Well it looks like we'll have a place to store all those nasties in Gitmo after all

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Wheezer

ou did not understand morality, then; it has overlap with religion, but exists outside religion as well.

To try an analogy, it's like saying priests are a Catholic notion. No; Catholocism has priests, but not all priests are Catholic.

Now, just as some Catholics might say the only real priests are Catholic priests, some religious believers might think the only real moral system is their religion's.

But that doesn't make it so.

Atheists can have moral codes, too.

In fact, one of the most ignorant falllacies I hear from too many fundamentalists is that without religion, you can't have any morality. They think that if there isn't something handed down on a tablet saying 'thou shalt not' then it's just a free for all and no right or wrong. It's sort of a circular reinforcement for their views based on a straw man, i.e., 'if you don't think it's ok to rape and murder, then you should follow their religion'.

Why is whether it's religious relevant to my post? The morality I reference might or might not be relion-based.

where does strapping a bomb to yourself laced with nails and rat poison to inflict maximum damage to innocent civilians who are going to market, going to school, going to their place of worship fit any where into your morality code?

Does plotting such action fit into your precious little code?

And how do we punish such individuals....where is your moral code when it comes to justice?

Given that he's talking about a 'no-harm' kind of moral code, punishment - or at least veangence - is not necessarily what you think it would be.

You will certainly find that craig's idea of justice will not satisfy your bloodlust.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Wheezer
where does strapping a bomb to yourself laced with nails and rat poison to inflict maximum damage to innocent civilians who are going to market, going to school, going to their place of worship fit any where into your morality code?

Does plotting such action fit into your precious little code?

And how do we punish such individuals....where is your moral code when it comes to justice?

Before I answer that, given its tone I should ask where does the morality of dropping agent orange and napalm on countless thousands of famers, among other acts of killing that result in about 2 million of them killed, for very dubious and inadequate reasons, fit into your precious little code?

Having said that, I'm not sure what your point is - a moral code can condemn the acts you list. It can also call for punishing them.

My moral code says that we have no capital punishment for any crime; someone else's moral code says we do. Why don't you think about what you want to ask?

We could further discuss the two sides of terrorism (restrain your urge to scream how there's only one side), but it seems better to get you to ask a clear question.

 

[da loser]

a congressman on the morning shows had a great idea

open up alcatraz

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: theflyingpig

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Is this a bad thing?

nope, better there than in prisons here.

I don't see why we couldn't put them here. We're talking about maybe a few hundred prisoners, it's not like it would add any significant burden to our prison system.

It would be an excellent strategy to throw them in US prisons. Really just throw them in with the Aryan Brotherhood and let the fun begin. Problem solved.

:thumbsup:

You consistently disgust with your immorality.

I thought morality was a religious notion, Craig.

You did not understand morality, then; it has overlap with religion, but exists outside religion as well.

To try an analogy, it's like saying priests are a Catholic notion. No; Catholocism has priests, but not all priests are Catholic.

Now, just as some Catholics might say the only real priests are Catholic priests, some religious believers might think the only real moral system is their religion's.

But that doesn't make it so.

Atheists can have moral codes, too.

In fact, one of the most ignorant falllacies I hear from too many fundamentalists is that without religion, you can't have any morality. They think that if there isn't something handed down on a tablet saying 'thou shalt not' then it's just a free for all and no right or wrong. It's sort of a circular reinforcement for their views based on a straw man, i.e., 'if you don't think it's ok to rape and murder, then you should follow their religion'.

Why is whether it's religious relevant to my post? The morality I reference might or might not be relion-based.

Edit for your edit:

Hey, don't enforce your morality on him.

Of *course* I'm going to force my morality on him. Without that, how do we outlaw murder?

Do we need to review that basic issue yet again, that every citizen has moral views, and they inflict them on others, and you try to encourage people not be get excessive?

It's on thing for me to tell him he can't rape his 4 year old daughter, and another to tell him he can't eat meat because it's wrong for the animals and for the environment.

Between having a bill of rights, and hoping for people to use decent jusgement in what they inflict on others, you hope one and only one of those is put into law, and the other is left to advocacy and the person's own decision. How are you going to prevent people from passing any law based on their morals though, without basically not having any laws?

Humanist values and your moral traditions were derived from religion-Christianity to begin with when deconstructed and one of the primary reason no muslin country has ever signed the universal declaration of human rights. Said Rajaie-Khorassani, articulated the position characterizing the UDHR as "a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition, which could not be implemented by Muslims without trespassing the Islamic law." This is another problem liberals have, they think everyone is like them and working to same goals when in fact, if examined or placed there, one would see a very opposite moral code. It's why they can't accept the idea, even if it's spelled out, of Muslim conquest. Morals are not universal and OCGUY could just as easily said your morals are disgusting for not believing in an eye for and eye which has some moral tradition. One might say morals are relative

 

[BMW540I6speed]

In a case like the US invasion of Afghanistan, the US had a certain amount of leeway in deciding how to treat captured terrorists - were they criminals, to be tried in a criminal court? Or were they members of a paramilitary army, and thereby treated as prisoners of war? Those were the choices.

But suppose, just for the sake of argument, that you're a sociopathic authoritarian with delusions of imperial grandeur. Any due process is utterly repugnant to you, so neither of the existing options are acceptable. Basically, you want to treat your captives as POWs in terms of expedience, but as criminals in terms of permanence. And you don't want to treat them as either when it comes to accountability or transparency.

That is, with a few exceptions, what we have at Gitmo - people pulled off the battlefield with the intention of detaining them indefinitely, in perpetual isolation and without ever needing to say why.

The idea of hunting up another process for known dangerous people whose confessions were obtained through torture is the idea that a confession is all we have in the way of evidence. Is the former Bush administration and all the apologists telling us that the only evidence we ever had was a "hope" we could get the suspects to confess? Surely, if these people are masterminds of 911, we already had evidence in the form of eyewitness accounts, DNA placing them at various scenes or some other concrete evidence rather than just a whim. If all we have to go on is a confession, thats not good enough. Toture is only usefull to aquire confessions, not facts.

Say these were arrests of citizens on domestic soil handled in the normal legal manner. Wouldn't the police have to have cause to make an arrest? And then wouldn't the suspects then have to be formally indicted and charged with a crime? If there is concrete evidence, then our court system should be well able to handle it.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Humanist values and your moral traditions were derived from religion-Christianity to begin with when deconstructed and one of the primary reason no muslin country has ever signed the universal declaration of human rights.

There isn't acutally any signatories of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as the UN explains:

Since the Declaration is not legally binding technically, there are no signatories to the Declaration. Instead, the Declaration was ratified through a proclamation by the General Assembly on December 10, 1948 with a count of 48 votes to none with only 8 abstentions. This was considered a triumph as the vote unified very diverse, even conflicting political regimes.

http://www.unac.org/rights/question.html

Furthermore, that resolution was ratified by many of the Mulsim countries in the UN at the time, as seen here:

On 10 December 1948, at the Palais de Chaillot in Paris (photo at the cover page), the fiftyeight Member States of the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, with 48 states in favour and eight abstentions (two countries were not present at the time of the voting). General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948 which proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, was adopted as follows:
In favour: Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Canada, Chile, China,Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador,Ethiopia, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Liberia, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Siam (Thailand), Sweden, Syria, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela. Abstaining: Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Ukrainian SSR, Union of South Africa, USSR, Yugoslavia. The General Assembly proclaimed the Declaration as a ?common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations?, towards which individuals and societies should ?strive by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance?.

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=...=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us

Regardless, you are in no place to talk as you display constant and callous disregard for principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

The nasties won't be going to Iraq. They'll be staying right here:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/181453/page/2

As of now, about 240 detainees remain at Guantanamo. Human rights groups and defense lawyers insist there is little or no evidence of terrorist involvement against scores of them. Some federal judges agree, having ordered the Pentagon in recent weeks to release some of them. The Obama administration, which has given itself a one-year deadline to shut down the facility, is hoping that European countries, like Portugal, Spain and Germany, will agree to take some of these detainees. The administration is also trying to get the government of Yemen to take about 100 of its nationals?the largest single group of prisoners at the facility. But even these assumptions are shaky. The Pentagon has been trying for months to hammer out an agreement with the Yemeni government to monitor released Guantanamo detainees with little success.

The hardest chunk involves a core number, estimated by some officials to be about 50 or 60, who are deemed to be highly dangerous but who, for a variety of reasons?including the fact that they may have been subjected to waterboarding or other "enhanced" interrogation techniques?may be impossible to try in any federal or military court. The Obama administration is likely to have no choice but to move them to another facility inside the United States, such as the U.S. naval brig in Charleston, S.C., or the military prison in Fort Leavenworth, Kan., and hold them indefinitely without trial, thereby risking worldwide criticism that it is simply creating a "Guantanamo, South Carolina" or a "Guantanamo, Kansas."

While the Obama administration may create some sort of system for periodic judicial review of these cases, the one thing it won't do is release these detainees, said one senior Obama adviser who asked not to be identified talking about the White House's internal thinking on the matter. Asked about the prospect that some of these detainees might be let go, the adviser brushed the thought aside. "That's not going to happen," he said.

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Wheezer
where does strapping a bomb to yourself laced with nails and rat poison to inflict maximum damage to innocent civilians who are going to market, going to school, going to their place of worship fit any where into your morality code?

Does plotting such action fit into your precious little code?

And how do we punish such individuals....where is your moral code when it comes to justice?

Before I answer that, given its tone I should ask where does the morality of dropping agent orange and napalm on countless thousands of famers, among other acts of killing that result in about 2 million of them killed, for very dubious and inadequate reasons, fit into your precious little code?

Having said that, I'm not sure what your point is - a moral code can condemn the acts you list. It can also call for punishing them.

My moral code says that we have no capital punishment for any crime; someone else's moral code says we do. Why don't you think about what you want to ask?

We could further discuss the two sides of terrorism (restrain your urge to scream how there's only one side), but it seems better to get you to ask a clear question.

you're right, there are two sides to terrorism and and which way you view it is directly related to which side of the bomb you are on.

 

[smokeyjoe]

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Wheezer
where does strapping a bomb to yourself laced with nails and rat poison to inflict maximum damage to innocent civilians who are going to market, going to school, going to their place of worship fit any where into your morality code?

Does plotting such action fit into your precious little code?

And how do we punish such individuals....where is your moral code when it comes to justice?

Before I answer that, given its tone I should ask where does the morality of dropping agent orange and napalm on countless thousands of famers, among other acts of killing that result in about 2 million of them killed, for very dubious and inadequate reasons, fit into your precious little code?

Having said that, I'm not sure what your point is - a moral code can condemn the acts you list. It can also call for punishing them.

My moral code says that we have no capital punishment for any crime; someone else's moral code says we do. Why don't you think about what you want to ask?

We could further discuss the two sides of terrorism (restrain your urge to scream how there's only one side), but it seems better to get you to ask a clear question.

you're right, there are two sides to terrorism and and which way you view it is directly related to which side of the bomb you are on.

Or you can think objectively

 

[Xellos2099]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
In a case like the US invasion of Afghanistan, the US had a certain amount of leeway in deciding how to treat captured terrorists - were they criminals, to be tried in a criminal court? Or were they members of a paramilitary army, and thereby treated as prisoners of war? Those were the choices.

But suppose, just for the sake of argument, that you're a sociopathic authoritarian with delusions of imperial grandeur. Any due process is utterly repugnant to you, so neither of the existing options are acceptable. Basically, you want to treat your captives as POWs in terms of expedience, but as criminals in terms of permanence. And you don't want to treat them as either when it comes to accountability or transparency.

That is, with a few exceptions, what we have at Gitmo - people pulled off the battlefield with the intention of detaining them indefinitely, in perpetual isolation and without ever needing to say why.

The idea of hunting up another process for known dangerous people whose confessions were obtained through torture is the idea that a confession is all we have in the way of evidence. Is the former Bush administration and all the apologists telling us that the only evidence we ever had was a "hope" we could get the suspects to confess? Surely, if these people are masterminds of 911, we already had evidence in the form of eyewitness accounts, DNA placing them at various scenes or some other concrete evidence rather than just a whim. If all we have to go on is a confession, thats not good enough. Toture is only usefull to aquire confessions, not facts.

Say these were arrests of citizens on domestic soil handled in the normal legal manner. Wouldn't the police have to have cause to make an arrest? And then wouldn't the suspects then have to be formally indicted and charged with a crime? If there is concrete evidence, then our court system should be well able to handle it.

The keyword is that they were pull of the battlefield. Now let me ask you, what is the chance that peace loving civilian would just walk into a battlefield?

 

[ericlp]

Geee, why don't we just put a big fence around Iraq, and send all of our inmates there?


Mission Accomplished!