How should we handle the prisoners being held?

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Heh. "A hearing or a trial of some kind"- why? We already have two avenues, either thru the civilian courts or the UCMJ. They've served us well from the beginning. Why create some grey area wherein the Admin can do whatever they want, as is the current situation? Why endorse tyranny in the service of an allegedly good cause? Can't figure out why we're hated? It's precisely that kind of hypocritical thinking that gets us in trouble.

We need to remember that in this whole ongoing effort against terrorism that there's really no end in sight, ever. Which means that the idea that the means justify the ends won't serve us- there are no ends, only means.

I didn't mean create some new trial system that could be abused or become a gray area that sounds good, but really isn't. I meant use an existing hearing or trial system (like the civilian courts or UCMJ), I'm just not an expert on what those would entail in this situation (hence the "some kind" comment). In fact, this point is crucial, because those systems are already trusted to a certain extent. Creating a new system, even if it was fair and just, would create mistrust and would fail to accomplish the purpose of the court.

As far as the ends and means, something my dad always told me is that there are no ends, only means. Not just in this situation, but every situation. The reason this kind of thinking works is that there is never really any end you can reach where you will change your behavior. Once a mean has become acceptable given certain goals, once those goals are reached, the means will remain.

 

[Jhhnn]

I happen to very much agree with your father, Rainsford.

I was, above, merely trying to put the whole idea into a reference that might by understandable to folks whose headset has been scrambled by the current waves of fear, loathing and misdirected rage that make the current situation seem necessary to some...

We are what we do.

 

[Wheezer]

Can you tell us all here where you would draw a few lines? Let's say that you're correct...some attacks have been prevented. Now let's expand on that and draw a few lines, shall we?
Line #1 - How many deaths have to be saved to justify using torture? 1? 10? 100? Your call.

Line #2 - Where would you draw the line as to what constitutes justifiable torture? Beatings? Cutting off a finger? A hand?

Line #3 - Now put them together. Let's say that the only way to get info out of a terrorist attack on 3,000 people is to rape a prisoner's 10-year-old daughter in front of him. That way those 3,000 lives would be saved. Would that be justifiable torture? Would that be torture at all?(IOW - does the # of lives saved affect the level of justified torture used?)

#1 does it really matter? If you knew someone who had information when your 10 year old daughter was going to be raped, or killed or both what lengths would you go to protect her? Thats only one life..what would you do?

#2 If it saved a life then whatever it takes. See the person that has the information as to when and where a life is taken or destroyed is just as culpable as the person(s) doing the deed, therefore is you don't want to risk getting caught then don't put yourself in the situation where you may be forced to loose a finger or an arm.

#3 If some one was to tell me that they would rape my 10 year old daughter unless I gave up my friends you bet your a$$ I would give them up in a heartbeat. If I kept my mouth closed then it just goes to show I cared nothing about her in the first place what kind of person does that make ME?...you do realize that in most extreme Muslim cultures girls are killed if they are raped because it brings dishonor to the family right? So in that situation the mere simulation of her rape would suffice. Now if her rape is simulated is that torture?

 

[Jmman]

I think we either have to charge then with a crime, or let them go. I truthfully think that after a period of time, even if they did have pertinent information, doesn't the relevance of that information go away rather quickly? Oh yeah, Bin Laden was in Afghanistan two years ago. What good does that information really do us? Probably most of these guys should be let go, and if they try to harm us or our allies, we have a remedy for that, a bullet. The warehousing of these guys like in a prisoner of war setting is not realistic anyway. Are we going to keep them housed until the end of this "war" like we would a traditional prisoner of war? That could be 50 years from now....

 

[StormRider]

Would we have been able to charge the 9/11 hijackers with something? Or would we have to let them go? Because it isn't really a crime to bring a box cutter into an airplane at the time or to learn how to fly but not to land.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: StormRider
Would we have been able to charge the 9/11 hijackers with something? Or would we have to let them go? Because it isn't really a crime to bring a box cutter into an airplane at the time or to learn how to fly but not to land.

Is plotting a murder a crime?

 

[realsup]

Treat them the same as other countries have treated American troops that have been captured.

 

[irwincur]

Could just shoot them.

That is what the Geneva Concentions calls for in this situation. Un-uniformed soldiers are to be granted no rights, and can be executed under the agreement without trial.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: irwincur
Could just shoot them.

That is what the Geneva Concentions calls for in this situation. Un-uniformed soldiers are to be granted no rights, and can be executed under the agreement without trial.

quote?

 

[StormRider]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: StormRider
Would we have been able to charge the 9/11 hijackers with something? Or would we have to let them go? Because it isn't really a crime to bring a box cutter into an airplane at the time or to learn how to fly but not to land.

Is plotting a murder a crime?

But how would we prove they were plotting a murder?

 

[maluckey]

I think that Irwincur is referring to the lack of protection afforded non-uniformed forces who are not acting openly. They are not protected under the Geneva Convention. It's more of less open to interpretation as to what you can do to them.

My opinion is that once you can rule out more information from them, try them for crimes or release them. The ones that are a risk to free countries should be locked away/shot etc. The remainder with less than serious charges against them can be released to their home country after agreements with the host nation to try them locally. As a bonus, a simple and legal way to ensure that they are rendered harmless is to publicly list each inmate, and what they told the United States. This means that they cannot go back to working WITH the insurgents. They CAN still work against them. It's their choice.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: irwincur
Could just shoot them.

That is what the Geneva Concentions calls for in this situation. Un-uniformed soldiers are to be granted no rights, and can be executed under the agreement without trial.

Wow, spoken like a true terrorist. Don't you have a chicken you need to sacrifice somewhere? :roll:

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: StormRider

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: StormRider
Would we have been able to charge the 9/11 hijackers with something? Or would we have to let them go? Because it isn't really a crime to bring a box cutter into an airplane at the time or to learn how to fly but not to land.

Is plotting a murder a crime?

But how would we prove they were plotting a murder?

With evidence?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Seriously come up with alternatives to this alleged torture that is going on.

Alternative? How about: not torturing them. The US won't self-destruct if we stop torturing / abusing people.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Wheezer
Seriously come up with alternatives to this alleged torture that is going on.

Alternative? How about: not torturing them. The US won't self-destruct if we stop torturing / abusing people.

Now you're just being an "obstructionist".

 

[StormRider]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: StormRider

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: StormRider
Would we have been able to charge the 9/11 hijackers with something? Or would we have to let them go? Because it isn't really a crime to bring a box cutter into an airplane at the time or to learn how to fly but not to land.

Is plotting a murder a crime?

But how would we prove they were plotting a murder?

With evidence?

What kind of evidence did we have against them?

 

[Duckzilla]

Originally posted by: Wheezer
Can anyone you give some reccomendations as to how these things sould be handled?

I hear a lot of "We should be the bigger people and not stoop to thier level" statements, but I have yet to hear alternative, instead of telling us what we should not be doing, give ideas of what we should do.

Seriously come up with alternatives to this alleged torture that is going on.

....and no, "they should not be there in the first place" is not an answer.


The fact is they are there, agree with it or not. So stay on topic an come up with alternative solutions.

I wouldn't worry about it at all, but of course, I'm not a muzzie and I don't have to pretend to be an American.

 

[Duckzilla]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Wheezer
Seriously come up with alternatives to this alleged torture that is going on.

Alternative? How about: not torturing them. The US won't self-destruct if we stop torturing / abusing people.

Now you're just being an "obstructionist".

Torture as in someone reading Harry Potter novels out loud? If America runs over an ANT we hear about it, yet terrorist are unaccountable in the world's eye. I'm getting so sick of it that I want to visit a mosque late at night and beat up the next Canadian I see.