better than we treat our own citizens. This idiot gave up his rights when he tried to kill 300 people on an airliner by blowing it up. The lefties of this forum want George Bush tried at the Hague, but a foreign terrorist who tries to blow up an airliner gets more protections than a former President in their eyes.
 
eskimospy said:
Yeah man, the disgusting thing is that someone is given a fair trial. I agree.

What's really disgusting is people like you. In the name of defending America you attempt to destroy everything that it stands for. The real enemy isn't retards on planes trying to light their underwear on fire.

The real enemy are people like you. Luckily (at least so far) members of our government haven't been willing to destroy the foundations of America to please the mob... and let there be no mistake, you represent the mob.

Disgusting indeed.
Click to expand...
Wow, excellent example of far left ankle biting loon speak. So the real enemy isn't those who attempt to blow up airliners, it's those of us who disagree on how best to stop them. With logic like that I can't imagine why Americans think liberals are squishy on terrorism. Oh wait, I can. I'm sure your position differs somehow from the majority opinion in, say, Yemen, but you make it very difficult to see how.

He wasn't trying to light his underwear on fire, he was trying to set off a powerful explosion that would certainly have brought down the plane, killing hundreds, had it been properly mixed and ignited. He knows who trained him, who recruited him, where he was trained - in short, he knows enough to stop the next Islamic terrorist who may well be better trained and better equipped - and your biggest concern is that he be accorded the same protections as the guy who is caught breaking into houses or the kid caught copying CDs. Nice.
 
werepossum said:
Wow, excellent example of far left ankle biting loon speak. So the real enemy isn't those who attempt to blow up airliners, it's those of us who disagree on how best to stop them. With logic like that I can't imagine why Americans think liberals are squishy on terrorism. Oh wait, I can. I'm sure your position differs somehow from the majority opinion in, say, Yemen, but you make it very difficult to see how.

He wasn't trying to light his underwear on fire, he was trying to set off a powerful explosion that would certainly have brought down the plane, killing hundreds, had it been properly mixed and ignited. He knows who trained him, who recruited him, where he was trained - in short, he knows enough to stop the next Islamic terrorist who may well be better trained and better equipped - and your biggest concern is that he be accorded the same protections as the guy who is caught breaking into houses or the kid caught copying CDs. Nice.
Click to expand...

I like how the extreme right has gone so far as to say that putting people on trial for committing crimes is 'far left ankle biting loon speak'. This is how completely paralyzed with fear the right has become. Keep shoveling away our freedoms, anything...anything to protect us from the terrorists.

If the majority opinion in Yemen is that the US should follow its Constitution, then I'm very happy for the people in Yemen. At least they get what the ultra right seems to be unable to understand, that what makes America great is not affected by a terrorist, but IS affected by shredding our values to stop them.

By the way, this post was amazing even for you. In the span of three sentences you take offense at my vilification of the right because we disagree on how to best combat terrorism and then immediately follow it by saying that 'libruls' are soft on terror and that I'm on the side of the Yemenese because I defend the Constitution. Not a very active sense of irony on you is there?

You guys are so blinded by fear, what happened that made you this scared?
 
eskimospy said:
I like how the extreme right has gone so far as to say that putting people on trial for committing crimes is 'far left ankle biting loon speak'. This is how completely paralyzed with fear the right has become. Keep shoveling away our freedoms, anything...anything to protect us from the terrorists.

If the majority opinion in Yemen is that the US should follow its Constitution, then I'm very happy for the people in Yemen. At least they get what the ultra right seems to be unable to understand, that what makes America great is not affected by a terrorist, but IS affected by shredding our values to stop them.

By the way, this post was amazing even for you. In the span of three sentences you take offense at my vilification of the right because we disagree on how to best combat terrorism and then immediately follow it by saying that 'libruls' are soft on terror and that I'm on the side of the Yemenese because I defend the Constitution. Not a very active sense of irony on you is there?

You guys are so blinded by fear, what happened that made you this scared?
Click to expand...

The extreme right (about 75% of the country by your measure) is afraid of terrorism. Most of us remember 9/11 as a successful terrorist attack on our country by a determined, well funded, evil enemy rather than an aberation that can't possibly ever happen again so it's best ignored - the liberal position. The extreme left is afraid that military trials and waterboarding for foreign terrorists will somehow lead to military trials and waterboarding for Americans charged with domestic crimes.

In pursuing your agenda of equal rights for all, the left has succeeded in giving civilian trials to terrorists captured on the field of battle. Obviously these terrorists were not Mirandized when captured; they have not been given immediate access to an attorney; they have been subject to interrogation (whether or not they have been waterboarded) that is currently unacceptable in civilian courts; they usually cannot face their accusers without bringing foreign nations into the country or exposing undercover CIA operatives and double agents; the evidence against them usually cannot meet minimum chain of evidence requirements; they were not given the mandatory option for a speedy trial. Either these terrorists are released, as any civilian defendant in such circumstances would be, or we have established precedent that these things are acceptable. And yet liberals hold themselves up as protecting the Constitution. That is simply amazing.
 
werepossum said:
The extreme right (about 75% of the country by your measure) is afraid of terrorism. Most of us remember 9/11 as a successful terrorist attack on our country by a determined, well funded, evil enemy rather than an aberation that can't possibly ever happen again so it's best ignored - the liberal position. The extreme left is afraid that military trials and waterboarding for foreign terrorists will somehow lead to military trials and waterboarding for Americans charged with domestic crimes.

In pursuing your agenda of equal rights for all, the left has succeeded in giving civilian trials to terrorists captured on the field of battle. Obviously these terrorists were not Mirandized when captured; they have not been given immediate access to an attorney; they have been subject to interrogation (whether or not they have been waterboarded) that is currently unacceptable in civilian courts; they usually cannot face their accusers without bringing foreign nations into the country or exposing undercover CIA operatives and double agents; the evidence against them usually cannot meet minimum chain of evidence requirements; they were not given the mandatory option for a speedy trial. Either these terrorists are released, as any civilian defendant in such circumstances would be, or we have established precedent that these things are acceptable. And yet liberals hold themselves up as protecting the Constitution. That is simply amazing.
Click to expand...

Nice strawman of the liberal position... yet again. Are you capable of arguing against an actual position someone holds, or do you require a ridiculous caricature to actually win an argument? Liberals obviously do not think that a terrorist attack cannot happen again, to quote a good friend of mine they simply 'disagree on how best to stop them'. People who support the Constitution, liberal and conservative, should want the state to imprison people through due process, not arbitrary whims of the executive.

I never said people shouldn't be afraid of terrorism, I'm just wondering what has caused you to curl up in the fetal position and furiously hurl all your rights away in a desperate attempt to be safe. This is a fairly common theme in America and it's happened before. As soon as people feel threatened they lash out wildly, only to realize years later that they made a mistake. By the way the right already advocated the treatment of US citizens in exactly the matter you describe in the case of Jose Padilla.

Your ideas on how these trials must be conducted is a baffling generalization. Most can't face their accusers? According to who? Not only that, but there are already procedures in place to admit classified evidence from undercover individuals and there has been for a long time. Evidence against them can't meet chain of custody requirements? Who's evidence can't? A speedy trial? So absurd it doesn't merit a response. The idea that if we transferred these people to the criminal justice system that we would have to immediately release them all to follow the Constitution is absolutely ridiculous and no court would ever say that. Silliness.
 
ProfJohn said:
What is really disgusting is the fact that they placed him into the civilian criminal justice system and gave him a lawyer who most likely told him to stop talking.
Click to expand...

You mean like the Bush admin did with Richard Reid, Zach Moussaoui???


Man, trolls are out in full force around here lately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top