The blind leading the willing

[BasketCase]

Is this really what our politics are coming to? Are the American people too lazy to delve into complicated moral questions

Lazy is the wrong word.

Recent world events such as Iraq War #2 have made STABILITY the watchword for our time. The thing most people around the world seem to want right now, and they're willing to put up with dictators, terrorists, and the odd mass murder here and there to get it.

Peace, Montag. Give the people contests they win by remembering the words to more popular songs or the names of state capitals or how much corn Iowa grew last year. Cram them full of noncombustible data, chock them so full of 'facts' they feel stuffed, but absolutely 'brilliant' with information. Then they'll feel they're thinking, they'll get a sense of motion without moving. And they'll be happy, because facts of that sort don't change. Don't give them any slippery stuff like philosophy or sociology to tie things up with. That way lies melancholy. Any man who can take a TV wall apart and put it back together again, and most men can, nowadays, is happier than any man who tries to slide-rule, measure, and equate the universe, which just won't be measured or equated without making man feel bestial and lonely. I know, I've tried it. The hell with it.

Captain Beatty, Fahrenheit 451​

If you want peace and stability, then it's not merely a good idea, but it's REQUIRED that one avoid deep moral questions.

Peace and stability are nice, but when forced to make a choice, there are other things I value more.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Honestly, why even bother defending our country from terrorists if this is what it takes? If we are just going to end up becoming like them, there is no point. We are supposed to be a free nation, and that is supposed to be why they fight us.

 

[JohnRM]

I can't believe that people are defending this.

Habeas Corpus has been violated.

Terrorists are not US Citizens. They do not have any rights.

 

[JohnRM]

The semantic BS in this thread is just mindblowing.

Either you are OK with torturing detainees, or you're not. Either way, be honest and forthright about it.

I don't care what you call it. Yes, I am okay with "torturing" terrorists, to a certain degree. I will not agree to long-term physical or mental harm, but short-term anguish that makes them talk...damn right.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Terrorists are not US Citizens. They do not have any rights.

So why have a trial at all then? Why not summary execution?

Oh, it's because we want to give the appearance of treating them fairly, eh? A fair trial - right after we've tortured a fake confession out of them?

When people can be this hypocritical and not see it themselves, something is seriously wrong with the state of the nation.

 

[JollyRoger]

Terrorists are not US Citizens. They do not have any rights.

Under international law, suspects and POWs have rights. On U.S. soil, even foreign detainees have rights under the U.S. Constitution.

 

[JollyRoger]

I don't care what you call it. Yes, I am okay with "torturing" terrorists, to a certain degree. I will not agree to long-term physical or mental harm, but short-term anguish that makes them talk...damn right.

How about short-term anguish inflicted on Bush administration officials during Senate hearings to make them talk? After all, as a taxpaying citizen, I should be entitled to them giving more straightforward answers than they have given without short-term anguish.

 

[JohnRM]

Gitmo violates the rule of law, because it is a prison for people who have never been tried. We have no proof that these people are indeed terrorists, and therefore there is no legitimacy in locking them up.

Again, they could have their day in court if Liberals hadn't denied them the right to a military tribunal.

Can you make your argument without using the word 'liberal'? I am not at all interested in your partisan rhetoric (or anyone elses for that matter). As far as I am concerned, everything after the word 'liberal' in that paragraph is not worth reading.

I am talking about Liberals, so I guess not. And frankly, nobody asked you to read it anyway.

Our country's values include the rule of law and equal rights for humans, both of which are being trod upon here, in the name of fear. Are we all cowards in this country, that we will not tolerate the slightest risk to ourselves in the name of our values?

Wrong. Our country's values include the rule of law and equal rights for all Americans. There is nothing in our Constitution, that I am aware of, that conveys the rights thereof to non-nationals. Futhermore, we have tried to give these prisoners due process, but alas it was denied by the Liberals. We don't have any other judiciary system that can try these people, so what do you want?

Again, your partisan rhetoric makes this paragraph worthless. Try again without those stupid buzzwords and you might actually get a decent response.

That was a poor attempt at ducking the reality of the situation and not admitting who is responsible for denying the terrorists their day in court. Its okay, though, you don't have to. The American people know what is up and we'll find that out for sure in November.

 

[JollyRoger]

Again, they could have their day in court if Liberals hadn't denied them the right to a military tribunal.

What liberal has denied them a day in Court? The Supreme Court, composed of 7 members appointed by Republicans and two appointed by Clinton are the ones that said that Bush's kangaroo military courts are not sufficient and to go back to the drawing board.

 

[JohnRM]

It's not partisan, it's Coulteritic.

John, nobody minds the detaining of actual terrorists. It's the lack of rights among accused terroristst that the problem.

As for 'what have Americans lost? Well, the average brown tourist certainly feels a lot less safe in your country, since he now has no rights once he's accused of being a terrorist.

Again, we tried to give them the their day in court. Anyone want to guess who denied them that opportunity?

As for 'brown' tourists feeling uneasy, well, I probably would care about that a bit more if the average 'brown' human being wasn't estatic about the thought of the death of western civilization. We are not arresting tourists, although there sure are some minor incoveniences. They are just going to have to deal with it until their corner of the world joins the 21st Century.

 

[JohnRM]

Honestly, why even bother defending our country from terrorists if this is what it takes? If we are just going to end up becoming like them, there is no point. We are supposed to be a free nation, and that is supposed to be why they fight us.

I just want to point out that terrorists do not take prisoners. They do beheadings. They strap bombs to their own people to kill civilians. They fly airplanes into buildings. We are nothing like them.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

As for 'brown' tourists feeling uneasy, well, I probably would care about that a bit more if the average 'brown' human being wasn't estatic about the thought of the death of western civilization. We are not arresting tourists, although there sure are some minor incoveniences. They are just going to have to deal with it until their corner of the world joins the 21st Century.

Wow.

There really isn't any way I could reply to this display of bigoted retardation that wouldn't get me banned for a month. So that's the end of this thread for me.

 

[JohnRM]

Wow.

There really isn't any way I could reply to this display of bigoted retardation that wouldn't get me banned for a month. So that's the end of this thread for me.

How is it bigotry to state the facts? How is it that your side of this can post statistics about 80, 90 percent of this population wanting to see Americans killed and that population, yada yada yada, and somehow I am the bigot when I use that to my advantage?

How is it bigotry when Democrats/Liberals are whining about Airport security and crying about how grandmas are being inconvenienced with security checks, yet you are against targeting middle-eastern/muslim-looking individuals?

It seems to me that you just cannot form any decent counter-argument without exposing your side's contradictory rhetoric. You just resort to emotional outbursts aimed at gaining the favor of others through the race/bigot card. Meh, amateurs.

 

[Brighteye]

You're just playing semantics, but...I'll bite into this one.

war
1. The waging of armed conflict against an enemy
2. An active struggle between competing entities

It does not say, "(..)against enemy soldiers"
It does not say, "(..)between competing soldiers"

Armed conflict against which enemy? Where're the armed conflicts against terrorists? You've had two conflicts, against Iraq and Afghanistan. For there to be an armed conflict there need to be opposing soldiers.
Or perhaps you're using the more metaphorical second definition? This definition of war can apply to everything, including price wars, house decoration wars etc. Should rival neighbours be allowed to detain each other with torture? The laws about enemy combatants apply to the first definition you've posted. The second is a metaphorical meaning and should be irrelevant to lawmaking, unless you're trying to confuse the population with sneaky jumps between meanings.

So, you think we should have sent the FBI into Afghanistan to take down Al-Qaeda? I am not going to waste too much time arguing this point. If you really feel that we should not kill the terrorists wherever they are and destroy their bases of operations, then we have nothing further to discuss.

No, you can send your army into a country if the country is harbouring threats to yours, won't stamp them out and won't accept your help in stamping them out. I didn't ever suggest sending the FBI abroad. However, having found people who you suspect to be enemies, either you caught them when they were fighting you as soldiers, or you caught them as criminals. Either way UN law (to which America is a signatory) tells you to give them a fair trial, and forbids torture. If they were POWs then now that the war (meaning 1) is over they are no longer POWs and should be released.

Well, they are not US Citizens, either. They do not have protection under the Constitution of the United States and if you say that there is no war, they don't even qualify for protections under the Geneva Conventions.

Why do they not qualify for protection under UN law? Foreign citizens or POWs are both expected to be granted basic rights.

Hmm...that's odd. I have not lost any of my rights. I have not heard of any other Americans losing their rights. Where did this statement come from?

As others have said, the right to a fair trial rather than summary detainment is rather important.

 

[Brighteye]

How is it bigotry to state the facts? How is it that your side of this can post statistics about 80, 90 percent of this population wanting to see Americans killed and that population, yada yada yada, and somehow I am the bigot when I use that to my advantage?

How is it bigotry when Democrats/Liberals are whining about Airport security and crying about how grandmas are being inconvenienced with security checks, yet you are against targeting middle-eastern/muslim-looking individuals?

It seems to me that you just cannot form any decent counter-argument without exposing your side's contradictory rhetoric. You just resort to emotional outbursts aimed at gaining the favor of others through the race/bigot card. Meh, amateurs.

There's nothing wrong with targetting dodgy-looking people. That's common sense. However, there is something wrong with not caring about any 'brown' tourist because many brown people dislike America. People are individuals and it's a bit racist to give up on a whole group of people because some of them share a characteristic you dislike. If he's got through your security checks, then he's fine, and you should like him as much as any other tourist.
When I visit later this year I could be detained and sent to Guantanamo. I'm a law abiding British citizen. America has various treaties, both as part of the UN and with Britain specifically, that are mutual agreements about citizens' rights.
And yet here America has removed those rights. This is hypocrisy. You can't agree to mutually exclusive things. America should withdraw from all these other agreements.

 

[Brighteye]

I just want to point out that terrorists do not take prisoners. They do beheadings. They strap bombs to their own people to kill civilians. They fly airplanes into buildings. We are nothing like them.

Terrorists do take prisoners, and release (some of) them. They do not have a trial to determine guilt.
Much like America.
Terrorists detonate bombs which kill civilians.
Much like America.
Terrorists use aeroplanes to destroy civilian buildings.
Much like America.

Terrorists do not recognise human rights in America.
Much like America

 

[Verbose]

Terrorists are not US Citizens. They do not have any rights.

OK.

That amounts to saying they have no human rights.

Since that's part of the make up of the universal values the US was founded upon, I guess that goes in the toilet now?

And since the issue is how you determine who's a terrorist in the first place, the attitude infact ends up meaning:

Non-US citizens are not US Citizens. They do not have any rights.

You can see how that will rub most of humanity the wrong way?

 

[El_Machinae]

Terrorists are not US Citizens. They do not have any rights.

Dude; almost no one cares about the rights of actual terrorists. Can't you get that into your head?

We care about the rights of accused terrorists. Roughly a third of the American population believes in profiling brown people, this means that a third of the border guards I deal with believe that I should be profiled for my appearance. And because they're profiling me as a suspected terrorist, I have no Habeas Corpus in your country.

Now, that's probably a little bit Chicken Little, but it's fair to state that Americans have now lost a bit of their humanity. Again, you're so cowardly about the terrorist threat that you are okay with legislation that allows the torturing of brown people merely because they are non-American and brown.

I don't expect you to be reasonable John, you've become twisted by the literature you've read. What I don't understand is how the average American can possibly stand for this type of legislation.

Two months ago, I wrote this. It seems that I was right.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Hey, Brighteye, it is not "America" that is doing all these bad things, it is certain members of the US government, with the support of some sections of the population.

 

[zulu9812]

Hey, Brighteye, it is not "America" that is doing all these bad things, it is certain members of the US government, with the support of some sections of the population.

That's a bullfeathers argument. Democracies get the government they deserve. If you don't want to be blamed for the acts of the government, then you should do your best to change it. Take some responsibility.