Americans favor Waterboarding While Obama Gives Foreign Jihadists A Citizen's Rights

[BeAChooser]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/december_2009/58_favor_waterboarding_of_plane_terrorist_to_get_i nformation


December 31, 2009

Fifty-eight percent (58%) of U.S. voters say waterboarding and other aggressive interrogation techniques should be used to gain information from the terrorist who attempted to bomb an airliner on Christmas Day.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 30% oppose the use of such techniques, and another 12% are not sure.


Contrast that to the approach Obama's administration has actually adopted.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/krauthammer010110.php3


More jarring still were Obama's references to the terrorist as a "suspect" who "allegedly tried to ignite an explosive device." You can hear the echo of FDR: "Yesterday, December 7, 1941 — a date which will live in infamy — Japanese naval and air force suspects allegedly bombed Pearl Harbor."

Obama reassured the nation that this "suspect" had been charged. Reassurance? The president should be saying: We have captured an enemy combatant — an illegal combatant under the laws of war: no uniform, direct attack on civilians — and now to prevent future attacks, he is being interrogated regarding information he may have about al-Qaeda in Yemen.

Instead, Abdulmutallab is dispatched to some Detroit-area jail and immediately lawyered up. At which point — surprise! — he stops talking.

This absurdity renders hollow Obama's declaration that "we will not rest until we find all who were involved." Once we've given Abdulmutallab the right to remain silent, we have gratuitously forfeited our right to find out from him precisely who else was involved, namely those who trained, instructed, armed and sent him.

This is all quite mad even in Obama's terms. He sends 30,000 troops to fight terror overseas, yet if any terrorists come to attack us here, they are magically transformed from enemy into defendant.

The logic is perverse. If we find Abdulmutallab in an al-Qaeda training camp in Yemen, where he is merely preparing for a terror attack, we snuff him out with a Predator — no judge, no jury, no qualms. But if we catch him in the United States in the very act of mass murder, he instantly acquires protection not just from execution by drone but even from interrogation.

The president said that this incident highlights "the nature of those who threaten our homeland." But the president is constantly denying the nature of those who threaten our homeland. On Tuesday, he referred five times to Abdulmutallab (and his terrorist ilk) as "extremist[s]."

A man who shoots abortion doctors is an extremist. An eco-fanatic who torches logging sites is an extremist. Abdulmutallab is not one of these. He is a jihadist. And unlike the guys who shoot abortion doctors, jihadists have cells all over the world; they blow up trains in London, nightclubs in Bali and airplanes over Detroit (if they can); and are openly pledged to war on America.

Any government can through laxity let someone slip through the cracks. But a government that refuses to admit that we are at war, indeed, refuses even to name the enemy — jihadist is a word banished from the Obama lexicon — turns laxity into a governing philosophy.

SPOT ON.

[Thunder]

we should only waterboard high value folks. not low level people.

and certainly not unless there is reason to believe a massive attack is about to take place.

[Whiplash]

I don't think there is any reason to waterboard these guys either.

[BeAChooser]

I don't think there is any reason to waterboard these guys either.

Well count yourself in the minority. :D

[tyr_13]

Is the argument really being made that because a lot of people favor violating human rights in some poll, it should be done?

Welcome to a BaC thread.

[Jimbo07]

Well count yourself in the minority. :D

Even in a Democracy (despite what one might say cynically), the opinion of the majority does not constitute truth.

[joobz]

Well count yourself in the minority. :D

I guess I'm in the minority as well. but then again, I also think the bill of rights mean something. Crazy.

[leftysergeant]

So 58% of the people still haven't figured out that waterboarding is cruel and unusual punishment without due process of law and that it DOESN'T FREAKING WORK.

Policy decissions are to be made by the more intelligent and better-informed among us, not the cowardly dimbulbs.

[BeAChooser]

I gather none of you actually think we are at war?

[Arcade22]

Even in a Democracy (despite what one might say cynically), the opinion of the majority does not constitute truth.

What does this have to do with truth?

[joobz]

I gather none of you actually think we are at war?
Since when did we abandon ethics when it is convenient?

[Thunder]

I gather none of you actually think we are at war?

when we are at war, we abandon all ethics and moral values?

I thought they hate us for who we are..and what we believe.

Doesn't abandoning our values, give the terrorists a victory?

[Eyeron]

They'd change their tune if it was done to them.

[Thunder]

my greatest fear, is that we water board someone, again and again, only to find out a year later that they were framed, or they were arrested by mistake, etc etc.

the lawsuit that would come out of water boarding an innocent man, would be in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and a stain on this nation's reputation like nothing we have ever seen.

[Ausmerican]

It may be a minority but it is a minority that can look people in the eye and say "No, I don't support torture."
I would bet a minority of your supposed majority can say the opposite without shame.

[Dragoonster]

The logic is perverse. If we find Abdulmutallab in an al-Qaeda training camp in Yemen, where he is merely preparing for a terror attack, we snuff him out with a Predator — no judge, no jury, no qualms. But if we catch him in the United States in the very act of mass murder, he instantly acquires protection not just from execution by drone but even from interrogation.

The logic isn't perverse, unless one considers the Founding Father's logic and the Constitution to be perverse. If one does, I'll use the old right-wing canard: Love it or Leave it. You'd probably be more at home in Saudi Arabia or Iran, where civil liberties and personal rights are secondary to state or popular vitriol.

[leftysergeant]

I gather none of you actually think we are at war?

And your point would be.....?

[theprestige]

I guess I'm in the minority as well. but then again, I also think the bill of rights mean something. Crazy.
The Bill of Rights is a set of amendments to the US Constitution, a document that specifies the relationship between the US government and US citizens. I, too, think the Bill of Rights means something. I think it means a lot--to US citizens. Enemy combatants? I don't think the Bill of Rights has much of anything at all to say about them.

[Dragoonster]

The Bill of Rights is a set of amendments to the US Constitution, a document that specifies the relationship between the US government and US citizens.

And in many cases non-citizens on US soil/jurisdiction.

Love it or leave it.

[jdp]

Has torture ever been shown to produce reliable results?

[Corsair 115]

I gather none of you actually think we are at war?


When did Congress officially make this declaration of war and who was it against?

[Corsair 115]

my greatest fear, is that we water board someone, again and again, only to find out a year later that they were framed, or they were arrested by mistake, etc etc.

the lawsuit that would come out of water boarding an innocent man, would be in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and a stain on this nation's reputation like nothing we have ever seen.


You have something close to that already in the case of Maher Arar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar), a Canadian citizen who, during a stopover in the United States, was arrested, detained, accused of being a terrorist, and deported by the U.S. to Syria to be tortured by them. (The outsourcing of torture it would seem.)

Arar received financial compensation from the Canadian government for its part in the affair, and his case against the U.S. government is still proceeding.

[XBoxWarrior]

I gather none of you actually think we are at war?
Yeah, THIS!!1111!!!

I'm on the winning side!1111!!!!!

Growin' weed/fungi and making large cash, gotta love the war on drugs...

How's that "War on Terror" workin' out? OH YeAh? "huge gains on the 'terrorists' part"?

Su-freakin-prize

/I wanna war on xtians
//would sign up manana
///if they gave me a free gun
////2cd amendment and all that
/////all christians should be held in a camp
//////sell hunting tickets
///////profit

[BeAChooser]

my greatest fear, is that we water board someone, again and again, only to find out a year later that they were framed, or they were arrested by mistake, etc etc.


That's your "greatest" fear? :rolleyes:

[leftysergeant]

I, too, think the Bill of Rights means something. I think it means a lot--to US citizens. Enemy combatants? I don't think the Bill of Rights has much of anything at all to say about them.

Since the Constitution does not use the word "citizen" to designate the beneficiaries of that provision, it must, then, apply to all persons in our custody and jurisdiction. That simple.

[joobz]

The Bill of Rights is a set of amendments to the US Constitution, a document that specifies the relationship between the US government and US citizens. I, too, think the Bill of Rights means something. I think it means a lot--to US citizens. Enemy combatants? I don't think the Bill of Rights has much of anything at all to say about them.

Mind to show me where the bill of rights is limited only to citizens?


ETA: As far as I understand it, It doesn't endow people with rights as much as it limits the behaviors the government can do. This is likely true for all the constitution. For instance, the federal government can tax non-citizens and hold non-citizens accountable to federal laws. Why would the protections be any less. Indeed, the only thing I think citizens can do that non citizens can't is hold federal office, be eligible for certain entitlements and vote.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well count yourself in the minority. :D

Fortunately laws don't change based on opinion polls. (I think the majority of Americans also believe in some form of Creationism.)


Torture violates both the Convention Against Torture and U.S. law.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Since the Constitution does not use the word "citizen" to designate the beneficiaries of that provision, it must, then, apply to all persons in our custody and jurisdiction. That simple.

I agree, and so does the SCOTUS (see the Boumediene v. Bush decision).

Where the Constitution means citizen, it uses that word. Where it says "the people" or "the accused" it means that.

And it makes no sense to read many of the guarantees in the Bill of Rights as applying only to U.S. Citizens (can government establish state religion for non-citizens? can they repress free speech based on someone's citizenship status?)

[Whiplash]

Well count yourself in the minority. :D


Sometimes it's embarrassing to be there. And other times, it can feel quite good.

[Whiplash]

Just to be clear, my feeling is that there is little to no useful intelligence to extract from this/these guy(s)*. But what the hell do I know. I certainly think they should be interrogated and we should attempt to find out all we can.

I only supported waterboarding, in hindsight, and based on the idea that it supposedly turned over some useful information. I don't think we should do it anymore. It strikes me as going too far.

* I thought I read somewhere that there was a second person involved in the recent attempt on Christmas.

[RecoveringYuppy]

I gather none of you actually think we are at war?

The terrorists who want us to be at war with them aren't really important enough to be at war with. We should choose war and police tactics at our convenience and advantage.

[Safe-Keeper]

Has torture ever been shown to produce reliable results?BeAChooser has already addressed this:
I gather none of you actually think we are at war?

FAIL Bar 'n' Grill
Red herring......................1..$4.99
Subtotal............................$4.99
Tip.................................$____
Total...............................$____

1/2/10
Your waiter for tonight was: BeAChooser

The same would apply to his apparent assertion that ethics are decided by majority votes. I suppose he'd back a firearms ban, too, if 58% of the US populace some day supported it. To answer your question in a more constructive way, though... no, strike that --

To answer your question in a more constructive way, though, no, torture has never been proven to be a useful means of extracting information. This, along with the fact that it's a horrific practice, used to be widely known, but this knowledge was mysteriously lost at about the same practice Dubya and his GOP cronies started using torture.

Not that I'm saying there's a correlation or anything:rolleyes:...

[Uzzy]

To quote a somewhat good (if fictional) man.

Doesn't matter what the press says. Doesn't matter what the politicians or the mobs say. Doesn't matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right. This nation was founded on one principle above all else: the requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world - "No, you move."

I am not an American, but I am somewhat saddened to see anyone from a modern, civilised society favouring torture.

[Upchurch]

The Bill of Rights is a set of amendments to the US Constitution, a document that specifies the relationship between the US government and US citizens. I, too, think the Bill of Rights means something. I think it means a lot--to US citizens.
Perhaps, but that right there shows that it doesn't mean what you think it means. In some very important ways, it means the exact opposite of what you apparently think it means.

Isn't it amazing that for someone who values the Bill of Rights and (one would hope) by extension the entire US Constitution doesn't really take the time to understand what it is all about?

[Earthborn]

Has torture ever been shown to produce reliable results?Not under controlled conditions, no. That may have something to do with the fact that it is rather difficult to get such a research proposal through the ethics committee rather than actually having been tested.

If I had to guess about the effectiveness of torture, it seems to me that if you need life-saving information it seems rather counter productive to do anything that might temporarily or permanently damage the medium that carries the information. To read the information, you don't throw diskettes on an electromagnet, you don't microwave hard disks, you don't fold, bend, spindle or mutilate punch cards, and you don't drown terrorists who you suspect has crucial information in his brain, all for exactly the same reason.

You don't even have to care about human rights to figure that out.

[Mojo]

Contrast that to the approach Obama's administration has actually adopted.


The US has managed to elect an administration that is less stupid and immoral than 58% of its own electorate, and you think that's a bad thing?

[Hlafordlaes]

I find that many Americans with a "get tough, be rough" attitude are merely chicken hawk bullies who haven't given a moment's thought as to what American interests are at stake:



How do you wish American troops to be treated by enemy forces? The international treaties on human rights and treatment of prisoners of war were drafted following the abuses committed against, among others, American servicemen in WWI and WWII.
How do you now wish to justify the war crimes trials against WWII Germany's Nazi leaders, many of whom were executed for condoning the acts you now promote? Is it that Americans are to be regarded as more or supremely human, and others as less?
What of the treatment of US citizens accused of crimes in say, China? Shall they be freely tortured until they admit to whatever the authorities wish, then executed?
Do you recall the episode of Gary Powers and his forced "voluntary" confession under the Soviets? What of the analogous American POWs in Vietnam?

And I assure you, you yourself can be made to confess to anything. So, are you willing to stand convicted on that basis? I thought not. (No, chicken hawk bravado of "I'd hold out" will not impress as anything less than childish ranting.)

Certainly a thuggish, brute response to all things enemyish is appealing to the lesser mind, in dull disregard of the greater interest. Precedent works both ways, so be mindful of what you espouse so carelessly in the safety of your den, lest it be applied to you, or your fellow countrymen.

[Mojo]

Is it that Americans are to be regarded as more or supremely human, and others as less?


***COUGH (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court #Efforts_to_shield_Americans_from_ICC_jurisdiction )***

[theprestige]

Perhaps, but that right there shows that it doesn't mean what you think it means. In some very important ways, it means the exact opposite of what you apparently think it means.
Please point out to me which parts of the US Constitution mean the opposite of specifying the relationship between the US government and US citizens.

[leftysergeant]

Please point out to me which parts of the US Constitution mean the opposite of specifying the relationship between the US government and US citizens.

That has to be one of the most egregious specimens of tortured syntax that I have tried to read in an awfully long time. The only logical response to that question is WTF?

[theprestige]

I find that many Americans with a "get tough, be rough" attitude are merely chicken hawk bullies who haven't given a moment's thought as to what American interests are at stake:



How do you wish American troops to be treated by enemy forces? The international treaties on human rights and treatment of prisoners of war were drafted following the abuses committed against, among others, American servicemen in WWI and WWII.
How do you now wish to justify the war crimes trials against WWII Germany's Nazi leaders, many of whom were executed for condoning the acts you now promote? Is it that Americans are to be regarded as more or supremely human, and others as less?
What of the treatment of US citizens accused of crimes in say, China? Shall they be freely tortured until they admit to whatever the authorities wish, then executed?
Do you recall the episode of Gary Powers and his forced "voluntary" confession under the Soviets? What of the analogous American POWs in Vietnam?

And I assure you, you yourself can be made to confess to anything. So, are you willing to stand convicted on that basis? I thought not. (No, chicken hawk bravado of "I'd hold out" will not impress as anything less than childish ranting.)

Certainly a thuggish, brute response to all things enemyish is appealing to the lesser mind, in dull disregard of the greater interest. Precedent works both ways, so be mindful of what you espouse so carelessly in the safety of your den, lest it be applied to you, or your fellow countrymen.
And when Yemeni terrorist cells put on uniforms, swear allegiance to a national government, hold themselves accountable to a chain of command, and--you know, just for fun--sign on to any treaties on human rights and treatment of prisoners of war, I will be more than happy to afford them all the considerations and privileges that go along with that method of warfare. Meanwhile, you might want to consider the traditional consequences reserved by the principles of civlized warfare for spies, infiltrators, and saboteurs who operate out of uniform behind enemy lines.

It seems like you are arguing that terrorists would adopt a more humane and civilized approach to warfare if they were granted the privileges of the criminal justice process when caught. Is this the case?

It also seems like you are arguing that nation-states such as China base their POW treatment policies on how the US handles terrorists. Is this also the case

[GlennB]

Certainly a thuggish, brute response to all things enemyish is appealing to the lesser mind, in dull disregard of the greater interest. Precedent works both ways, so be mindful of what you espouse so carelessly in the safety of your den, lest it be applied to you, or your fellow countrymen.

Well said :)

[GlennB]

So 58% of the people still haven't figured out that waterboarding is cruel and unusual punishment without due process of law and that it DOESN'T FREAKING WORK.

Policy decissions are to be made by the more intelligent and better-informed among us, not the cowardly dimbulbs.

Come on, leftysegeant. It must have worked on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, otherwise they wouldn't have done it 183 times.

(for the dimbulbs : :rolleyes:)

[INRM]

I'm not sure how accurate the Rasmussen Polls are. On the Daily Show, they showed one particular poll that tallied to over 100%

Since it is not possible to exceed 100%...

[leftysergeant]

Come on, leftysegeant. It must have worked on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, otherwise they wouldn't have done it 183 times.

(for the dimbulbs : :rolleyes:)

Okay, so he also copped to offing the Lindburg baby. BFD.

[theprestige]

I'm not sure how accurate the Rasmussen Polls are. On the Daily Show, they showed one particular poll that tallied to over 100%

Since it is not possible to exceed 100%...
Statistics have error margins. It's possible for valid poll numbers to add up to more or less than 100%. You probably shouldn't get your serious analysis from comedy news programs.

[Magyar]

you know I can't be bothered to check but I am willing to bet large sums that when this story broke http://www.aztlan.net/torched_hung.htm
BAC was one of the first people on here talking about how terrible these people are
and yes it is repugnant and barbaric to treat dead bodies like this

BUT they were JUST dead bodies at this point, BAC advocates doing similar things to actual living people and sees nothing wrong with it because 58% of people agree with him.


OH the cognitive dissonance!

[Upchurch]

Statistics have error margins. It's possible for valid poll numbers to add up to more or less than 100%.
It added up to something like 120%. That's one hell of a margin of error.

[Mojo]

And when Yemeni terrorist cells put on uniforms, swear allegiance to a national government, hold themselves accountable to a chain of command, and--you know, just for fun--sign on to any treaties on human rights and treatment of prisoners of war...


Has the USA signed such treaties?

[Uzzy]

And when Yemeni terrorist cells put on uniforms, swear allegiance to a national government, hold themselves accountable to a chain of command, and--you know, just for fun--sign on to any treaties on human rights and treatment of prisoners of war, I will be more than happy to afford them all the considerations and privileges that go along with that method of warfare.

So, because Yemeni terrorists refuse to act in a civilised way, that gives the US license to abandon the rights and principles people have fought and died for over the past three hundred years, the same rights and principles that separate the liberal democracies from the barbarians we fight?

I think this is around the point where a certain quote from Nietzsche on gazing into the abyss comes to mind.

[Upchurch]

So, because Yemeni terrorists refuse to act in a civilised way, that gives the US license to abandon the rights and principles people have fought and died for over the past three hundred years, the same rights and principles that separate the liberal democracies from the barbarians we fight?
Don't you know that principles are only for when things are easy?

(Apparently)

[JoeTheJuggler]

Please point out to me which parts of the US Constitution mean the opposite of specifying the relationship between the US government and US citizens.

Language in the Bill of Rights sometimes refers to limitations on the powers of government (and it doesn't make sense to construe that to mean limitations on the powers of government only wrt U.S. citizens--like the First Amendment, for example). In other places in the Bill of Rights, the rights are granted to "the people" or "persons" or those accused of crimes.

Yet in other places, the Constitution uses the word citizens.

Funny how people who ordinarily claim to be strict constructionists will ignore these points.

There's also the legislative history of the Constitution. It wouldn't have been ratified without the Bill of Rights guaranteeing protections for the Lockian natural rights (those that pertain to all people).

[BeAChooser]

The same would apply to his apparent assertion that ethics are decided by majority votes.

Actually, history would show that they mostly are ... in multiple cultures. :D

[BeAChooser]

I suppose he'd back a firearms ban, too, if 58% of the US populace some day supported it.

Actually, no but then now we are talking about rights guaranteed to US CITIZENS by our Constitution. If you want to ban firearms, you are going to have to get the votes needed to change that Constitution.

[quadraginta]

Statistics have error margins. It's possible for valid poll numbers to add up to more or less than 100%. You probably shouldn't get your serious analysis from comedy news programs.

It added up to something like 120%. That's one hell of a margin of error.


theprestige has proven himself to be very forgiving of large error.

[BeAChooser]

The US has managed to elect an administration that is less stupid and immoral than 58% of its own electorate

That's highly debatable. I've had no trouble finding opportunities to note that Obama is Stuck On Stupid. And there is nothing moral about putting the lives of thousands or even millions of US citizens at risk simply because you are too squeamish to use an effective and generally non-lethal method of breaking the will of terrorists. There is nothing moral about being unwilling to recognize that we are indeed at war with a world-wide network of fanatically motivated islamofascists who, if they get a chance, will not hesitate to bring down not only the US but all of Western civilization. And ironically it is America's and Europe's leftists that will be at the front of the line to receive the sword if they do succeed in doing that. :D

[BeAChooser]

How do you wish American troops to be treated by enemy forces?

Is the left really so foolish and naive as to think that if we don't waterboard terrorists, terrorists will treat anyone they capture kindly? It is utterly stupid to think that terrorists, who are stateless and have never signed up to abide by ANY rules ... nor shown any willingness to do so, will abide by them if we don't waterboard terrorists when we catch them ... if instead we give terrorists all the legal rights of American citizens. :rolleyes:

[Trakar]

The Bill of Rights is a set of amendments to the US Constitution, a document that specifies the relationship between the US government and US citizens. I, too, think the Bill of Rights means something. I think it means a lot--to US citizens. Enemy combatants? I don't think the Bill of Rights has much of anything at all to say about them.

Actually the Bill of Rights is a recognition of basic human rights, and a limitation of Government powers, not a mere enumeration of some citizen privileges.

[BeAChooser]

It must have worked on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, otherwise they wouldn't have done it 183 times.

Now Glenn, if you are aware of the fact that KSM wasn't waterboarded in 183 seperate sessions but just had water applied many times in a few sessions ... and broke after the very first session, then I can only presume that you were trying to deceive the uninformed on this forum. You wanted to make them think that waterboarding didn't work with KSM when in fact it worked exceedingly well. I can only presume you were being dishonest. Of course the possibility does exist that you were ignorant of these facts ... a distinct possibility since ignorance of facts is a common malady of those on the left. :D

[joobz]

Actually, no but then now we are talking about rights guaranteed to US CITIZENS by our Constitution. If you want to ban firearms, you are going to have to get the votes needed to change that Constitution.
Are you attempting to derail your own thread again?
How about the "on topic" point: It is unconstitutional to use torture.

[BeAChooser]

OH the cognitive dissonance!

No, Magyar, the cognitive dissonance is in thinking, for even one moment, that waterboarding is remotely equivalent to what was done to those poor men at that bridge that day. You see that body in the photo you linked? Well KSM is alive and well, and will even get a $75 million plus show trial in NYC very soon. One where if he's found innocent (and he very well could be even if though we all know he isn't innocent), the Obama Administration will have no choice but to let him walk a free man, unless Obama and Holder want to make a complete mockery of our laws AND our Constitution in the eyes of the world. Krauthammer is entirely correct. The logic of Obama's actions is perverse ... and full of cognitive dissonance. :D

[tyr_13]

Is the left really so foolish and naive as to think that if we don't waterboard terrorists, terrorists will treat anyone they capture kindly? It is utterly stupid to think that terrorists, who are stateless and have never signed up to abide by ANY rules ... nor shown any willingness to do so, will abide by them if we don't waterboard terrorist when we catch them ... if instead we give terrorists all the legal rights of American citizens. :rolleyes:

GODWIN ALEART!

Let me see if I can fix this for you...

"Is the left really so foolish and naive as to think that if we don't waterboard terrorists Jews and other undesirables, terrorists Jews and other undesirables will treat anyone they capture kindly? It is utterly stupid to think that terrorists Jews and other undesirables, who are stateless and have never signed up to abide by ANY rules ... nor shown any willingness to do so, will abide by them if we don't waterboard terrorist Jews and other undesirables when we catch them ... if instead we give terrorists Jews and other undesirables all the legal rights of American German citizens. :rolleyes:"

There, that's better.

The enemy being evil and terrible is a reason for us NOT to do the same. If you want America to become the big evil that Jews and other undesirables terrorists accuse it of being, all I can say is, GTFO. The US isn't Roman and 'terrorists' aren't homo sacer.

[Alt+F4]

Waterboard this guy for what point? So we can sleep better at night knowing a terrorist is being torured? Is this how an effective anti-terrorist effort is supposed to work?

There was enough info on this guy that he should have been refused to fly. There real problem here is the reluctance of intelligence agencies to share information and their sloppy methods of obtaining it.

So waterboard away! The guy will crack in about 30 minutes, tell all about some terrorist training camp in Yemen that we can't do anything about. Give the names of people who will simply disappear. And in the end none of the institutional failures that allowed him to board that plane will be fixed or changed.

Waterboarding is reactive, to stop the terrorist threat to the U.S. the government has to get more proactive.

[BeAChooser]

Actually the Bill of Rights is a recognition of basic human rights, and a limitation of Government powers, not a mere enumeration of some citizen privileges.

Actually the Bill Of Rights are Amendments to the US Constitution and therefore apply only to US citizens governed by the US Consitution. The Constitution starts off by saying "We The People Of the United States", not We The People Of The World. The Constitution and Amendments speak repeatedly of the "rights of citizens" and never mention the *rights of non-citizens*. Why you would think the Bill Of Rights applies to all mankind is unfathomable.

[BeAChooser]

Waterboard this guy for what point?

To find out who sent him on this one way mission, where they met and trained for the mission, if he knows of any other planned attacks, ... you know ... the usual sort of information that might save hundreds if not thousands of American (and even non-American) lives. :D

So waterboard away! The guy will crack in about 30 minutes, tell all about some terrorist training camp in Yemen that we can't do anything about.

Are you so naive as to believe that?

Waterboarding is reactive,

False. It is proactive and numerous high ranking individuals have stated unequivocally that waterboarding certain captured terrorists has saved lives that would have been lost in terrorist plots which were planned and prevented.

[tyr_13]

So what aren't we allowed to do to these homo sacer hmm? Rape their women? Burn their crops? Plow salt into the fields? After all, they're just terrorists and don't have any rights at all. The US Constitution doesn't even use the word 'terrorists'.

[scissorhands]

Not under controlled conditions, no. That may have something to do with the fact that it is rather difficult to get such a research proposal through the ethics committee rather than actually having been tested.

If I had to guess about the effectiveness of torture, it seems to me that if you need life-saving information it seems rather counter productive to do anything that might temporarily or permanently damage the medium that carries the information. To read the information, you don't throw diskettes on an electromagnet, you don't microwave hard disks, you don't fold, bend, spindle or mutilate punch cards, and you don't drown terrorists who you suspect has crucial information in his brain, all for exactly the same reason.

You don't even have to care about human rights to figure that out.

And you are under the impression that waterboarding involves drowning terrorists, for what reason?
As far as Im aware, the terrorist is still alive after such an interrogation.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Actually the Bill Of Rights are Amendments to the US Constitution and therefore apply only to US citizens governed by the US Consitution. The Constitution starts off by saying "We The People Of the United States", not We The People Of The World. The Constitution and Amendments speak repeatedly of the "rights of citizens" and never mention the *rights of non-citizens*. Why you would think the Bill Of Rights applies to all mankind is unfathomable.
You're simply wrong.

Where citizen is meant, the word citizen is used. When the word people or persons or accused is used, it applies to all such people.

See also Boumediene v. Bush.

Do you think governments have the right to establish a religion for non-citizens? (If your claim that the Bill of Rights is not a limit on government but a right for U.S. citizens alone, then such a thing should be legal.)

[tyr_13]

All illegal Mexican immigrants mush now worship Uncle Ben Rice.

[JoeTheJuggler]

All illegal Mexican immigrants mush now worship Uncle Ben Rice.
The legal ones too. After all people with the status of permanent resident or with a J-visa or whatever are non citizens too. According to BaC, the government can do whatever they like with them and the Bill of Rights doesn't pertain.

[Peephole]

58% of Americans seem to have some issues.

[JoeTheJuggler]

The Boumediene decision also cites Reid v. Covert (my bolding):
Practical considerations likewise influenced the Court’s analysis in Reid v. Covert, 354 U. S. 1 , where, in applying the jury provisions of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to American civilians being tried by the U. S. military abroad, both the plurality and the concurrences noted the relevance of practical considerations, related not to the petitioners’ citizenship, but to the place of their confinement and trial.

But the entire decision (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-1195.ZS.html) is worth reading and largely pertinent to this claim that the Bill of Rights or the Constitution in general only applies to U.S. citizens.

[Alt+F4]

The legal ones too. After all people with the status of permanent resident or with a J-visa or whatever are non citizens too. According to BaC, the government can do whatever they like with them and the Bill of Rights doesn't pertain.

You forgot tourists, visiting dignitaries, and exchange students.

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Actually the Bill Of Rights are Amendments to the US Constitution and therefore apply only to US citizens governed by the US Consitution. The Constitution starts off by saying "We The People Of the United States", not We The People Of The World. The Constitution and Amendments speak repeatedly of the "rights of citizens" and never mention the *rights of non-citizens*. Why you would think the Bill Of Rights applies to all mankind is unfathomable.

You're simply wrong.

Where citizen is meant, the word citizen is used. When the word people or persons or accused is used, it applies to all such people.

So you think the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution and Bill Of Rights with the intent that it apply to all mankind, not just citizens of the US? LOL! :rolleyes:

[BeAChooser]

58% of Americans seem to have some issues.

For certain, 30% of Americans are utterly naive or clueless. :D

[Shalamar]

The legal ones too. After all people with the status of permanent resident or with a J-visa or whatever are non citizens too. According to BaC, the government can do whatever they like with them and the Bill of Rights doesn't pertain.

Its one of the reasons I had to put BAC on ignore. I am a legal, permanent resident of the United States. As such, I am less than a person, unworthy of any rights what-so-ever, and if a public option for healthcare is passed, I am to die in the street, or go bankrupt, because only citizens are worthy of life.

[Alt+F4]

So you think the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution and Bill Of Rights with the intent that it apply to all mankind, not just citizens of the US? LOL! :rolleyes:

Not to all mankind but to all persons currently in the United States. If your bizarre theory was put into practice it would destroy a large segment of the American economy. What foreigner would ever travel to the United States if they knew they could be arrested with out charges, be denied a lawyer and held indefinitely without trial?

There is a reason places like Angola don't have much of a tourist industry.

[quadraginta]

So you think the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution and Bill Of Rights with the intent that it apply to all mankind, not just citizens of the US? LOL! :rolleyes:


You're probably right. They were just kidding when they wrote that silly Declaration of Independence stuff a few years before.

Especially that ridiculous ...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_men_are_created_equal), that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness)

Boy, was that a hoot.

[JoeTheJuggler]

So you think the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution and Bill Of Rights with the intent that it apply to all mankind, not just citizens of the US? LOL! :rolleyes:

Yes. And if you'll read my posts and the Boumediene decision, you'll understand that it's the most reasonable position.

Your position is indefensible, and that's why all you can do is offer an rolleyes emoticon in lieu of any substantive argument.

Again, where citizen is meant, the word citizen is used. Where persons or people or the accused is used, those groups of people are the intention. The usage in the Constitution makes it clear that the framers conceived of "citizens" as a subset of "persons" or "the people". For example, Article 1 Section 2 says (my bolding):
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

There are many other examples of this.

Some rights (notably the First Amendment) are even expressed as a limitation on government and make no sense to think that limitation doesn't exist wrt non-citizens. (See above with the example of forcing non-citizens to worship Uncle Ben's Rice.)

And the Boumediene decision directly addressed and rejected the argument that the Constitution only applies to U.S. citizens.

ETA: I predict BaC will either ignore this post or quote a part of it while failing to respond to the points made or evade responding to these points by raising a tangential issue.

[Uzzy]

Regardless of BaC's consistent wrongness on the issue of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the US did happen to sign and ratify the United Nations Convention Against Torture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture). Which, as you might guess, bans torture and waterboarding in this instance.

[JoeTheJuggler]

You forgot tourists, visiting dignitaries, and exchange students.
I covered exchange students under the "J-visas" and the rests with "or whatever". :D

Not to all mankind but to all persons currently in the United States.
Minor quibble, they just need to be under U.S. jurisdiction, not necessarily in the U.S. That was part of the Boumediene decision too. The argument was made that Gitmo is still de jure under Cuban jurisdiction, and the court rejected it.

The Convention Against Torture specifies that it applies to anyone an agent of the U.S. has in custody. (IIRC, the U.S. code reflects that very broad jurisdiction too.)

[JoeTheJuggler]

Regardless of BaC's consistent wrongness on the issue of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the US did happen to sign and ratify the United Nations Convention Against Torture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture). Which, as you might guess, bans torture and waterboarding in this instance.

Indeed. And we also passed our own laws (as mandated by the CAT) to comply.

I think the argument Gonzales, Woo and the others made is that waterboarding doesn't count as torture, even though it clearly does. In both the CAT and U.S. law, the kind of mental harm/suffering they're talking about explicitly includes the threat of imminent death, which is pretty much the purpose of waterboarding.

[Peephole]

For certain, 30% of Americans are utterly naive or clueless. :D
You know, putting smiley faces behind these kind of sociopathic statements doesn't really help in any way, it just makes it extra creepy.

[Corsair 115]

Regardless of BaC's consistent wrongness on the issue of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the US did happen to sign and ratify the United Nations Convention Against Torture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture). Which, as you might guess, bans torture and waterboarding in this instance.


Well, the U.S. signed NAFTA too but that doesn't stop it from violating the terms of that agreement. It seems signed agreements are to be ignored whenver domestic politics makes it expedient to do so.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well, the U.S. signed NAFTA too but that doesn't stop it from violating the terms of that agreement. It seems signed agreements are to be ignored whenver domestic politics makes it expedient to do so.

Yes, but I don't think the argument is about whether or not the U.S. can get away with torturing people, but whether or not it's justified.

And signed and ratified treaties are part of U.S. law, but in the case of torture, we have U.S. law that says basically the same thing.

FWIW, the CAT specifically says that torture can never be justified under any circumstances (no crisis or war or anything). So arguments based on expedience (if you torture this guy you might get information that might save hundreds of lives, for example) were considered and rejected by this law.

ETA: I realize you weren't expressing approval for such arguments, Corsair.

[Ladewig]

if he knows of any other planned attacks, ...

How ***** retarded does a terrorist organization have to be to tell suicide bombers of other planned attacks?

[GlennB]

Now Glenn, if you are aware of the fact that KSM wasn't waterboarded in 183 seperate sessions but just had water applied many times in a few sessions ... and broke after the very first session, then I can only presume that you were trying to deceive the uninformed on this forum. You wanted to make them think that waterboarding didn't work with KSM when in fact it worked exceedingly well. I can only presume you were being dishonest. Of course the possibility does exist that you were ignorant of these facts ... a distinct possibility since ignorance of facts is a common malady of those on the left. :D

Ahhhhhhh. No. I was suggesting - maybe too obscurely - that the extra sessions were, in fact, punishment for what he'd done regarding 9/11.

But - if 'they' were shoving bamboo skewers under each of your fingernails in each of 10 sessions, you'd class that as 10 incidents of torture? Most of us would class it as 100, I reckon. And if you were talking freely after one or two skewers then it looks like the rest are just sadism.

So if KSM 'broke' after the first session then why the rest? I strongly suspect he hadn't forgotten the experience.

But then the whole business was totally illegal, as has been described in other posts. I shudder to think what kind of godawful mess his trial will become.

[Thunder]

3,000 Americans died on 9-11!!!!!

therefore, we should waterboard any/all supposed terrorists for information. and for laughs.

[leftysergeant]

But then the whole business was totally illegal, as has been described in other posts. I shudder to think what kind of godawful mess his trial will become.

That may not be the worst of it. I haven't had time to go back over the history of how KSM was arrested, but a caller to Mike Molloy last night mentioned that someone kidnapped KSM's two sons and extracted information from them, possibly by torture, and that they are now both missing.

This may be one of the reasons the Shrub's boys do not want KSM brought to the states for trial. If the allegations concerning the two children, then 12 and 9 yeares of age are true, it could result in at least six former US officials being strapped to a gurney and shot up with a three drug cocktail.

It would mean that the Shrub, Cheney, Rummy, Gonzo, Yoo and Ashcroft were all complicite in aggravated murder one.

[JoeTheJuggler]

The pertinent U.S. Code is Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 113c (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_113C.html).

In section 2340, torture is defined (my bolding):

(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control

Nothing about limiting the definition of the crime to cases where the victim is a U.S. citizen.

And yet, in section 2340A, we have this (my bolding):

(b) Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if—
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.

So if it's on U.S. soil, we know for sure it's illegal to torture non-citizens. And that "or" makes me think that if the offender is an agent of the U.S., that it doesn't matter if it takes place elsewhere. But clearly this law doesn't anticipate that torture is OK if the victim is a non-citizen.

[jdp]

Not under controlled conditions, no. That may have something to do with the fact that it is rather difficult to get such a research proposal through the ethics committee rather than actually having been tested.


Well, there have been plenty of times throughout history that torture has been used so I figured there might be some objective information available that could be evaluated to tell us whether it is more, less, or equal as effective as less crude techniques such as social engineering. Perhaps those who already support its use could provide some links to objective research on the issue?

ETA: It seems the section of the Army Field Manual (http://www.army.mil/institution/armypublicaffairs/pdf/fm2-22-3.pdf) Revised Sept. 2006 (Page 97) which discusses Human Intelligence has this to say:

“The Department of Defense Detainee Program”; DOD instructions; and military execute orders including FRAGOs. Use of torture is not only illegal but also it is a poor technique that yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say what he thinks the HUMINT collector wants to hear. Use of torture can also have many possible negative consequences at national and international levels.

I am still reading through this but I am wondering if there is any objective research that indicates otherwise.

[leftysergeant]

The Nazis tortured people with a passion, and still left Rommel sitting on the Pas de Calais waiting for the real invasion, and resistance units running around blowing things up behind German lines.

The French tortured as a matter of of standard operating procedures in Algeria and Lebanon. How'd that work for stopping terroist attacks on French soil?

Real-world tests? We have history.

Been there! Done that!

Sucked TOTALLY.

[INRM]

Upchurch,

It added up to something like 120%.

That would be the one!

That's one hell of a margin of error.

Yeah, exactly.

[Earthborn]

And you are under the impression that waterboarding involves drowning terrorists, for what reason?Waterboarding counts as "being drowned" in my book.

As far as Im aware, the terrorist is still alive after such an interrogation.Usually alive, yes. But not well. You can put your memory stick in the washing machine too, and there is a good chance that it will still work, but that doesn't make it a good way to extract the information from it.

[Elentar]

Advocacy of torture appears to be largely based upon an erroneous theory of memory--that our memory is like a video tape of past events. It isn't. Memory of the past is reconstructed into narrative form by stringing together minor details that are remembered. The circumstances in which that reconstruction happens is critical. High stress and leading questions will induce the person who is tortured to reconstruct false memories, which will blot out the real information, often permanently.

This has occurred often in cases where police have gotten the wrong man, extracted a confession under duress, and then discovered that new evidence contradicts the confession--and then they have a problem, because the new memories they have constructed are stuck, and the accused won't change his story. The confession is obviously bogus, and yet, the cops try to crowbar it in to fit (sadly, there a quite a few notorious cases of this both in Canada and the U.S., and some of the accused are still in jail.) In cases where DNA evidence later proves beyond doubt that the accused, who has been in jail for years, was not the perpetrator, it may have taken the accused months or years to reconstruct what actually happened.

Your chances of catching a terrorist who is involved and knows the details of a pending plot are almost nil--his capture will kill the plots he knows about, as the terrorists scramble to protect their resources and change their game plan. You may, however, catch someone who may have information whose relevance even he is not fully aware of. Torture will erase this information. And this is the information you need to win the war.

[joobz]

That's highly debatable. For some people, so is evolution.
I've had no trouble finding opportunities to note that Obama is Stuck On Stupid. you being wrong isn't Obama's problem.

And there is nothing moral about putting the lives of thousands or even millions of US citizens at risk simply because you are too squeamish to use an effective and generally non-lethal method of breaking the will of terrorists. Ah, yes. A president who escalates actions in Afghanistan is squeamish.

There is nothing moral about being unwilling to recognize that we are indeed at war with a world-wide network of fanatically motivated islamofascists who, if they get a chance, will not hesitate to bring down not only the US but all of Western civilization.
What do you think Afghanistan is about?

And ironically it is America's and Europe's leftists that will be at the front of the line to receive the sword if they do succeed in doing that. :D
I tried to figure out this bit of graphic nonsense, but honestly couldn't figure it out. Are you saying that you're such a coward that you'd sacrifice your fellow man in order to avoid defending your country?

[Trakar]

And when Yemeni terrorist cells put on uniforms, swear allegiance to a national government, hold themselves accountable to a chain of command, and--you know, just for fun--sign on to any treaties on human rights and treatment of prisoners of war, I will be more than happy to afford them all the considerations and privileges that go along with that method of warfare...

You really don't get it do you?

Two wrongs never make a right, criminal behavior does not justify criminal behavior in response, and the ends never justify any unjust means. We are better because we believe and abide by these rules, if you surrender this difference, there is no difference, we become no better than the rest.

[willhaven]

I gather none of you actually think we are at war?We haven't declared a war since WWII.

That said, we've prosecuted and convicted hundreds of terrorists in the federal courts under Bush, before Bush and it will continue under Obama. If this guy doesn't want to talk, it's his right. I don't think we're short of any evidence required for a conviction. Over 90% conviction rate, hundreds of terrorists in US prisons for a decade or more.

[Trakar]

Actually the Bill Of Rights are Amendments to the US Constitution and therefore apply only to US citizens governed by the US Consitution. The Constitution starts off by saying "We The People Of the United States", not We The People Of The World. The Constitution and Amendments speak repeatedly of the "rights of citizens" and never mention the *rights of non-citizens*. Why you would think the Bill Of Rights applies to all mankind is unfathomable.

The Constitution establishes the force of law within the US, binding the actions and in the case of the Bill of Rights, limiting the ability of, the government to act, it isn't about "citizen's rights" or even "human rights" it is about limiting and restricting the rights of the government to infringe upon the rights individuals. In the Bill of Rights, where the forefathers intended there to be exceptions with regards to non-citizens (which at the time included virtually everyone except landed, white, recently former Englishmen, who no longer swore allegiance to the English crown), they are specifically spelled out and stated. There are no exceptions stated for any type of guns, for any type of speech, for any specific crimes, or for crimes where non-citizens are involved. In short, The constitution spells out what the government may do and how it may do it, if you don't see any specific strictures or restraints regarding non-citizen's and the rights the do or don't have, it isn't an area that the constitution gives the government the authority to infringe upon.

Furthermore, until suspected criminals (terrorists, foriegn agents, etc.,) have been given a full and legal trial, we don't know if those suspects are indeed criminals (terrorists, foriegn agents, etc.,) and thus have no means or right to suspend their rights or issue fine or punishment. Regardless of your beliefs, guilt is determined on the basis of evidence which is assessed and evaluated by a duly appointed judge and jury, that is how our system of justice works.

[BeAChooser]

You know, putting smiley faces behind these kind of sociopathic statements doesn't really help in any way, it just makes it extra creepy.

Sort of like your avatar? :D

[BeAChooser]

Its one of the reasons I had to put BAC on ignore. I am a legal, permanent resident of the United States. As such, I am less than a person, unworthy of any rights what-so-ever, and if a public option for healthcare is passed, I am to die in the street, or go bankrupt, because only citizens are worthy of life.

:rolleyes:

I assume you aren't a freeloader, Shalamar. You have a job, right? You'll pay your way, right? And you aren't a terrorist, right? You're a guest in our country who is completely law abiding. Right? So you need not worry about being waterboarded. Or worry about run-ins with our harsh legal system. And even if healthcare passes and for some reason doesn't include language that gives you a free-ride, you'll do ok. Right? Afterall, you managed so far.

Oh that's right. You have me on ignore because what I say is so disconcerting. :D

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
So you think the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution and Bill Of Rights with the intent that it apply to all mankind, not just citizens of the US?

Not to all mankind but to all persons currently in the United States.

Who at the time the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written, all became citizens (well perhaps indians and blacks weren't included). Notice that later amendments actually refer to the "rights of citizens"? Why was that necessary. Because when those were written when many in the country were not citizens. Funny how that works. :D

[Redtail]

:rolleyes:

I assume you aren't a freeloader, Shalamar. You have a job, right? You'll pay your way, right? And you aren't a terrorist, right? You're a guest in our country who is completely law abiding. Right? So you need not worry about being waterboarded. Or worry about run-ins with our harsh legal system. And even if healthcare passes and for some reason doesn't include language that gives you a free-ride, you'll do ok. Right? Afterall, you managed so far.

Oh that's right. You have me on ignore because what I say is so disconcerting. :D

Why are you so afraid? Things change... I know, I've seen it in text books, documentaries and such... You seem like the kind of person who would rail against integration because "next they'll wanna get married!":rolleyes:

[BeAChooser]

You're probably right. They were just kidding when they wrote that silly Declaration of Independence stuff a few years before.

But the Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution. It is not the law of the land. It is an ideal that hopefully all mankind will agree with over time. But the Founders wrote the Constitution to constrain ONLY our government, not government in general. They were practical men. They added the Bill of Rights to guarantee our citizen's rights ... not the rights of Frenchmen and the rest of mankind. And certainly not the rights of mass murdering terrorists. They were practical men. Aren't leftists always complaining about the arrogance of Americans? Seem to me that to think what you seem to think about what the Founders intended and what the Constitution/Bill Of Rights means is supremely arrogant. And ridiculous ... :D

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
So you think the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution and Bill Of Rights with the intent that it apply to all mankind, not just citizens of the US?

Yes.

Wow. Those Founding Fathers must have been supremely arrogant to think their Constitution/Bill Of Rights would be law for all of mankind. :rolleyes:

Maybe you think we should try to enforce it as such? ;)

[BeAChooser]

How ***** retarded does a terrorist organization have to be to tell suicide bombers of other planned attacks?

Criminals (that's what you think terrorists are, right?) do stupid things all the time. Why should you think this group of them will be any different?

[BeAChooser]

I was suggesting - maybe too obscurely - that the extra sessions were, in fact, punishment for what he'd done regarding 9/11.

Except they weren't ... and you'd know that if you read anything about what actually transpired with KSM.

But - if 'they' were shoving bamboo skewers under each of your fingernails in each of 10 sessions, you'd class that as 10 incidents of torture?

But we aren't talking about bamboo skewers, are we.


So if KSM 'broke' after the first session

Like I said, you apparently haven't bothered to actually read what transpired during those sessions, what KSM's state of mind was, and why they felt it necessary to waterboard him further ... eliciting, by the way further info.


But then the whole business was totally illegal


No, it was not.

I shudder to think what kind of godawful mess his trial will become.

Won't the left be pleased when KSM walks. :D

Of course, Obama has GUARANTEED that won't happen.

Now how can he do that unless he plans to violate the very laws and Constitution that he's said KSM is subject too? Perverse logic, isn't it? :D

[BeAChooser]

We haven't declared a war since WWII.

So you are claiming that Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom weren't wars? :rolleyes:

[BeAChooser]

You seem like the kind of person who would rail against integration because "next they'll wanna get married!":rolleyes:

Are you calling me a racist? That would be a personal attack, I believe.

[Redtail]

Are you calling me a racist? That would be a personal attack, I believe.

No, I said you fear "change" thus the reason I posted, Why are you so afraid? Things change...Would it make you feel better if I used Gay Marriage, Democratic Majority, or people like me in the military instead?

[Safe-Keeper]

Between BAC's liberal use of strawmen, his generous use of ":D" smileys in a discussion about torture, and his unwillingness to provide actual sound arguments, this is one **** of a disturbing and warped thread.

The US has managed to elect an administration that is less stupid and immoral than 58% of its own electorate, and you think that's a bad thing?Indeed.

And when Yemeni terrorist cells put on uniforms, swear allegiance to a national government, hold themselves accountable to a chain of command, and--you know, just for fun--sign on to any treaties on human rights and treatment of prisoners of war, I will be more than happy to afford them all the considerations and privileges that go along with that method of warfare. Meanwhile, you might want to consider the traditional consequences reserved by the principles of civlized warfare for spies, infiltrators, and saboteurs who operate out of uniform behind enemy lines.Not so long ago, the traditional consequences of fighting in uniform, on the front line, under a flag and government, was that you were left to die horribly on the field of battle if your side lost, because medics typically only helped their own. Traditionally, torture, rape and murder were perfectly acceptable when done to men in uniform and civilians as well as terrorists.

Times change. Fortunately. Atrocities were countered by conventions and treaties. Look at the history of the Geneva Conventions and the wars that preceded each one. It's no coincidence that the fourth convention, dealing with the treatment of civilians, came after World War II, for example.

It seems like you are arguing that terrorists would adopt a more humane and civilized approach to warfare if they were granted the privileges of the criminal justice process when caught. Is this the case?No, this is such an obvious strawman that I'm offended by the fact that you ask the question.

It also seems like you are arguing that nation-states such as China base their POW treatment policies on how the US handles terrorists. Is this also the case[?]No, this would be another blatant strawman. This is getting tiring.

That's highly debatable. I've had no trouble finding opportunities to note that Obama is Stuck On Stupid.We've noticed:rolleyes:.

And there is nothing moral about putting the lives of thousands or even millions of US citizens at risk simply because you are too squeamish to use an effective and generally non-lethal method of breaking the will of terrorists. There is nothing moral about being unwilling to recognize that we are indeed at war with a world-wide network of fanatically motivated islamofascists who, if they get a chance, will not hesitate to bring down not only the US but all of Western civilization. And ironically it is America's and Europe's leftists that will be at the front of the line to receive the sword if they do succeed in doing that. :DThe grin smiley at the end of such a paragraph either suggests that you haven't really though through properly what you're talking about, or that you are incredibly cold-hearted.

Is the left really so foolish and naive as to think that if we don't waterboard terrorists, terrorists will treat anyone they capture kindly? It is utterly stupid to think that terrorists, who are stateless and have never signed up to abide by ANY rules ... nor shown any willingness to do so, will abide by them if we don't waterboard terrorists when we catch them ... if instead we give terrorists all the legal rights of American citizens. :rolleyes:That's how it's done, yes. Serial rapists are awarded these rights. Mass murderers are awarded these rights. Robber barons and domestic terrorists are awarded these rights. If I go on a killing spree on American soil, I won't be tortured and thrown in a camp, I'll be given a lawyer, trial and jail sentence (or death sentence, should I be unfortunate to live in one of the states subscribing to the practice). My citizenship has nothing to do with anything.

I'd argue that since every third or fourth American girl is raped at least once in her life, rapists could rightfully be considered a much, much larger threat to US security and happiness than any terrorist ever could. So (as I've asked many times in torture threads without receiving a proper answer), why don't we also torture murderers and rapists?

...there is nothing moral about putting the lives of millions of US citizens at risk simply because you are too squeamish to use an effective and generally non-lethal method of breaking the will of rapists and murderers. There is nothing moral about being unwilling to recognize that we are facing networks of dedicated drug smugglers, gangs, and other evils, who, if they get a chance, will not hesitate to turn all of the US into their turf. And ironically it is America's and Europe's leftists that will be at the front of the line to receive the rapes, drugs and murders if they do succeed in doing that. :D

So what aren't we allowed to do to these homo sacer hmm? Rape their women? Burn their crops? Plow salt into the fields? After all, they're just terrorists and don't have any rights at all. The US Constitution doesn't even use the word 'terrorists'.I've asked this question, too, in threads such as this one and never gotten a proper response.

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Seem to me that to think what you seem to think about what the Founders intended and what the Constitution/Bill Of Rights means is supremely arrogant. And ridiculous ... :D

Let me be certain I understand you correctly. You think that I am arrogant because I think that the Founders believed in the principles that they espoused? You think that I am ridiculous because I believe in the sincerity of the volumes of opinion and discussion they published concerning the thoughts behind their words and actions?

I don't think that you are much of a patriot, BAC, when you advocate expediency over the fundamental tenets which founded the country you profess to hold in regard, and find it needful to resort to schoolyard insult when your own preference for convenience over conviction is made evident.

A great deal of rhetoric is generated justifying our country's actions on the basis of these fundamental principles which you appear to hold in such disregard. We even claim that many of our military adventures are founded in a desire to share the benefits of such beliefs. Note that after the lies and distortions were exposed this is all that was left to attempt a justification for our misadventure in Iraq. It does not serve that rhetoric well to abandon such principles whenever they are not in aid of momentary advantage. This seems to be the attitude you support, though.

[leftysergeant]

Wow. Those Founding Fathers must have been supremely arrogant to think their Constitution/Bill Of Rights would be law for all of mankind. :rolleyes:

Maybe you think we should try to enforce it as such? ;)Leave it to you to utterly miss a point that hurts you.

They meant it to be an immutable law to regulate the conduct of OUR government. The Shrub, that slimey little nosferatu with the sloppy shotgun handling techniques, dithering old Rummy, sleazey old Gonzo and that war criminal Yoo shrugged it off as though they were above the law.

They should all rot in SuperMax.

[Mojo]

Leave it to you to utterly miss a point that hurts you.

They meant it to be an immutable law to regulate the conduct of OUR government.


cf the complaints from various posters over the years that forum moderation violates their first amendment rights - the Constitution only governs the government.

[Ladewig]

Criminals (that's what you think terrorists are, right?) do stupid things all the time. Why should you think this group of them will be any different?

Because if they were as stupid as you suggested in the other post, we would have caught or eliminated them by now. Furthermore, all previous evidence gathered (through torture and through other means) indicates that al Queda operates through cells in which operatives never know the names or plans of other cells. They seldom know anyone in the organization beyond their immediate superior. Al Queda knows that other countries that capture their lowest level of operatives will torture them (Egypt, etc) so the leaders make sure no valuable information is given to suicide bombers.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Wow. Those Founding Fathers must have been supremely arrogant to think their Constitution/Bill Of Rights would be law for all of mankind. :rolleyes:

Maybe you think we should try to enforce it as such? ;)

I knew you would fail utterly to respond to the arguments I made to support my position. I'll review them again:

1. The language: the Constitution uses the word citizen when that's what it means as distinct from words like persons or the people or the accused. There are numerous examples of this, and I've already cited a clear example that uses both "person" and "citizen" in the same sentence in such a way that the set citizens is obviously a subset of the set persons.

2. The legislative history of the Constitution. We know the Bill of Rights in particular were based on Locke's idea of natural rights--rights that all humans should enjoy.

3. At least some of these rights in the Bill of Rights are expressed as limitations on government power, and it makes no sense to construe them otherwise. (Surely the government can't establish a religion for non-citizens, for example.)

4. Boumediene v. Bush addressed in part this very question and found that the rights of the accused in the Bill of Rights applies to non-citizens.

But go right ahead trying to argue by emoticon as the only support for your contention that the Constitution only applies to U.S. citizens.
:rolleyes: :) ;)

ETA: In my ETA to post #79, I predicted this is just what you'd do. Your tired, unsupported assertions are easily predictable. I'm surprised you kept up with the emoticons, though.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Between BAC's liberal use of strawmen, his generous use of ":D" smileys in a discussion about torture, and his unwillingness to provide actual sound arguments, this is one **** of a disturbing and warped thread.

Exactly. I propose naming this particular rhetorical problem the fallacy of argumentum ad emoticonam.

It's what used to be called "arm waving" in pre-cyber days.

[BeAChooser]

The grin smiley at the end of such a paragraph either suggests that you haven't really though through properly what you're talking about, or that you are incredibly cold-hearted.

No, smileys just indicate I enjoy demonstrating the perverse logic, naivety, foolishness and cognitive dissonance in your side's arguments on this matter. And I find it annoys some of you too ... as an added benefit. And I suspect I'm just as warm-hearted as you. :D

My citizenship has nothing to do with anything.

:rolleyes:

[BeAChooser]

You think that I am arrogant because I think that the Founders believed in the principles that they espoused?

The Constitution and Bill Of Rights are not merely a document setting forth "principles". They are a set of specific laws and rights that the Founders set up to limit OUR government and protect OUR rights. Nor do they apply outside the US. For that matter, you can even lose your citizenship (and all those protections) if you act against the interests of the US. Obtain a position working in the government of a foreign country. A terrorist working with al-Qaeda might be viewed as doing just that. Commit treason. Treason includes attempts to overthrow the government of the US by force. And since the announced goal of terrorists is to do just that ...

I don't think that you are much of a patriot, BAC,

:rolleyes:

A great deal of rhetoric is generated justifying our country's actions on the basis of these fundamental principles which you appear to hold in such disregard.

I wonder, Mr Patriot, what you will do when KSM is found not guilty because he wasn't mirandized and his rights were violated? :D

misadventure in Iraq

LOL! I'd say that misadventure has worked out rather well.

[Thunder]

I wonder, Mr Patriot, what you will do when KSM is found not guilty because he wasn't mirandized and his rights were violated? :D

that is a very frightening thought. perhaps a civilian trial is a bad idea after all.

[EvilSmurf]

It's funny that BaC is trying to make us feel ashamed for being in the minority on this issue. There are several minorities that I'm proud to be a part of:
-Australian-Americans
-Lawful Permanent Residents (well, I guess the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to me either)
-Atheists
-Pro-Evolution
-Opposed to torture

I wonder, Mr Patriot, what you will do when KSM is found not guilty because he wasn't mirandized and his rights were violated?
I would say it was the fault of those who didn't Mirandize him, and those who violated his rights, i.e. the Bush administration.

[Ausmerican]

LOL! I'd say that misadventure has worked out rather well.

Sure, unless you are a U.S soldier or an Iraqi.

[Ausmerican]

It's funny that BaC is trying to make us feel ashamed for being in the minority on this issue. There are several minorities that I'm proud to be a part of:
-Australian-Americans
-Lawful Permanent Residents (well, I guess the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to me either)
-Atheists
-Pro-Evolution
-Opposed to torture


Wow ES you are me!
Hey wait!
If there are two Australian-American lawful residents that are pro-evo atheists and opposed to torture just on this one small forum there must therefore be tens or hundreds of thousands of us when you extrapolate!
Or, you know, not.

[imjohn]

Isn't terrorism a method of warfare?

How can you have a war on a method?

[Ausmerican]

Isn't terrorism a method of warfare?

How can you have a war on a method?

Remember you are asking this of the country that gave us wars on drugs, poverty, and christmas.
You are right though. It is declaring we are at war against a tactic. Kind of like a "War on paratrooping".

[Debaser]

I wonder, Mr Patriot, what you will do when KSM is found not guilty because he wasn't mirandized and his rights were violated?

As one of those evil, liberal, lefty Europeans I'd say that the 'American Way' truely was superior. That its actions actually backed up its rhetoric. There is a tradition in western culture of 'blind justice'. If KSM were set free based either on evidence presented or on procedural inadequacy then seldom would there have been a better case of that US/western superiority.

Whilst you and your ilk would see that as weakness, I can assure you that there would be many, even amongst those you see as enemies and in their recruiting grounds, who would be even more envious of your system and society.

A system in which all individuals regardless of their background are protected from the tyranny of the state. And these are peoople who truely know what tyranny is, not those who bleat simply because their choice failed to win an election, and who will have the ability to choose their leader again in four short years

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Justice#Blindfold

[quadraginta]

As one of those evil, liberal, lefty Europeans I'd say that the 'American Way' truely was superior. That its actions actually backed up its rhetoric. There is a tradition in western culture of 'blind justice'. If KSM were set free based either on evidence presented or on procedural inadequacy then seldom would there have been a better case of that US/western superiority.

Whilst you and your ilk would see that as weakness, I can assure you that there would be many, even amongst those you see as enemies and in their recruiting grounds, who would be even more envious of your system and society.

A system in which all individuals regardless of their background are protected from the tyranny of the state. And these are peoople who truely know what tyranny is, not those who bleat simply because their choice failed to win an election, and who will have the ability to choose their leader again in four short years

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Justice#Blindfold


It is heartening to see that others, especially others from separate cultures, can see so clearly the point I was trying to make about this country and the principles it is founded on.

It is regrettable to me that someone like BAC, who I assume was raised here and supposedly inculcated with those principles from birth, is so unable to grasp them. It appears that, like a dog with a piece of meat, he appreciates that he's got his and growls at anyone who might get their own in some twisted misapprehension that it will somehow diminish his share.

I don't think BAC recognizes that what fundamentalist theocrats fear most is not the wealth and power of the U.S., because his perceptions are so colored by his own fear and greed. It is the very exercise of those principles he so scorns and ridicules that scares them the most. They would love to see their approach to governance vindicated by our abandonment of such principles. BAC is helping them.

To treat someone who is hated and despised with the same dignity and respect for basic rights as the popular and accepted is what sets "us" apart from"them", or at least should be. BAC does not seem to see any contradiction in being like "them" when it is expedient. His delusions prevent him from seeing in a mirror the face he presents to others. I doubt that he could handle the knowledge of how much that face resembles the terrorists he claims to hate.

[Trakar]

that is a very frightening thought. perhaps a civilian trial is a bad idea after all.

What, precisely, do you find frightening?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Remember you are asking this of the country that gave us wars on drugs, poverty, and christmas.
You are right though. It is declaring we are at war against a tactic. Kind of like a "War on paratrooping".

The difference is, of course, that paratrooping has a conventional definition. Proponents of the "war on terror" have calculatedly resisted any reasonable definition of "terrorism" and "terrorist".

In fact, it usually goes like this: terrorism is what a terrorist does. A terrorist is someone who is our enemy. Our friends cannot possibly be terrorists, so whatever they do, it's not terrorism.

[JoeTheJuggler]

No, smileys just indicate I enjoy demonstrating the perverse logic, naivety, foolishness and cognitive dissonance in your side's arguments on this matter.

That's a load.

If you were concerned with saying anything about any argument, you would respond to the points I've made twice now that clearly refute your nonsensical assertion that the U.S. Constitution only applies to U.S. citizens.

But you haven't.

I'll repeat the points I've made--numbered for your convenience. But I predict you will still fail to respond to them.

1. The language: the Constitution uses the word citizen when that's what it means as distinct from words like persons or the people or the accused. There are numerous examples of this, and I've already cited a clear example that uses both "person" and "citizen" in the same sentence in such a way that the set citizens is obviously a subset of the set persons.

2. The legislative history of the Constitution. We know the Bill of Rights in particular were based on Locke's idea of natural rights--rights that all humans should enjoy.

3. At least some of these rights in the Bill of Rights are expressed as limitations on government power, and it makes no sense to construe them otherwise. (Surely the government can't establish a religion for non-citizens, for example.)

4. Boumediene v. Bush addressed in part this very question and found that the rights of the accused in the Bill of Rights applies to non-citizens.

[Ausmerican]

That's a load.

If you were concerned with saying anything about any argument, you would respond to the points I've made twice now that clearly refute your nonsensical assertion that the U.S. Constitution only applies to U.S. citizens.

But you haven't.

I'll repeat the points I've made--numbered for your convenience. But I predict you will still fail to respond to them.

1. The language: the Constitution uses the word citizen when that's what it means as distinct from words like persons or the people or the accused. There are numerous examples of this, and I've already cited a clear example that uses both "person" and "citizen" in the same sentence in such a way that the set citizens is obviously a subset of the set persons.

2. The legislative history of the Constitution. We know the Bill of Rights in particular were based on Locke's idea of natural rights--rights that all humans should enjoy.

3. At least some of these rights in the Bill of Rights are expressed as limitations on government power, and it makes no sense to construe them otherwise. (Surely the government can't establish a religion for non-citizens, for example.)

4. Boumediene v. Bush addressed in part this very question and found that the rights of the accused in the Bill of Rights applies to non-citizens.

Here is an example for you Joe. I am a legal resident of the United States, not a citizen. But the second amendment applies to me and I can purchase a firearm the same as a citizen can. Therefore the Bill of Rights applies to non-citizens as well.

[willhaven]

So you are claiming that Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom weren't wars? :rolleyes:None of them had a formal declaration of war, no.

This guy is not a part of an organization that we are at war with. We've convicted over 90% of terrorists tried in the federal court system. The Bush administration tried hundreds of terrorists and hundreds of terrorists are held in US prisons. The Bush administration was only able to try 3 cases by military tribunal during his administration.

If you want results, you use the federal court system. I don't think we're lacking evidence for a conviction here. So why all the sudden outrage over how terrorists are tried and convicted? This is not some new precedent started by the current administration.

If you're upset at the way things are handled now, you should have been upset at how things have been handled the previous 8 years and beyond. This is the way it's been and the way it will continue to be.

Military tribunals are simply not an effective means of getting convictions in most cases. They are for use in edge cases where guys are captured during war time when the evidence is flimsy.

[Dragoonster]

I wonder, Mr Patriot, what you will do when KSM is found not guilty because he wasn't mirandized and his rights were violated? :D

I'll think it terrible that our justice system/prosecutors/interrogators are so incompetent that they don't protect evidence by ensuring it's obtained legally. Same as my reaction to the recent throwing out of the case against the Blackwater massacre:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8437092.stm

What's your reaction to that case by the way, and does it differ from what your reaction would be if KSM got off due to prosecutorial/evidentiary incompetence?

[Debaser]

1. The language: the Constitution uses the word citizen when that's what it means as distinct from words like persons or the people or the accused. There are numerous examples of this, and I've already cited a clear example that uses both "person" and "citizen" in the same sentence in such a way that the set citizens is obviously a subset of the set persons.

2. The legislative history of the Constitution. We know the Bill of Rights in particular were based on Locke's idea of natural rights--rights that all humans should enjoy.

3. At least some of these rights in the Bill of Rights are expressed as limitations on government power, and it makes no sense to construe them otherwise. (Surely the government can't establish a religion for non-citizens, for example.)

4. Boumediene v. Bush addressed in part this very question and found that the rights of the accused in the Bill of Rights applies to non-citizens.

All this arguing about who 'rights' extend to, be they visitors or 5th generation Yankee Doodles. Weren't the founding fathers, to some degree, defending those rights which they felt free-born Englishmen had previously enjoyed and which they felt were being usurped?

'The air of England is too pure for a slave to breathe' (disp. 1569/1763)

Our legislators on this tiny island were so arrogant that not only did they extend rights to those born here or even foreigners simply being in England but, literally, all those within sniffing distance of it. ;)

[JoeTheJuggler]

Here is an example for you Joe. I am a legal resident of the United States, not a citizen. But the second amendment applies to me and I can purchase a firearm the same as a citizen can. Therefore the Bill of Rights applies to non-citizens as well.

Yup. I think it was earlier on this thread that I pointed out that it would be preposterous to think that the government is allowed to establish a church for non-citizens.

IIRC, BaC responded something about illegal aliens, but I pointed out that there are plenty of legal non-citizens that comprise "the people" or "persons" and can be "the accused".

By the way, my ex-wife is Ecuadorean and a permanent resident, but not a citizen. She can participate in the political process here in many ways (notably by exercising free speech, free assembly, etc.) even though only citizens may vote.

She also pays more taxes than I do!

[Safe-Keeper]

Isn't terrorism a method of warfare?

How can you have a war on a method?You don't. Which is why Obama officially ended the use of the "War on Terror" some time ago. Not that it really matters, because a "war" is an armed conflict between nations, not an anti-terrorism, anti-poverty or anti-drug campaign, so I suppose the "War on Terror" was pretty meaningless from day one.

As one of those evil, liberal, lefty Europeans I'd say that the 'American Way' truly was superior. That its actions actually backed up its rhetoric. There is a tradition in western culture of 'blind justice'. If KSM were set free based either on evidence presented or on procedural inadequacy then seldom would there have been a better case of that US/western superiority.

Whilst you and your ilk would see that as weakness, I can assure you that there would be many, even amongst those you see as enemies and in their recruiting grounds, who would be even more envious of your system and society.

A system in which all individuals regardless of their background are protected from the tyranny of the state. And these are people who truly know what tyranny is, not those who bleat simply because their choice failed to win an election, and who will have the ability to choose their leader again in four short years

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Justice#BlindfoldFive starts. Nominated:).

(fixed a couple typos above that didn't do the post respect;))

It is heartening to see that others, especially others from separate cultures, can see so clearly the point I was trying to make about this country and the principles it is founded on.

It is regrettable to me that someone like BAC, who I assume was raised here and supposedly inculcated with those principles from birth, is so unable to grasp them. It appears that, like a dog with a piece of meat, he appreciates that he's got his and growls at anyone who might get their own in some twisted misapprehension that it will somehow diminish his share.

I don't think BAC recognizes that what fundamentalist theocrats fear most is not the wealth and power of the U.S., because his perceptions are so colored by his own fear and greed. It is the very exercise of those principles he so scorns and ridicules that scares them the most. They would love to see their approach to governance vindicated by our abandonment of such principles. BAC is helping them.

To treat someone who is hated and despised with the same dignity and respect for basic rights as the popular and accepted is what sets "us" apart from "them", or at least should be. BAC does not seem to see any contradiction in being like "them" when it is expedient. His delusions prevent him from seeing in a mirror the face he presents to others. I doubt that he could handle the knowledge of how much that face resembles the terrorists he claims to hate.I also note how he's very careful to only state that it's non-citizens who should be tortured. As if you somehow present less of a threat to the US if you've stayed there long enough to become a citizen.

If a non-citizen tries to blow up a plane and fails, he must be tortured.
If a citizen successfully blows up a plane, he should be awarded full citizen's rights.

Here is an example for you Joe. I am a legal resident of the United States, not a citizen. But the second amendment applies to me and I can purchase a firearm the same as a citizen can. Therefore the Bill of Rights applies to non-citizens as well. Oh, but that's firearms. That's completely different. The ability for an immigrant from the Middle East buy an AK-47 without restrictions in order to shoot up an Israeli synagogue must be respected, because... er... uh... hm...

I wonder, Mr Patriot, what you will do when KSM is found not guilty because he wasn't mirandized and his rights were violated? Presumably the same thing he'd do if the Oklahoma bomber, a serial rapist, or a spree killer was found not guilty because he hadn't had his rights read to him?

What a strange question and way of reasoning.

[theprestige]

Here is an example for you Joe. I am a legal resident of the United States, not a citizen. But the second amendment applies to me and I can purchase a firearm the same as a citizen can. Therefore the Bill of Rights applies to non-citizens as well.
Are you sure that's the case?

It may simply be that nobody has bothered to ask the Supreme Court if it's constitutional to pass laws that withhold from you the firearms ownership rights that are granted to US citizens in their constitution.

[tyr_13]

Are you sure that's the case?



So can we rape, kill, burn the belongings of, and establish a religion for him? Is he in danger of being tortured? If torture works and isn't wrong, why don't we us it as a matter of course in legal cases involving non-citizens?

[Ausmerican]

Are you sure that's the case?

It may simply be that nobody has bothered to ask the Supreme Court if it's constitutional to pass laws that withhold from you the firearms ownership rights that are granted to US citizens in their constitution.

And the difference would be what? As far as I know if a law hasn't been challenged and ruled to be constitutional or not by SCOTUS then it is by default, constitutional.

[Safe-Keeper]

Perhaps BAC could tell us if it'd be OK with him if the government took away the firearms from all non-citizen residents of the US, since he's so staunch about them having no rights:rolleyes:?

[theprestige]

So can we rape, kill, burn the belongings of, and establish a religion for him? Is he in danger of being tortured? If torture works and isn't wrong, why don't we us it as a matter of course in legal cases involving non-citizens?
I'm sure that there are plenty of laws and regulations that govern these scenarios, that would answer each of your questions in the affirmative or negative, notwithstanding that they are variously strawmen and appeals to emotion, having nothing at all to do with the question of whether or not its constitutional for the federal government to pass laws prohibiting non-citizens from owning firearms in the spirit of the Fourth Amendment.

[tyr_13]

I'm sure that there are plenty of laws and regulations that govern these scenarios, that would answer each of your questions in the affirmative or negative, notwithstanding that they are variously strawmen and appeals to emotion, having nothing at all to do with the question of whether or not its constitutional for the federal government to pass laws prohibiting non-citizens from owning firearms in the spirit of the Fourth Amendment.

But torture is ok?

EDIT: Remember, the subject of the thread? Besides, I'm pretty sure those are all related as the reason they would be constitutional/unconstitutional are all the same.

[Ausmerican]

I'm sure that there are plenty of laws and regulations that govern these scenarios, that would answer each of your questions in the affirmative or negative, notwithstanding that they are variously strawmen and appeals to emotion, having nothing at all to do with the question of whether or not its constitutional for the federal government to pass laws prohibiting non-citizens from owning firearms in the spirit of the Fourth Amendment.

psst SECOND amendment.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm sure that there are plenty of laws and regulations that govern these scenarios, that would answer each of your questions in the affirmative or negative, notwithstanding that they are variously strawmen and appeals to emotion, having nothing at all to do with the question of whether or not its constitutional for the federal government to pass laws prohibiting non-citizens from owning firearms in the spirit of the Fourth Amendment.
:confused:
The Fourth Amendment is the right of the people to be secure in their persons and property (prohibits unreasonable search and seizure).

How does "the spirit of the Fourth Amendment" argue that the Second Amendment only applies to citizens?

[thaiboxerken]

It amazes me that some people, apparently 58%, can hear all kinds of logical arguments against a policy, and be shown the fallacy of their arguments.....and still go with the irrational and illogical position.

[theprestige]

And the difference would be what? As far as I know if a law hasn't been challenged and ruled to be constitutional or not by SCOTUS then it is by default, constitutional.
I think it makes sense not to declare a law unconstitutional retroactively, to avoid penalizing government agents who believed they were acting constitutionally prior to the ruling of the Supreme Court.

And I think that in most cases it makes sense, as a matter of convenience and humane principles, to afford non-citizen US residents the same rights and privileges as are afforded to US citizens.

But I don't think that either of these things justify an assertion that the constitution grants such rights and privileges in the absence of any challenge to the contrary.

Mainly what interests me, in the context of this and similar discussions elsewhere, is if, after committing criminal acts or acts of war in or against the US, the criminal or enemy combatant attempts to avoid some of the consequences of his actions by laying claim to rights or privileges which either don't exist or do not apply to him.

[tyr_13]

Mainly what interests me, in the context of this and similar discussions elsewhere, is if, after committing criminal acts or acts of war in or against the US, the criminal or enemy combatant attempts to avoid some of the consequences of his actions by laying claim to rights or privileges which either don't exist or do not apply to him.

How on earth would this let him or her avoid the consequences?

[theprestige]

Perhaps BAC could tell us if it'd be OK with him if the government took away the firearms from all non-citizen residents of the US, since he's so staunch about them having no rights:rolleyes:?
This doesn't make any sense at all. I'm sure you are staunch about the Constitution permitting Congress to declare war any time it likes.

Should we now attempt to rebut all your claims about the limits of the Constitution by asking you to tell us if it'd be OK with you if Congress declared war on Canada tomorrow? I mean, the Constitution does allow Congress to do that, right?

[Ausmerican]

:confused:
The Fourth Amendment is the right of the people to be secure in their persons and property (prohibits unreasonable search and seizure).

How does "the spirit of the Fourth Amendment" argue that the Second Amendment only applies to citizens?

Is that what he was saying? I can't see how that would work either.
I thought he got the amendment wrong and meant to end with "from owning firearms in the spirit of the Second Amendment." rather than "from owning firearms in the spirit of the Fourth Amendment."

[theprestige]

psst SECOND amendment.

:confused:
The Fourth Amendment is the right of the people to be secure in their persons and property (prohibits unreasonable search and seizure).

How does "the spirit of the Fourth Amendment" argue that the Second Amendment only applies to citizens?
Thanks! My bad. Of course the Second Amendment. Aside from that correction: While elsewhere in this thread I'm arguing that the Constitution as a whole only applies to citizens (more on that in a moment), in this particular context I was only arguing that "its constitutionality has not yet been challenged" isn't necessarily the same as "its constitutionality is an established fact".

As to who "the people" are, let's take a look at the very first sentence of that document:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Emphasis mine. And we can note also the signatories to this document: All of them legally recognized representatives of various groups of state citizens, on whose behalf, and by whose authority, they were empowered to sign it. Australia certainly didn't send any official representative to bind its citizens to the US Constitution. Why then should its citizens--regardless of their place of residence--expect (or be entitled to) any recognition at all in a pact made between "the people of the United States"?

[Ausmerican]

Thanks! My bad. Of course the Second Amendment. Aside from that correction: While elsewhere in this thread I'm arguing that the Constitution as a whole only applies to citizens (more on that in a moment), in this particular context I was only arguing that "its constitutionality has not yet been challenged" isn't necessarily the same as "its constitutionality is an established fact".

As to who "the people" are, let's take a look at the very first sentence of that document:


Emphasis mine. And we can note also the signatories to this document: All of them legally recognized representatives of various groups of state citizens, on whose behalf, and by whose authority, they were empowered to sign it. Australia certainly didn't send any official representative to bind its citizens to the US Constitution. Why then should its citizens--regardless of their place of residence--expect (or be entitled to) any recognition at all in a pact made between "the people of the United States"?

Yup that clearly states who wrote it and ratified it. Not who it is for/covers. BTW Australia didn't exist at that time so we would'nt have sent any official representatives anywhere at that time.

[theprestige]

Yup that clearly states who wrote it and ratified it. Not who it is for/covers.
I interpret "people" mentioned throughout the document as being the same "people" mentioned in the preamble, and the same people who empowered the signatories to sign the document on their behalf.

In my opinion, it's the only interpretation that makes sense. Do you see some other group of people defined anywhere else in the document, that might sensibly support a different interpretation?

BTW Australia didn't exist at that time so we would'nt have sent any official representatives anywhere at that time.
My point exactly. Why on earth would you expect to be covered by an agreement to which you could not possibly have been a party?

[Corsair 115]

4. Boumediene v. Bush addressed in part this very question and found that the rights of the accused in the Bill of Rights applies to non-citizens.


Well, we can discount that one because certainly that decision was the result of activist judges!


It amazes me that some people, apparently 58%, can hear all kinds of logical arguments against a policy, and be shown the fallacy of their arguments.....and still go with the irrational and illogical position.


I summarize it this way: some people prefer politics over proof and ideology over evidence.

[Ausmerican]

I interpret "people" mentioned throughout the document as being the same "people" mentioned in the preamble, and the same people who empowered the signatories to sign the document on their behalf.

In my opinion, it's the only interpretation that makes sense. Do you see some other group of people defined anywhere else in the document, that might sensibly support a different interpretation?


My point exactly. Why on earth would you expect to be covered by an agreement to which you could not possibly have been a party?

See there's the problem. I don't EXPECT to be covered by it. But, for all intents and purposes, while I am here in America I AM covered by it.

[Mojo]

My point exactly. Why on earth would you expect to be covered by an agreement to which you could not possibly have been a party?


How old are you?

[leftysergeant]

My point exactly. Why on earth would you expect to be covered by an agreement to which you could not possibly have been a party?

The rest of us expect it to cover him until we decide, by constitutional ammendment that it should not.

Since it would be idiotic to so ammend the Constitution, don't hold your breath.

(Wait a minute. Maybe the rest of us would like to see him try to hold it that long, just for the laughs.)

[Upchurch]

It's funny that BaC is trying to make us feel ashamed for being in the minority on this issue.

I seem to recall that when Bush pursued policies that lacked popular support he was showing strength of character by sticking to his principles. Obama, however, seems to be ignoring the will of the people.

Funny how that works out, isn't it?

[joobz]

The Constitution and Bill Of Rights are not merely a document setting forth "principles". They are a set of specific laws and rights that the Founders set up to limit OUR government and protect OUR rights. Nor do they apply outside the US. For that matter, you can even lose your citizenship (and all those protections) if you act against the interests of the US. Obtain a position working in the government of a foreign country. A terrorist working with al-Qaeda might be viewed as doing just that. Commit treason. Treason includes attempts to overthrow the government of the US by force. And since the announced goal of terrorists is to do just that ...

Do you mind to show in the constitution where the bolded part is true?
Also, Do you really think it logical that amendment 8 only applies to people who are innocent?

[JoeTheJuggler]

So of the four points I've made to refute the assertion that the Constitution only applies to U.S. citizens, you are attempting to respond to the first one, it seems.

Here they are again, just for easy reference (and to clean up a grammatical error I made last time):

1. The language: the Constitution uses the word citizen when that's what it means as distinct from words like persons or the people or the accused. There are numerous examples of this, and I've already cited a clear example that uses both "person" and "citizen" in the same sentence in such a way that the set citizens is obviously a subset of the set persons.

2. The legislative history of the Constitution. We know the Bill of Rights in particular were based on Locke's idea of natural rights--rights that all humans should enjoy.

3. At least some of these rights in the Bill of Rights are expressed as limitations on government power, and it makes no sense to construe them otherwise. (Surely the government can't establish a religion for non-citizens, for example.)

4. Boumediene v. Bush addressed in part this very question and found that the rights of the accused in the Bill of Rights apply to non-citizens.



Emphasis mine. And we can note also the signatories to this document: All of them legally recognized representatives of various groups of state citizens, on whose behalf, and by whose authority, they were empowered to sign it. Australia certainly didn't send any official representative to bind its citizens to the US Constitution. Why then should its citizens--regardless of their place of residence--expect (or be entitled to) any recognition at all in a pact made between "the people of the United States"?

So what makes you think "we the people" in the Preamble refers only to citizens? That's the key part you left out.

Again, there are several places where the terms "person" and "citizen" are used in such a way that it's clear they are not interchangeable. So you argument that they are equivalent fails. Here are two such examples:

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;

This next one even anticipates that our courts will hear suits between U.S. citizens and citizens or subjects of other countries:
Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Compare this liberal use of the word "citizen" with the absence of that word in the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments in particular and the Bill of Rights as a whole. For example, the 6th Amendment:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


Section 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
This notion that citizens get "privileges and immunities" above and beyond the "rights" that pertain to people is repeated in the 14th Amendment.


The relationship between the ideas of "person" and "citizen" is most clearly expressed in the Fourteenth Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So all persons have the right to life, liberty and property (the government can't take those things without due process) and to the equal protection of the laws. Citizens have privileges and immunities that go beyond these human rights (or what Locke called natural rights).

And that's only point number 1 of my 4 points.

[Trakar]

It amazes me that some people, apparently 58%, can hear all kinds of logical arguments against a policy, and be shown the fallacy of their arguments.....and still go with the irrational and illogical position.

Well, remember, statistically, many if not most of these same people voted for Obama, and Bush, twice!

[Trakar]

...Mainly what interests me, in the context of this and similar discussions elsewhere, is if, after committing criminal acts or acts of war in or against the US, the criminal or enemy combatant attempts to avoid some of the consequences of his actions by laying claim to rights or privileges which either don't exist or do not apply to him.

Until after there is a trial, the person is a suspect, not legally considered guilty of any offense or crime. After a trial has determined and established the facts, then considerations about what may or may not be appicable are appropriate.

[theprestige]

Until after there is a trial, the person is a suspect, not legally considered guilty of any offense or crime. After a trial has determined and established the facts, then considerations about what may or may not be appicable are appropriate.
Is that how POW camps work? Anybody accused of being an enemy combatant gets a trial, before a jury of his peers, and if the prosecution can't convince them that he really is an enemy combatant, he's free to go rather than being detained until the end of the war?

[drkitten]

Is that how POW camps work? Anybody accused of being an enemy combatant gets a trial, before a jury of his peers, and if the prosecution can't convince them that he really is an enemy combatant, he's free to go rather than being detained until the end of the war?

Yes, actually. Anyone captured is entitled under the Geneva conventions (Third Convention, article V) to a "status hearing" to establish whether or not he's being lawfully held as a combatant, to be treated as a spy or criminal, or if he's just a civilian who was in the wrong place in the wrong time.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Is that how POW camps work? Anybody accused of being an enemy combatant gets a trial, before a jury of his peers, and if the prosecution can't convince them that he really is an enemy combatant, he's free to go rather than being detained until the end of the war?

If someone is accused of a crime, even if they're a POW, they are entitled to a fair trial by someone. If he is acquitted, he would still be a POW, but no longer someone accused of a crime.

A person who is a POW but not accused of a crime doesn't need a trial (what with the fact that they're not accused of anything). But again, POWs also cannot be detained indefinitely--but that's another subject.

The point of this thread is this assertion that the right to a fair trial (that is, the rights of the accused as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution) pertain only to U.S. Citizens. I have presented a strong argument that the proposition that the Constitution only applies to U.S. citizens is false.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yes, actually. Anyone captured is entitled under the Geneva conventions (Third Convention, article V) to a "status hearing" to establish whether or not he's being lawfully held as a combatant, to be treated as a spy or criminal, or if he's just a civilian who was in the wrong place in the wrong time.

Oh--I believe I misunderstood. I thought he was talking about someone already in the status of a POW (not like the Gitmo detainees*) who is accused of a crime while in the POW camp. Being acquitted of that accusation does not result in his being freed.

But yes, the case I've been citing over and over again, Boumediene v. Bush, says that non-citizens being detained still have the right to a writ of habeas corpus (or something that is a reasonable substitute). If you can't substantiate the accusations you're making against them, you must free them.

*ETA: Guantanamo is not a POW camp.

[BeAChooser]

If you want results, you use the federal court system. I don't think we're lacking evidence for a conviction here. So why all the sudden outrage over how terrorists are tried and convicted?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703436504574640560502410466.html


The Ramzi Yousef Standard

... snip ...

The lesson of these cases, like that of Ramzi Yousef, is not that the criminal justice system can sometimes convict terrorists. It is that criminal prosecution is far less vital to U.S. security than is conducting the interrogations that can yield information that saves innocent lives.


A must read.

[BeAChooser]

Another must read ...

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjYyYzhlZWM3NGViOTEwMmE1NGNlY2M5MGMxMzM4ODY=


But more than one-third of all terrorist plots since 9/11 transpired in 2009 — despite loud chest-thumping about rejecting the idea of a war on terror, reaching out to the Muslim world, and apologizing for purported American sins. A non-impoverished Major Hasan or Mr. Mutallab (or Mr. Atta or KSM) does not fit with the notion that our enemies act out of poverty or oppression or want.

... snip ...

Apparently, the Obama administration came into office in January 2009 thinking that the notion of a "war on terror" was archaic and largely had been an excuse for the Bush-Cheney nexus to scare the nation for partisan political purposes.

... snip ...

But Obama has discovered that there really are radical Islamic threats; that Bush's record of seven years of security was no accident; and that the "good" war is heating up. Obama has been forced by events to quietly find ways of emulating Bush's successful anti-terrorism formula, while making loud but empty declarations to mollify his liberal base (which so far seems pacified that Guantanamo is "virtually" closed, and that KSM is "virtually" facing an ACLU dream trial).


:D

[Redtail]

Another must read ...

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjYyYzhlZWM3NGViOTEwMmE1NGNlY2M5MGMxMzM4ODY=



:D

But more than one-third of all terrorist plots since 9/11 transpired in 2009 — despite loud chest-thumping about rejecting the idea of a war on terror, reaching out to the Muslim world, and apologizing for purported American sins.

How many have there been?

[joobz]

Another must read ...

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjYyYzhlZWM3NGViOTEwMmE1NGNlY2M5MGMxMzM4ODY=

:D
Did you just indicate that you are happy there are terrorist actions?

[Praktik]

Did you just indicate that you are happy there are terrorist actions?

No I think he's happy because the alleged increase in terrorist activity in 2009 shows Obama's approach to be a failure.

This assumes a few things:

#1: that there is a proven causal link between Obama's change in policies and the alleged increase in terrorist activity.

#2: that the motivations behind terrorist activity in a given year is predicated only on what is happening in that year.

Given that we're on a skeptic's forum its a little funny that something as basic to skepticism as causality is so misapplied here.

Could the increased terrorism of 2009 not also be sourced in 8 years of Bush policies that have been admitted by the Pentagon to foment terrorism and increase recruitment?

In my mind, the actions of a given terrorist cannot be boiled down so simply.

We're still paying for the actions of decades and even centuries ago.

The actions of Bush, Clinton, Obama, Reagan and Carter will reverberate for decades and decades into the future, to claim that any terrorist action is directly attributable to even one of these presidents is kind of silly - and also ignores the indigenous causal factors for which American presidents have little or no responsibility.

[joobz]

No I think he's happy because the alleged increase in terrorist activity in 2009 shows Obama's approach to be a failure.
But then that means he places the success of his ideology above the safety of people. I find that abhorrent.

This assumes a few things:

#1: that there is a proven causal link between Obama's change in policies and the alleged increase in terrorist activity.

#2: that the motivations behind terrorist activity in a given year is predicated only on what is happening in that year.

Given that we're on a skeptic's forum its a little funny that something as basic to skepticism as causality is so misapplied here.

Could the increased terrorism of 2009 not also be sourced in 8 years of Bush policies that have been admitted by the Pentagon to foment terrorism and increase recruitment?

In my mind, the actions of a given terrorist cannot be boiled down so simply.

We're still paying for the actions of decades and even centuries ago.

The actions of Bush, Clinton, Obama, Reagan and Carter will reverberate for decades and decades into the future, to claim that any terrorist action is directly attributable to even one of these presidents is kind of silly - and also ignores the indigenous causal factors for which American presidents have little or no responsibility.

I agree

[Praktik]

to me it strikes me as analogous to the reasoning behind, "Obama up in primaries + stock market down today = Obama/dems bad for business"

Simplistic cheerleading really...

[Trakar]

Is that how POW camps work? Anybody accused of being an enemy combatant gets a trial, before a jury of his peers, and if the prosecution can't convince them that he really is an enemy combatant, he's free to go rather than being detained until the end of the war?

Your question asked about criminals or people who may have committed acts of war against the United States, I answered that, in part. Here's the rest.
Individuals cannot commit acts of war against the United States, only governments of soveriegn nations may engage in Acts of War. Individuals and non-state groups may declare whatever they like but War is an affair between nation-states and their governments. Enemy combatants are captured on a battlefield, engaged in acts of combat. Very few of the detainees fit this description. An enemy combatant may be tried under military or civilian justice systems, in either case, whether brought before a convened military tribunal or civilian judge and jury, it is the justice system that makes the disposition finding of whether or not the individual is responsible for alleged transgressions or not, and whether or not there are penalties to be exacted for findings of transgression.

As no official declaration of War has been issued by congress, it is not possible to detain captives of indeterminant status "until the end of the war."
These detainees must first have their legal status defined, and then be processed according to that status. Legitimate enemy combatants, must, in a timely fashion, face military tribunal and be either cleared of charges or sentenced in accordance with the evidences of their transgressions, or they must be handed over to the civilian justice system to face federal criminal charges. Our law does not permit the snatching of people (citizen or not) and indefinite or permanent detention of those people without charges and processing through several layers of handling which insures that they have an opportunity to defend themselves and address the charges levied against them in a fair and equitable manner.

[willhaven]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703436504574640560502410466.html
A must read.From what I've read, we already know where he trained.

As for KSM, he was talking well before he was waterboarded. He made up information that probably wasted resources as a result.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200908310022
"During the harshest period of my interrogation I gave a lot of false information in order to satisfy what I believed the interrogators wished to hear in order to make the ill-treatment stop. I later told interrogators that their methods were stupid and counterproductive. I'm sure that the false information I was forced to invent in order to make the ill-treatment stop wasted a lot of their time," he said.

If you're going to argue that trials deprive us of vital information or that detention in Guantanamo has provided actionable intelligence that saved lives that could not have been obtained with a regular trial, you're just speculating. Unless you have information to the contrary that is.

And regardless, putting him in Guantanamo wouldn't accomplish much because:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatant_Status_Review_Tribunal
Supreme Court ruling
On June 12, 2008 the Supreme Court ruled, 5-4, that Guantanamo captives were entitled to access the US justice system. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion:
"The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."

The Court also ruled that the Combatant Status Review Tribunals were "inadequate". Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens joined Kennedy in the majority.


Another must read ...

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjYyYzhlZWM3NGViOTEwMmE1NGNlY2M5MGMxMzM4ODY=
Indeed. How do you feel about this?
In fact, what we are witnessing is a strange mishmash. On the one hand, after repeatedly trashing the Bush protocols in 2007–08, Obama has quietly adopted most of them — keeping the Patriot Act, intercepts, wiretaps, renditions, the concept of tribunals, Predator attacks, forward offensive strategies in Afghanistan, and the Bush-Petraeus timetable in Iraq.So why all the outrage over how Obama is handling terrorism if he's essentially walking in Bush's footsteps?


But more than one-third of all terrorist plots since 9/11 transpired in 2009Funny that they didn't bother to illustrate this. I'd like to see it spelled out, incident-by-incident.


This is a good read as well.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-napolitano29-2009nov29,0,6594004.story
The casual use of the word "war" has lead to a mentality among the public and even in the government that the rules of war could apply to those held at Guantanamo. But the rules of war apply only to those involved in a lawfully declared war, and not to something that the government merely calls a war. Only Congress can declare war -- and thus trigger the panoply of the government's military powers that come with that declaration. Among those powers is the ability to use military tribunals to try those who have caused us harm by violating the rules of war.
That the target of the Cole attackers was military property manned by the Navy offers no constitutional reason for a military trial. In the 1960s, when Army draft offices and college ROTC facilities were attacked and bombed, those charged were quite properly tried in federal courts. And when Timothy McVeigh blew up a federal courthouse in Oklahoma City; and Omar Abdel Rahman attempted in 1993 to blow up the World Trade Center, which housed many federal offices; and when Zacarias Moussaoui was accused in the 9/11 attacks,all were tried in federal courts. The "American Taliban," John Walker Lindh, and the notorious would-be shoe bomber, Richard Reid, were tried in federal courts. Even the "Ft. Dix Six," five of whom were convicted in a plot to invade a U.S. Army post in New Jersey, were tried in federal court. And the sun still rose on the mornings after their convictions.

[BeAChooser]

The casual use of the word "war"

The use of the word "war" to describe this struggle with islamofanatics and the states that sponsor/assist them is anything but casual.

[BeAChooser]

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/air-marshal-surge-race-time/story?id=9493323


President Barack Obama has ordered a "surge" of federal air marshals to be in place by Feb.1 in what officials said was a "race against time," with other suicide bombers believed to be in the terrorist pipeline,



Gee ... if only we could learn more about that pipeline. But the one terrorist we have in custody who might know something has *rights* and has lawyered up. Just another reason to hate lawyers.

[Sledge]

I've heard that you know something about that pipeline, BAC. I guess we'd better start torturing you, right?

[Trakar]

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/air-marshal-surge-race-time/story?id=9493323




Gee ... if only we could learn more about that pipeline. But the one terrorist we have in custody who might know something has *rights* and has lawyered up. Just another reason to hate lawyers.

You could always move to a country where individuals do not have rights and justice is what the person with the most guns says it is! Seems to be more in tune with your preferences.

[Ladewig]

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/air-marshal-surge-race-time/story?id=9493323




Gee ... if only we could learn more about that pipeline. But the one terrorist we have in custody who might know something has *rights* and has lawyered up. Just another reason to hate lawyers.

We already covered this topic on page three. AlQueda does not give future plans to suicide bombers. No one would ever give future plans to suicide bombers. Take your torture fetish somewhere else - no one here is impressed by it.

[Safe-Keeper]

We already covered this topic on page three. AlQueda does not give future plans to suicide bombers. No one would ever give future plans to suicide bombers.Apparently BeAChooser is totally unaware of the fact that Al-Qaida's forces are divided into isolated cells, each of which knows nothing about what the others are up to.

That, and the fact that he's still not given me a good reason why citizens shouldn't be tortured. Apparently, in BAC's world citizen who does something wrong must act alone, while every single non-citizen terrorist knows when the next attacks will be, who framed Roger Rabbit, and the location of Usama bin Laden, his grandmother, and Jimmy Hoffa's killer.

Oh, and I missed one: the fact that he has yet to establish that torture actually works.

Take your torture fetish somewhere else - no one here is impressed by it. If only.

[leftysergeant]

Gee ... if only we could learn more about that pipeline. But the one terrorist we have in custody who might know something has *rights* and has lawyered up. Just another reason to hate lawyers.

As has been pointed out to you before, it is unlikely the suspect would have a bloody clue who was next in the breach or where he wouldl board a flight. Waterboarding the undie bomber will not get you that information no matter how rigorously it is applied.

You are dealing with a small-cell organization with no permanent infrastructure as though it were a country with large-scale training and logistics camps. They just are not there.

That is one reason torture is going to get us nowhere. The other is this:

IT DON'T FREAKIN' WORK.

Have we made this clear to you yet?

[tyr_13]

You know, I wouldn't care if it did work. It's still wrong and against basic American ideals.

[Praktik]

You know, I wouldn't care if it did work. It's still wrong and against basic American ideals.

Indeed.

60% of americans might think that cutting off the genitals of a rapist "root and stem" is a suitable punishment but that doesn't make it right - even if we were convinced it would serve as a powerful deterrent.

[Eyeron]

America doesn't use torture. It is either rendition or advanced interrogation techniques. But torture? NEVER!

[Praktik]

Yep! Confronted with a thorny problem?

Define it away!

And then 53% of the public will think you're doing something right.

[Shalamar]

America doesn't use torture. It is either rendition or advanced interrogation techniques. But torture? NEVER!

These techniques are never used on Americans. After all, we want to preserve human rights, and the only humans are American.

Wait.. I'm not American! That must mean that I can be tortured at any time! Ohnoes!

[Trakar]

Indeed.

60% of americans might think that cutting off the genitals of a rapist "root and stem" is a suitable punishment but that doesn't make it right - even if we were convinced it would serve as a powerful deterrent.

More importantly, especially with respect to the current discussion, cutting off the external "root and stem," doesn't solve the problem, and may well exascerbate it.

Rape isn't a crime of sexual desire, as much as it is a crime of violence, control, and an expression of deviant psychological "retribution."

Torturing an individual may yeild a lot of information, but none of it is reliable and if the person wasn't a terrorist before the torture, he, his family and people around the world are much more likely to want to avenge his mistreatment, after you torture him.

Torture is wrong, ineffective and counterproductive to US goals and security.

[Praktik]

More importantly, especially with respect to the current discussion, cutting off the external "root and stem," doesn't solve the problem, and may well exacerbate it..

I was just going off the cuff but the analogy may be more fitting than I thought seeing as torture has the same effect.

It was a huge gift to the terrorists.

[Trakar]

I was just going off the cuff but the analogy may be more fitting than I thought seeing as torture has the same effect.

It was a huge gift to the terrorists.

Perhaps not individually,...but, yes, to their cause and efforts, torture by their enemies only infuses their movement with a moral rectitude that is much absent from those who are treated humanely, tried for their crimes and dealt with in the same justice system that we subject our highest leaders to,...well, should subject our highest leaders to, but that's a derail for another time!

[headscratcher4]

Jumping in late here, refusing to read the whole thread 'casue it sounds stupid. Just want to comment on the thread title. Love this kind of crap. The upshot is that since the US public polled supposedly supports waterboarding of somekind and under some conditions...than the take away is that a). we should be doing it and b). any government that doesn't is going against the people it represents and, ergo, c). is wimpy and not fit/able to defend the nation.

I note as a logical comparision point, most americans -- as many as over 60% -- say when polled that they favor a public health insurance option. I doubt very much that the originator of this thread would want the health care reform debate simply to reflect public desire for a public health option. Pretty sure he/she/it thinks that such is not only unconstitutional and creeping socialism.

In short, polls only prove what they prove. They the don't prove anything when they don't prove anything.

[willhaven]

The use of the word "war" to describe this struggle with islamofanatics and the states that sponsor/assist them is anything but casual.Still, we are not fighting a declared war with them as declared by congress. We simply aren't.


http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/air-marshal-surge-race-time/story?id=9493323
President Barack Obama has ordered a "surge" of federal air marshals to be in place by Feb.1 in what officials said was a "race against time," with other suicide bombers believed to be in the terrorist pipeline,
Gee ... if only we could learn more about that pipeline. But the one terrorist we have in custody who might know something has *rights* and has lawyered up. Just another reason to hate lawyers.Welcome to the criminal justice system that has been functioning well before Obama took office. It's not a new precedent he has created.

[BeAChooser]

To all those who defend Obama's treatment of this terrorist by insisting that we are not at war, note that even Obama doesn't agree with you. He said in today's speech that:


"We are at war against al Qaeda, a far-reaching network of violence and hatred that attacked us on 9/11, that killed nearly 3,000 innocent people, and that is plotting to strike us again. And we will do whatever it takes to defeat them."


Now obviously he's not going to do whatever it takes and just as obviously he doesn't really think we are at war since he chose to treat this non-American citizen terrorist as a criminal with a US citizen's right to a fair and speedy trial by a jury of his peers (and all that entails) rather than treat him as an enemy combatant. So that makes Obama a liar for the umpteenth time in his Presidency so far? But you go on defending him folks. :D

[tyr_13]

And how does one treat enemy combatants? Who determines who is an enemy combatant, and not a POW or criminal? How does one determine what an enemy combatant is?

How does this make Obama a liar?

[Ladewig]

non-American citizen terrorist as a criminal with a US citizen's right to a fair and speedy trial by a jury of his peers

Do you have the whole board on ignore?

[joobz]

To all those who defend Obama's treatment of this terrorist by insisting that we are not at war, note that even Obama doesn't agree with you.
HOw about the people who defend Obama's treatment because it is constitutional?

[JihadJane]

In a democratic world the US would have a 5% say in world affairs.

Anwar al-Awlaki, the radical cleric who allegedly influenced the underwear bomber was born in America. The bomber was allegedly recruited by al Qaeda in London.

Why aren't we bombing America and the UK to stop terrorism?

[headscratcher4]

HOw about the people who defend Obama's treatment because it is constitutional?

OOOh, there you go playing we are a nation of laws card! FOUL!

[Debaser]

In a democratic world the US would have a 5% say in world affairs.

Anwar al-Awlaki, the radical cleric who allegedly influenced the underwear bomber was born in America. The bomber was allegedly recruited by al Qaeda in London.

Why aren't we bombing...the UK to stop terrorism?

Because there are a couple of hundred thousand US citizens in the UK who, by virtue of being US rather than UK citizens, have no rights under our laws of course. Hell, they should be lucky we let them breathe our air and drink our water. :mad:
The moment the US made any aggressive moves, they would all be rounded up and subject to summary execution without trial, similar to what happened to those Germans, Austrians and Italians who were resident in the UK during the Second World War. :covereyes

[JoeTheJuggler]

Just for the record, what exactly are the privileges of being a U.S. citizen? All I can think of are the right to vote and the right to hold certain high offices in government. (Most of us think of jury duty as a duty and not a privilege or right.)

[Praktik]

oh the right to be arrogant, dont forget that one..;)

[Debaser]

BTW, as one of those 'Old Europe' nations with a sad history of countering insurgency, as it were, I find it pitiable that our 'Establishment' didn't appear to be able to make clear to their US counterparts that acts (which can ultimately be described as simple revenge seeking) always do more harm than good. Indeed, they were happy to (at the very least) turn a blind eye. Needless public humiliation of an enemy is a fantastic recruiting sergeant for his sympathisers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mau_Mau#Atrocities
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Rising#Aftermath
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Demetrius#Aftermath

I will also point out that I do recognise that revenge motive as being particularly strong. Whenever there have been mentions of 'shoot to kill' or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Flavius with respect to the IRA for example, I find it difficult to be sympathetic and have a 'so what' attitude which I may never lose.
However, the ability to rise above ones knee-jerk feelings and at least try to be objective, should be one of the main duties of a citizen of a democracy, to go along with the rights we enjoy.

[JoeTheJuggler]

oh the right to be arrogant, dont forget that one..;)
Nah--that's a duty. It's our burden--especially when we travel abroad. I'm pretty sure the State Department offers lessons in how to be an Ugly American.
;)


However, the ability to rise above ones knee-jerk feelings and at least try to be objective, should be one of the main duties of a citizen of a democracy, to go along with the rights we enjoy.
While I sympathize and mostly agree with your point of view (and am tempted to launch into a big tangent about "justice" and "revenge"), to the point of my question, this doesn't really separate non-citizens from citizens. I think non-citizens have the duty (and definitely have the right) to participate in dissent (free speech) and the political process (except, as mentioned, voting and holding certain high offices).

ETA: Just to bring it back to the OP, the point I'm trying to make is that no one is giving "foreign jihadists" anything like citizen's rights. No one is allowing them to vote or hold high public office (or sit on juries, for that matter).

[Debaser]

I should, perhaps, have said resident of a democracy.

What those who are dragged here against their will think of our societies I do not care. That they would be equally subject to the laws and rights as they apply to the rest of us in our nations seems so obvious that the alternative is (or should be) laughable.

[BeAChooser]

In a democratic world the US would have a 5% say in world affairs.

LOL!

Do you REALLY think the world would be better off in that case, Jane?

In that democratic world, muslims (who number 1.5 billion and don't exactly champion women's rights) would have more influence than the US. Hope you like wearing a Burka, being uneducated and walking several paces behind men. Because that's the norm in much of the muslim world.

In that democratic world, the leaders of Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela and the like would have more influence than the US. Hope you like living in a democracy ... err ... dictatorship. Hope you like the loss of freedoms you will see, and the reduction in standard of living that is likely under their influence.

:D

[JoeTheJuggler]

Oh yeah--another thing a citizen can do that a non-citizen cannot is to sign petitions to get things on the ballot (initiatives and referendums).

But I don't guess BaC is suggesting Obama wants to allow "foreign jihadists" to do that either.

And we've already shown amply that his theory that the Constitution (the Bill of Rights, in particular, and the rights of the accused in particular) only applies to U.S. citizens is wrong.

[GlennB]

In that democratic world, muslims (who number 1.5 billion and don't exactly champion women's rights) would have more influence than the US. Hope you like wearing a Burka, being uneducated and walking several paces behind men. Because that's the norm in much of the muslim world.

In that democratic world, the leaders of Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela and the like would have more influence than the US. Hope you like living in a democracy ... err ... dictatorship. Hope you like the loss of freedoms you will see, and the reduction in standard of living that is likely under their influence.



Your arithmetic is faulty in many respects here. For example, you've compared the population of the USA (a country) with the worldwide total of muslims (a religion).

But I suspect this is deliberate in order to enhance your trollistic impact.

[willhaven]

To all those who defend Obama's treatment of this terrorist by insisting that we are not at war, note that even Obama doesn't agree with you. He said in today's speech that:Calling it a war doesn't make it a war in the legal sense as it would be declared by congress. It simply isn't a constitutionally declared war. Period.


Now obviously he's not going to do whatever it takes and just as obviously he doesn't really think we are at war since he chose to treat this non-American citizen terrorist as a criminal with a US citizen's right to a fair and speedy trial by a jury of his peers (and all that entails) rather than treat him as an enemy combatant. So that makes Obama a liar for the umpteenth time in his Presidency so far? But you go on defending him folks. :DAgain. It's not a new precedent. The Bush administration tried hundreds of potential terrorists in the same court system that Obama is going to use for Mutallab.

Obama is by and large the status quo in regards to terrorist trials. Military tribunals still exist under Obama and we still rely heavily on the federal court system.

Welcome to America as it has been for decades.

[BeAChooser]

Calling it a war doesn't make it a war in the legal sense as it would be declared by congress. It simply isn't a constitutionally declared war. Period.

I think you are counting angels on the head of a pin.

From the MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE DEPUTY COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT:

http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm


The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001.

The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.

The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11.

... snip ...

Some commentators have read the constitutional text differently. They argue that the vesting of the power to declare war gives Congress the sole authority to decide whether to make war. (6) This view misreads the constitutional text and misunderstands the nature of a declaration of war. Declaring war is not tantamount to making war - indeed, the Constitutional Convention specifically amended the working draft of the Constitution that had given Congress the power to make war. An earlier draft of the Constitution had given to Congress the power to "make" war. When it took up this clause on August 17, 1787, the Convention voted to change the clause from "make" to "declare." 2 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 318-19 (Max Farrand ed., rev. ed. 1966) (1911). A supporter of the change argued that it would "leav[e] to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks." Id. at 318. Further, other elements of the Constitution describe "engaging" in war, which demonstrates that the Framers understood making and engaging in war to be broader than simply "declaring" war. See U.S. Const. art. I, §*10, cl. 3 ("No State shall, without the Consent of Congress . . . engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."). A State constitution at the time of the ratification included provisions that prohibited the governor from "making" war without legislative approval, S.C. Const. art. XXVI (1776), reprinted in 6 The Federal and State Constitutions 3247 (Francis Newton Thorpe ed., 1909). (7) If the Framers had wanted to require congressional consent before the initiation of military hostilities, they knew how to write such provisions.

Finally, the Framing generation well understood that declarations of war were obsolete. Not all forms of hostilities rose to the level of a declared war: during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Great Britain and colonial America waged numerous conflicts against other states without an official declaration of war. (8) As Alexander Hamilton observed during the ratification, "the ceremony of a formal denunciation of war has of late fallen into disuse." The Federalist No. 25, at 133 (Alexander Hamilton). Instead of serving as an authorization to begin hostilities, a declaration of war was only necessary to "perfect" a conflict under international law. A declaration served to fully transform the international legal relationship between two states from one of peace to one of war. See 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries 249-50. Given this context, it is clear that Congress's power to declare war does not constrain the President's independent and plenary constitutional authority over the use of military force.


By the way, a rose would be a rose by any name. Congress has not "declared" war since WWII but we've nevertheless fought a number of very significant wars.

Also, did you ever think there might be a reason that wars haven't been declared since WWII? Congress wrote into law a lot of the measures used during World War II as the potential for nuclear war grew ... including price controls, censorship and added police powers ... that would go into force the minute Congress declares war. I'm sure many folks on both sides of the political aisle would not like to see that occur other than in the gravest of circumstances ... say the case of nuclear war where the structure of society itself might be in jeopardy. Hence the reluctance to declare war.

Furthermore, even the Founders had occasion to fight wars (they even called them wars) without a Congressional declaration. Why I seem to recall that one even involved the "terrorists" of their day.

Like I said, you are counting angels on the head of a pin. :D

The Bush administration tried hundreds of potential terrorists in the same court system that Obama is going to use for Mutallab.

Really? I hadn't heard it was anywhere near that many. Even leftist mediamatters states (http://mediamatters.org/research/201001080024 ) that "The Bush administration tried several terrorist suspects in civilian court, including the shoe bomber and Moussaoui." Now there may be hundreds of terrorists in US prisons but the vast majority of those were put there during Clinton's failed attempt to treat terrorism as nothing more than a serious crime (the direction Obama is headed). And we all know how that turned out. :D

[BeAChooser]

So the farce begins:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/01/08/terror.hearing/index.html


Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab, the man charged with trying to blow up a Northwest Airlines plane on December 25, pleaded not guilty Friday to six federal charges.

[johnny karate]

Perhaps this has been covered elsehwere in the thread and I missed it, but can anyone criticizing Obama for allowing a terrorist to be tried in the U.S. court system explain why it was okay for Bush to do the same thing?

[BeAChooser]

Perhaps this has been covered elsehwere in the thread and I missed it, but can anyone criticizing Obama for allowing a terrorist to be tried in the U.S. court system explain why it was okay for Bush to do the same thing?

It wasn't ... at least not if they were affiliated in any way with al-Qaeda.

[johnny karate]

It wasn't ... at least not if they were affiliated in any way with al-Qaeda.

So do you think that Bush was "treating terrorism as nothing more than a serious crime" when he allowed both Zacarias Moussaoui and Richard Reid to be tried in the U.S. court system, without the benefit of water-boarding them to extract actionable intelligence about future terrorist attacks?

Was Bush "denying the nature of those who threaten our homeland" when he allowed this?

Was Bush "Stuck On Stupid" when he allowed this?

Was Bush "too squeamish to use an effective and generally non-lethal method of breaking the will of terrorists" when he allowed this?

Was Bush "unwilling to recognize that we are indeed at war with a world-wide network of fanatically motivated islamofascists" when he allowed this?

Was Bush "perverse ... and full of cognitive dissonance" when he allowed this?

In short, do you believe Bush failed to protect America for granting these two jihadists "citizen's rights" in the same way you believe Obama is failing to protect America for doing the same thing now?

[Safe-Keeper]

Calling it a war doesn't make it a war in the legal sense as it would be declared by congress. It simply isn't a constitutionally declared war. Period.Still going on about the "war justifies {insert immoral action here} just because" deal?

The "we're at war, so we have to do whatever it takes" nonsense is just that - nonsense. It presupposes that war makes any given action, be it carpet bombing of civilian population centres, torture and rape of detainees, burning of crops, or the permanent occupation of enemy land). But wait, you say, I don't support all those things just 'cause we're at war, I only want us to do whatever is necessary and supported by me! All those other things don't work! We don't achieve victory by eradicating

But that's the point you're trying to dodge with your "we're at war" rhetoric: Torture. Does. Not. Work. Saying we need to torture enemies (but only non-citizens, because American citizens are by definition not Al-Qaida members:rolleyes:) because we're at war and thus need to do whatever it takes to win is like saying we need to rape every female detainee we have because "we're at war and need to do everything we can to win".

Prove to me that torture works, BAC. Provide something of value for once.

LOL!

Do you REALLY think the world would be better off in that case, Jane?

In that democratic world, muslims (who number 1.5 billion and don't exactly champion women's rights) would have more influence than the US. Hope you like wearing a Burka, being uneducated and walking several paces behind men. Because that's the norm in much of the muslim world.

In that democratic world, the leaders of Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela and the like would have more influence than the US. Hope you like living in a democracy ... err ... dictatorship. Hope you like the loss of freedoms you will see, and the reduction in standard of living that is likely under their influence.

:DOK, now you're just outright trolling. (:D)

Your arithmetic is faulty in many respects here. For example, you've compared the population of the USA (a country) with the worldwide total of muslims (a religion).

But I suspect this is deliberate in order to enhance your trollistic impact.No, you are the one who misunderstand. You see, Muslims are like that, every 1.5 billion of them. Even the infants will use the full force of their democratic power to turn the whole world into a New Arabia. Just like if the Africans gain democratic power proportional to population number, they will turn the whole world into an AIDS-infected, war-torn hellhole controlled by warlords vying to be the one with the most technicals.

(Someone point out to BAC that if he's going to stereotype, then Christians count two billion people, which is half a billion more than the Muslims;)).

So the farce begins. You're a little behind the times. The farce has been ongoing for 200+ posts.

Oh, you meant the trial:D.

So do you think that Bush was "treating terrorism as nothing more than a serious crime" when he allowed both Zacarias Moussaoui and Richard Reid to be tried in the U.S. court system, without the benefit of water-boarding them to extract actionable intelligence about future terrorist attacks?I'm not the only one who's asked him and his ilk that question 10 times already. He won't reply.

[willhaven]

Really? I hadn't heard it was anywhere near that many. Even leftist mediamatters states (http://mediamatters.org/research/201001080024 ) that "The Bush administration tried several terrorist suspects in civilian court, including the shoe bomber and Moussaoui." Now there may be hundreds of terrorists in US prisons but the vast majority of those were put there during Clinton's failed attempt to treat terrorism as nothing more than a serious crime (the direction Obama is headed). And we all know how that turned out. :D
No. There were hundreds. (http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/media/usls/2009/alert/489/index.htm) There are a handful of well known cases that come up, but hundreds were indicted and tried in federal courts during the Bush administration. This is not a new precedent or some major reversal in policy. It's the status quo.

Here's the PDF report with the raw numbers. (http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/pdf/090723-LS-in-pursuit-justice-09-update.pdf)

Some statistics on many of the individual terror cases contained in the PDF. (http://www.investigativeproject.org/cases.php) Including PDF files of scans of their indictments, most of them stamped with the date and a short synopsis of their crimes.
The report offers an exhaustive analysis of federal terrorism prosecutions and relevant federal laws through May 2009. These cases range from epic mega-trials, including those involving the first attack on the World Trade Center (1993) and the East African embassy bombings (1998), to individual, pre-emptive prosecutions focused on prevention. The 2009 Report presents statistical data on 119 international terrorism cases filed since 9/11 in which a total of 289 defendants were charged in the criminal justice system. Of the 214 defendants whose cases were resolved as of June 2, 2009, 195 were convicted either by verdict or by a guilty plea. This is a conviction rate of 91.121%, a slight increase over the 90.625% conviction rate reported in May of 2008.

[gumboot]

Has torture ever been shown to produce reliable results?

That would depend what result you intended for it to produce. If you mean terrorising the enemy, creating fear of your regime, and that sort of thing, it's amply successful. If you mean extracting reliable intelligence, no. In actual fact there's some evidence that torture tends to harden a prisoner's resolve to resist, making it more difficult to extract information. Where torture is likely to produce good intel, generally the mere threat of torture is sufficient to get that information. There's a classic story of an interrogator asking for a random assortment of common objects - say a cheese grater, a lemon, two forks, and a tub of butter. The prisoner, mind boggling at what terrors will be implemented by these objects, immediately breaks down and reveals all.

[JihadJane]

LOL!

Do you REALLY think the world would be better off in that case, Jane?

In that democratic world, muslims (who number 1.5 billion and don't exactly champion women's rights) would have more influence than the US. Hope you like wearing a Burka, being uneducated and walking several paces behind men. Because that's the norm in much of the muslim world.

In that democratic world, the leaders of Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela and the like would have more influence than the US. Hope you like living in a democracy ... err ... dictatorship. Hope you like the loss of freedoms you will see, and the reduction in standard of living that is likely under their influence.

:D

You comments suggest that you regard democracy as nothing but a meaningless fig leaf. What's it hiding, BeA?

[leftysergeant]

Now there may be hundreds of terrorists in US prisons but the vast majority of those were put there during Clinton's failed attempt to treat terrorism as nothing more than a serious crime (the direction Obama is headed). And we all know how that turned out. :D

Worked like a charm, until the punk Republicans in Congress got their panties in a bunch over Clinton's attempts to hit the al Qaeda bases in Afghanistan and started shrieking "No blood for Monica."

Think Ahmed Ressam.

[JoeTheJuggler]

It wasn't ... at least not if they were affiliated in any way with al-Qaeda.

And without examination of the evidence in some kind of trial, how do you know they're "affiliated in any way with al-Qaeda"? That's sort of like assuming guilt, and is contrary to the U.S. Constitution.

As someone else suggested, perhaps you'd be happier living in a totalitarian country.

[Alt+F4]

Think Ahmed Ressam.

Wasn't he the LAX New Years Eve bomber who, without waterboarding, revealed that Bin Laden was planning a U.S. attack?. What did Bush do with that info again?

[Alt+F4]

That would depend what result you intended for it to produce. If you mean terrorising the enemy, creating fear of your regime, and that sort of thing, it's amply successful. If you mean extracting reliable intelligence, no. In actual fact there's some evidence that torture tends to harden a prisoner's resolve to resist, making it more difficult to extract information. Where torture is likely to produce good intel, generally the mere threat of torture is sufficient to get that information. There's a classic story of an interrogator asking for a random assortment of common objects - say a cheese grater, a lemon, two forks, and a tub of butter. The prisoner, mind boggling at what terrors will be implemented by these objects, immediately breaks down and reveals all.

I would think that the effectiveness of torture, in this case, waterboarding, would somewhat depend on the individual being tortured. Everyone has their breaking point, for me it would be a papercut.

It has been widely reported in the American media that the CIA obtained reliable information from Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed through waterboarding. What the "pro-waterboarders" don't seem to realize is that Al Qaeda has computers and reads The New York Times too. There is no way they would give any important information to the morons they recruit to carry out terrorist operations. The fact that waterboarding might actually work makes it now useless.

[joobz]

So the farce begins:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/01/08/terror.hearing/index.html
I don't think I know anyone who hates america more than you. You hate the constitution, you hate the judicial system, you hate the legislative system.

Perhaps you should consider relocating to a country that agrees with your concepts of government.

[Earthborn]

In that democratic world, muslims (who number 1.5 billion and don't exactly champion women's rights) would have more influence than the US.In a democratic world 750 million of those Muslims are women and they would have more influence than the country that has still managed to have elected fewer woman heads of state than some Muslim nations.

[Trakar]

...However, the ability to rise above ones knee-jerk feelings and at least try to be objective, should be one of the main duties of a citizen of a democracy, to go along with the rights we enjoy.

Good point and one we seldom hear properly argued, there are basic human rights, but there are also basic human responsibilities. For instance, we are obliged to recognize some rights as inherent and immutable for all of humanity's expressions, but, this is not the end of our obligations. Perhaps its time we added a Bill of Responsibilities to the Constitution.

"In recognizing that the key to insuring our own rights, liberties and freedoms, is inherent accompaniment with an avid respect for, and zealous protection of, the rights of others; we pledge that all our efforts, and those of our agencies shall hold toward fulfilling and insuring the following common compact between all men:..."

Not so much the foundation of laws, but rather a principle to guide the interpretation, and shape the direction of, legal decision and expression. ...But that's probably fodder for a different thread altogether.

[Safe-Keeper]

I don't think I know anyone who hates america more than you. You hate the constitution, you hate the judicial system, you hate the legislative system.

Perhaps you should consider relocating to a country that agrees with your concepts of government.BAC would probably love to sign up for an Axis power in WWII. They actually were ready to do "whatever it took" to win, not only employing torture, but also committing suicide rather than surrendering (not Intel gained for the enemy), training suicide pilots for kamikaze planes and kaiten torpedoes, and throwing children and the elderly into the fray.

Meanwhile, that fool Obama doesn't realize that we're at war, and need to do everything we can to win, and the age limit for sign-up is still 18, not eight. ***** is gonna lose us the damned war.

I would think that the effectiveness of torture, in this case, waterboarding, would somewhat depend on the individual being tortured. Everyone has their breaking point, for me it would be a papercut.It's not a question of whether or not people have a breaking point. Of course you can beat, rape, strangle or otherwise abuse someone until they talk. The problem is that you make the assumption that torture works like in 24, where everyone who has been tortured speaks the truth. In reality, not only does it very often not work that way, but there's other ways to make people talk that does not require traumatizing the victim and breaking international laws.

You can list single cases where method x has yielded usable results, just like a homoeopath will be perfectly happy to give you lots of cases of homoeopathy working, but to prove that torture is a valid interrogation tactic, you need more than two successes, and you need to compare the success rate of waterboarding to that of other interrogation methods in use throughout the world.

[leftysergeant]

The undie bomber was not tortured, and right off the top, he was boasting about there being twenty others trained for the same mission.

Waterboard him and you can probably get the names of thirty people.

[The_Librarian]

:rolleyes:

I assume you aren't a freeloader, Shalamar. You have a job, right? You'll pay your way, right? And you aren't a terrorist, right? You're a guest in our country who is completely law abiding. Right? So you need not worry about being waterboarded. Or worry about run-ins with our harsh legal system.


A bit late to the discussion, but as a former US guest, I had to react to this.

Wrong, chooser one. It is wrong to say that Shalamar does not need to worry about waterboarding because he is law-abiding. He doesn't because it is against US law and US-signed international treaties. And this is why so many of us all around the world accept without much concerns to go work in the US.
As for myself, I will be thinking twice before going to work in, say, China. Or Russia. Although there are not that bad countries for working foreigners, as long as they are law-abiding (meaning - don't make themself noticed by the authorities). Don't even mention Lybia, North Korea or other countries in which, if one ego-inflated leader decides you are guilty, then you are guilty. And tortured.
But in US (and most western countries), the social contract is clear. We are expected to abide to a set of laws, and the same set of laws will protect us, and define how a non-abiding individual should be prosecuted and punished, wherever he is coming from, as long as he falls under the state's juridiction.
Well, it's supposed to be like this, anyway. Perfection is not of this world.

I have read similar misconceptions of the Law in French blogs. Where did you get this idea that laws, including laws guaranteeing fair trial, only apply to law-abiding citizens? By definition, a perfectly law-abiding citizen doesn't need guarantees for a fair trial, since he seldom will go on trial (at least not on the prosecuted side).
The very purpose of laws is to define the rules of a society, and how to deal with peoples interacting in said society who don't follow said rules. Citizenship and its associated rights and duties are only a subset of laws. Very important, but not a prerequisite to benefit from most of the other laws.

If you continue on this vein, I will start advocating against the delivery of Roman Polanski to the US justice. After all, he is not an US citizen, so why should he be concerned by US laws?

Speaking of Polanski: you were joking about US being nice will make jihadists being nice. Well, the world is not made only of USA and jihadists. You have plenty of countries sharing some common interests with the US outa here. And one basis for inter-country collaborations is indeed that both countries play nice to one another, notably respecting past agreements about the fair treatment of each other citizens.
If the US does not abide by international treaties against torture they signed, the Swiss authorities are founded to deny US demands for Polanski extradition. Or of any other criminal the US may want to bring in for trial.

[johnny karate]

So do you think that Bush was "treating terrorism as nothing more than a serious crime" when he allowed both Zacarias Moussaoui and Richard Reid to be tried in the U.S. court system, without the benefit of water-boarding them to extract actionable intelligence about future terrorist attacks?

Was Bush "denying the nature of those who threaten our homeland" when he allowed this?

Was Bush "Stuck On Stupid" when he allowed this?

Was Bush "too squeamish to use an effective and generally non-lethal method of breaking the will of terrorists" when he allowed this?

Was Bush "unwilling to recognize that we are indeed at war with a world-wide network of fanatically motivated islamofascists" when he allowed this?

Was Bush "perverse ... and full of cognitive dissonance" when he allowed this?

In short, do you believe Bush failed to protect America for granting these two jihadists "citizen's rights" in the same way you believe Obama is failing to protect America for doing the same thing now?

So no Obama-haters want to tackle this one, eh?

It's such a shame when rank hypocrisy enters into political discourse. I am far from thinking Obama is above reproach, but when all the opposition has to offer is "Democrats = Bad" and "Republicans = Good", it's probably more productive to argue with a child about the existence of the Easter Bunny.

Very sad.

[Alt+F4]

So no Obama-haters want to tackle this one, eh?

It's such a shame when rank hypocrisy enters into political discourse. I am far from thinking Obama is above reproach, but when all the opposition has to offer is "Democrats = Bad" and "Republicans = Good", it's probably more productive to argue with a child about the existence of the Easter Bunny.

Very sad.

Oh it's more than "Democrats = Bad". BAC has argued that Bill Clinton either ordered, conspired or covered up the murders of at least two persons.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Wrong, chooser one. It is wrong to say that Shalamar does not need to worry about waterboarding because he is law-abiding. He doesn't because it is against US law and US-signed international treaties. And this is why so many of us all around the world accept without much concerns to go work in the US.

Good point. And international law or treaty signed and ratified by the U.S. becomes U.S. law. In the case of the CAT, one of its provisions was that signatory nations pass their own laws to reflect the principles of the treaty, and the U.S. has done so.

I would also add that we know for sure the U.S. has tortured (even to death) completely innocent, law-abiding people who were just in the wrong place at the wrong time (or simply falsely accused).

That's the problem of considering due process to be a privilege of U.S. citizens only.

If the certainty of the accuser is sufficient with terrorists, then why bother with all this due process stuff for any other criminal case? Why not just assume everyone accused is guilty? (It would certainly be a lot cheaper than having all these trials and lawyers and so on.)

[Trakar]

I would think that the effectiveness of torture, in this case, waterboarding, would somewhat depend on the individual being tortured. Everyone has their breaking point, for me it would be a papercut.


The issue isn't about "breaking," the issue is about reliability, how much is truthful, dependably accurate information, and how much is a lot of half-truths and trivial rumor combined to appease or confuse the people responsible for subjecting you to torturous conditions. confirming information after-the-fact, easily tells us that some people gave up some remarkably accurate and important information, along with a lot of incorrect and wildly off-base information, with no reliable way to determine which information was actually valid and valuable and which information was pure bunkum, except in retrospect.


It has been widely reported in the American media that the CIA obtained reliable information from Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed through waterboarding. What the "pro-waterboarders" don't seem to realize is that Al Qaeda has computers and reads The New York Times too. There is no way they would give any important information to the morons they recruit to carry out terrorist operations. The fact that waterboarding might actually work makes it now useless.

but it makes some people feel like something useful is being accomplished.

[willhaven]

It wasn't ... at least not if they were affiliated in any way with al-Qaeda.Read my post above. Hundreds were tried under Bush, at least dozens were Al Qaeda linked.


Still going on about the "war justifies {insert immoral action here} just because" deal?

The "we're at war, so we have to do whatever it takes" nonsense is just that - nonsense. It presupposes that war makes any given action, be it carpet bombing of civilian population centres, torture and rape of detainees, burning of crops, or the permanent occupation of enemy land). But wait, you say, I don't support all those things just 'cause we're at war, I only want us to do whatever is necessary and supported by me! All those other things don't work! We don't achieve victory by eradicating

But that's the point you're trying to dodge with your "we're at war" rhetoric: Torture. Does. Not. Work. Saying we need to torture enemies (but only non-citizens, because American citizens are by definition not Al-Qaida members:rolleyes:) because we're at war and thus need to do whatever it takes to win is like saying we need to rape every female detainee we have because "we're at war and need to do everything we can to win".If that's actually directed at me, you misread what I was saying.


I don't think I know anyone who hates america more than you. You hate the constitution, you hate the judicial system, you hate the legislative system.

Perhaps you should consider relocating to a country that agrees with your concepts of government.Iran? ;)

[Titanic Explorer]

Well count yourself in the minority. :D

waterboarding is torture, and torture has proven to be totally unreliable in extracting accurate information.
Plus it puts American POWs at risk of being tortured as revenge.
We can't torture the enemy, yet tell them they can't torture our guys. Our credibility goes out the window...

[ponderingturtle]

Calling it a war doesn't make it a war in the legal sense as it would be declared by congress. It simply isn't a constitutionally declared war. Period.

Wait a minute, I was wrong to start torturing the poor as part of our war on poverty?

And this also makes good arguments as to why americans captured by foreign powers should be tortured.

[Ryokan]

BeAChooser doesn't care if torture is ineffective, illegal or against the constitution. He just likes the thought of terrorists getting tortured, whether they're actually terrorists or not.

[Shalamar]

BeAChooser doesn't care if torture is ineffective, illegal or against the constitution. He just likes the thought of terrorists getting tortured, whether they're actually terrorists or not.

Hmm. So all we would have to do to torture someone, is to accuse them of terrorism? I'm sure I could do that, and get them to confess to terrorism.

Guilty until they confess to it, whereupon we knew they were guilty.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Who was it that said something like, "These are serious crimes--it's not like they just had overdue library books"? (Not an exact quote--just my unreliable memory.)

I've always wanted to shout back, "How do you know they have committed anything worse than an overdue library book?" If you've got evidence, then try them of the crimes they're accused of.

Just to get back to the OP, no one is extending the privileges of U.S. citizenship to non-citizens accused of committing terrorism. The notion that the rights of the accused and the Constitution in general only apply to citizens is wrong, and I've proven that.

[willhaven]

Wait a minute, I was wrong to start torturing the poor as part of our war on poverty?

And this also makes good arguments as to why americans captured by foreign powers should be tortured.For the record, I don't condone torture. It's illegal and counterproductive.

Still, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan weren't declared by congress. There have been 4 or 5 officially declared wars (depending on how you want to slice it). WWII being the last.