NationStates Jolt Archive

Terrorism is not a matter of criminal law. Terrorists are entitled to NO rights IMO. I am perfectly happy to give up the "right" of UBL, KSM and their henchmen to plot against my country without fear of discovery and to kill my family, friends and fellow countrymen. I want to know exactly what they are plotting, and I want that information by any means expedient.

The means expedient include giving up your own rights. You seem to rely on a very clear perception that terrorists are not US citizens. But the legislation makes no such distinction, and I need only mention Waco and Oklahoma City to illustrate why not. By the legislation, the president can declare your family, friends and fellow countrymen "illegal combatants" then imprison them, and torture them to some extent, whether or not they are proven to have committed any crime.
Is that good law? Is it really somethng you will trust all future administrations to use wisely?

I value my life, my family's lives, my friends' lives and my fellow Americans' lives infinitely more than I value any so-called "rights" of terrorists.
Lives on the one hand. Rights on the other. It's so simple isn't it? Rights can go to hell. Or as you call them, "'so-called' rights." But lives are sacred. I could almost agree with that, but for the innocent lives taken in the War against Terror.
Or the innocents in Guantanamo. They, like anyone, citizen of your country of not, are innocent. Until proven guilty in a properly contituted court.

To find a person guilty of an offence which is not disclosed to them, or to their lawyer (ie not disclosing the evidence against them) is not justice. The government may give me roads and welfare, they may protect me from rapists and murderers, but the day they arrest a friend or family member of mine, and will not tell me why, is they day they have conscripted another terrorist.

...

Oh, and after that happens, there will be martial law in this country, and all the purists' ridiculous posturing on behalf of terrorist "rights" will be rendered moot. And it will be thanks to them that we reach that state of affairs.

"OK, this is bad, but it needs to be done because otherwise something even worse will happen." IE martial law.

We (and I'll take the side of the US on this one) WON THE COLD WAR. We called that a war, and in terms of clear and immanent threat to our lives, it was a much more real war than this piss-ant War on Terror. It threatened not just 'someone we know' but every single one of us, all our descendants, and possibly all life on earth above the insects.

There was one person who found it necessary to restrict the civil rights of Americans to win the cold war. One person in a position of power, anyway, though a lot of people followed him in hunting down the sympathisers, branding citizens "Un-American," be they citizens or even descendents of Pilgrims.

And I ask you: was it McCarthy who won the Cold War?

We won the Cold War in the sixties.
We had a bunch of fun, they had none. No nylons, no vinyl, no free sex.

We fought a war. We lost. And ... it ... didn't ... matter.

Through the seventies, we worried about ourselves. We went to psychiatrists and talked about our dreams of everyone on earth dying. We started to notice people starving to death while we waved big expensive dicks at the Russkies.

The russkies got greyer and greyer, vaguer and vaguer under Brezhnev. They knew they were wrong, but couldn't quite pin down how. Nixon teased them, and Carter tried to persuade them. Then the cold war ended.

Was it Reagan, showman? Or Gorbachev, traitor? Who put the lid on the coffin of this mutual delusion, the Cold War?
It doesn't matter. The work was done in the sixties. We won it in the sixties.

We did what only we could do, we held them down with one hand while playing sweet music with the other. It may not be the most certain way to win, it may not be ruthlessly efficient, but it makes sweet music for the ages, and we are left with something more than the sad excuse "we had to. We were afraid."

Well, Friedrich was plainly wrong there. If you gaze for long into the abyss, you see Cthulhu. :)

Ah, THAT'S what I saw! :D

"We might not be following our constitution, but at least we have a constitution."

Wow, I feel a lot better. Thanks. :p

any argument that posits that it is ok for America to engage in torture because "we are the good guys" ignores the very simple and fundamental truth that once we start engaging in torture we are no longer, by definition, "the good guys"

any argument that posits that it is ok for America to engage in torture because "we are the good guys" ignores the very simple and fundamental truth that once we start engaging in torture we are no longer, by definition, "the good guys"

Start? What do you think those secret prisons are for? Tea parties?

Start? What do you think those secret prisons are for? Tea parties?

Awww, and I had such a good Earl Grey I wanted to share... :(

:D

It is not quibbling to request a clarification of what the term "torture" means so that we can understand what the other means by that word.

To me "torture" is the application of pain to promote behavioral change.


Your definition of torture is hardly standard and much like the current legal standard for obscenity so vauge that it's either meaningless or includes things that it should not include. Try looking the word up in the dictionary and using the real definition.

Squeamish, eh?

We're the ones willing to put our lives where our mouth is.

No, you're the ones willing to put MY life where YOUR mouth is. Your self-righteous arrogance is writing a check your body can't cash, and I damn sure am not going to co-sign it.

You, however, are a snivelling little coward willing to fritter away all the things that make our country free just so you can feel that big daddy government is protecting you from the evil Islamic bogeyman.

There are certain principles that our nation claims to hold. You would probably claim to share them, too.

Your principles are worth nothing if you're not willing to die for them.

Either you believe in liberty or you don't.

Torture is something I would expect every American, in fact, every person who claims to be a civilized human being to be very strongly against. My safety is not worth my soul.

What a brave position from the 101st San Fran Keyboard Freedom Fighters :rolleyes:

As for your expectations, expect whatever you want. Your safety may not be worth your soul, but your soul isn't worth my life, or the lives of my friends, family, fellow Americans, or pets for that matter.

You can have Jack Murtha. I'll take Jack Bauer. And I can only hope our intelligence agencies have enough people who will do whatever needs to be done to keep misguided idealists like you from putting all of our lives where your mouths are.

Wait a minute... two options of "Don't torture convicted terrorists" and "Don't torture terrorists"? If you voted for "Don't torture convicted terrorists" then you're in favour of torturing unconvicted people but not in favour of torturing convicted terrorists? :confused:

No, you're the ones willing to put MY life where YOUR mouth is. Your self-righteous arrogance is writing a check your body can't cash, and I damn sure am not going to co-sign it.
Praise from the master. Projecting much there, pal? We've had 5 years of the tactics you favor, and I only see the problem getting worse and the danger to me getting bigger. Your side had their chance and they blew it.


What a brave position from the 101st San Fran Keyboard Freedom Fighters :rolleyes: [etc]
More words from the expert on talking big and doing nothing.

No, you're the ones willing to put MY life where YOUR mouth is. Your self-righteous arrogance is writing a check your body can't cash, and I damn sure am not going to co-sign it.

And now we see what the crux of the problem is. You. You're afraid. The terrorists won in your case - you're scared shitless and will compromise any and all American values if you think it'll make you safer from Evil Muslims.

No, you're the ones willing to put MY life where YOUR mouth is. Your self-righteous arrogance is writing a check your body can't cash, and I damn sure am not going to co-sign it.
I suggest that it is the current foreign policy of your beloved Bush that is increasing terrorism worldwide and by default increasing the possibility of your life or the life of a loved one to be at risk.

Worldwide terrorism-related deaths on the rise (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5889435/)

As speakers at the GOP convention trumpet Bush administration successes in the war on terrorism, an NBC News analysis of Islamic terrorism since Sept. 11, 2001, shows that attacks are on the rise worldwide — dramatically.

Of the roughly 2,929 terrorism-related deaths around the world since the attacks on New York and Washington, the NBC News analysis shows 58 percent of them — 1,709 — have occurred this year.
Perhaps your "self-righteous arrogance" is blocking you from the truth?

What a brave position from the 101st San Fran Keyboard Freedom Fighters :rolleyes:
Why do you hate freedom? :p

As for your expectations, expect whatever you want. Your safety may not be worth your soul, but your soul isn't worth my life, or the lives of my friends, family, fellow Americans, or pets for that matter.
How is the torturing of "suspected" terrorists making your life any safer? See above about increased terrorism.

You can have Jack Murtha. I'll take Jack Bauer. And I can only hope our intelligence agencies have enough people who will do whatever needs to be done to keep misguided idealists like you from putting all of our lives where your mouths are.
The idealists wouldn't have gone to war which would have saved over 2,700 American lives, would have spared the lives on 100,000 Iraqis, would have saved Americans $300 Billion, and would have made you safer. :p

And now we see what the crux of the problem is. You. You're afraid. The terrorists won in your case - you're scared shitless and will compromise any and all American values if you think it'll make you safer from Evil Muslims.
You are right. For an example. I have a friend who lives in Virginia and I told her that I was taking a trip to Singapore early in 2002. She was worried thinking it wasn't safe to fly after 911. I said to her that if people stop doing what they normally do, then the terrorists have won the psychological battle.

BTW, side point....were the residents of Louisiana any safer when most of the National Guard was away during hurricane Katrina? Isn't America less safe with all those troops over there, along with all of their equipment?

As long as they are only torturing terrorists, it's fine. If they start intentionally torturing innocent civilians, it's not. Those who are actively trying to kill innocent civilians or are actively supporting those who do deserve to be tortured, slowly and painfully.

Er... And if the terrorist u tortured shows up later on to be a wrongly convicted innocent civilian what u do?

U sound a little too much like Torquemada to me.

And now we see what the crux of the problem is. You. You're afraid. The terrorists won in your case - you're scared shitless and will compromise any and all American values if you think it'll make you safer from Evil Muslims.

Wow. I thank you. I should have come to this conclusion as well.

*kicks self*

The decadent country is ready to rule the world BUT not to give away a stinky and filthy Constitution.
They know their Constitution is false. It applies ONLY to people white and of US descendants, a little bit for some aliens becoming nationalised or some tourists from Mexico in need of cheap mescaline fun.

Torture is fundamental in a christian way of life the great small minded man gw blush think. Inquisition had good time.

But Inquisition never tortured Arabs, only Christians.
They had some Arabs as witnesses for a Christian trial. But they never wanted to have an Arab converted in the true faith.

Nowadays great christian US thinkers think the opposite.
Make them christian and they will not mess your little game of willing to rule the f*** world.

Too late, they have to say Iran is an arabic country (?!?!?) and soon NK is another one.

Have a nice day, by the way Sader Masoch was an ass*** he did not imagine such perversion possible, what a great decadence.

...Prove to me, solidly, that Arar was tortured, and I'll listen to the rest of your story.

Well... U could have used Wiki a little more...

Arar was then held in solitary confinement in a Syrian prison where, according to a Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice Dennis O'Connor, he was regularly tortured until his eventual release and return to Canada in October 2003.

No, you're the ones willing to put MY life where YOUR mouth is. Your self-righteous arrogance is writing a check your body can't cash, and I damn sure am not going to co-sign it.


What a brave position from the 101st San Fran Keyboard Freedom Fighters :rolleyes:


If you're going to criticize others for discussing national defense policy on the internet, then you should go join the military and quit the forum. See how much you favor the war in Iraq when you're actually fighting it, not just cheering for it.

Tom Tomorrow (http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=21448)

Fortunatly my morale has never been higher thanks to all those College Republicans back home fighting the War of Ideas.

I can't think of a more useful contribution that those 18 to 22 year olds could make.

Er... And if the terrorist u tortured shows up later on to be a wrongly convicted innocent civilian what u do?

U sound a little too much like Torquemada to me.

Hopefuly he starts typing whole words. It's two more key strokes come on!

Your definition of torture is hardly standard and much like the current legal standard for obscenity so vauge that it's either meaningless or includes things that it should not include. Try looking the word up in the dictionary and using the real definition.

Torture is any act by which severe pain, whether physical or psychological, is intentionally inflicted on a person as a means of intimidation, deterrence, revenge, punishment, sadism, information gathering, or to obtain false confessions for propaganda or political purposes. It can be used as an interrogation tactic to extract confessions. Torture is also used as a method of coercion or as a tool to control groups seen as a threat by governments.

Do you really thinh he did not?
I think you did not.

If you're going to criticize others for discussing national defense policy on the internet, then you should go join the military and quit the forum. See how much you favor the war in Iraq when you're actually fighting it, not just cheering for it.

Tom Tomorrow (http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=21448)

Off-topic, but if they'd take me, I'd go. Beyond that, one need not be an actual participant in a situation to recognize and criticize a bad argument being made about that situation.

Oh, and btw, my brother has flown missions into the area (former Navy pilot, now flying for an airline, military charter flights), so the war potentially affects me personally.

Praise from the master. Projecting much there, pal? We've had 5 years of the tactics you favor, and I only see the problem getting worse and the danger to me getting bigger. Your side had their chance and they blew it.

If that's all you see, you're blind. I see 5 years of no attacks on our soil, and I attribute at least part of that to successfully waterboarding Khalid Sheik Muhammed :D

More words from the expert on talking big and doing nothing.

I'm sure I've taken significantly more action than you or your fellow-travelers.

Now go back to the file room :p

I suggest that it is the current foreign policy of your beloved Bush that is increasing terrorism worldwide and by default increasing the possibility of your life or the life of a loved one to be at risk.

Worldwide terrorism-related deaths on the rise (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5889435/)

Ah, yes, the old, "Don't fight back or they'll attack more" argument. Thank God we didn't think like that in the 1940's.

Why do you hate freedom? :p

I love freedom. For me, my family, my fellow Americans, and generally for those who are not trying to physically attack and destroy my country. I do not love freedom for the latter. As far as I'm concerned, all al-Qaeda members and sympathizers, as well as all Hamas, Hezbollah and other Islamo-Nazi terrorists and sympathizers, and jihadists in general, are outlaws in the original sense of the word--they are outside the protection of the law, and can be targeted and killed at will by anyone.

The idealists wouldn't have gone to war which would have saved over 2,700 American lives, would have spared the lives on 100,000 Iraqis, would have saved Americans $300 Billion, and would have made you safer. :p

The "idealists" would have left in place a regime that had killed many more than 100,000 of its own people (and that "100,000 Iraqis" figure you refer to is pure crap, long since refuted, and you know it), was actively financing terrorism in Israel, was in violation of the 1991 cease-fire agreement thereby giving us the legal right to resume hostilities, and was a clear threat to at least resume development of WMD's (and I am not convinced that no WMD's will be discovered). The "idealists" never would have enabled the Iraqi people to have two free and fair elections. The "idealists" never seem to want to take any action against anyone--that is, unless it's a friend or ally of the US, like Israel.

The "idealists" complain about 2700 casualties in three and a half years--a figure less than the deaths that occurred training for D-Day--while our enemies laugh and tell themselves that we're weaklings who can't take a punch.

The only people the "idealists" will actually make safer are those who want to be able to plot against us without being discovered and forced to reveal their plans.

Fortunately, the "idealists" aren't running the show. And even more fortunately, the 6th Circuit (IIRC) Court of Appeals has refused to enjoin the government's legitimate wiretapping program pending the outcome of the appeal of that Michigan trial judge's decision, which, as every lawyer knows, is a clear indication that the lower court's decision is probably going to be overturned :D

If that's all you see, you're blind. I see 5 years of no attacks on our soil, and I attribute at least part of that to successfully waterboarding Khalid Sheik Muhammed :D
Betting everything you've got on assumtions about the future? And basing your confidence on something for which you can show neither results nor even a connection.

Say, NM, it hasn't snowed in Boston in almost a year. How much do you want to bet it will never snow here again?


I'm sure I've taken significantly more action than you or your fellow-travelers.

Now go back to the file room :p
I would only just love to hear all about everything you've done to keep me safe. Please provide a list.

EDIT: PS: Cute attempt to label anyone who disagrees with you as a communist. Expanding your circle of hate, are you?

Ah, yes, the old, "Don't fight back or they'll attack more" argument. Thank God we didn't think like that in the 1940's.



I love freedom. For me, my family, my fellow Americans, and generally for those who are not trying to physically attack and destroy my country. I do not love freedom for the latter. As far as I'm concerned, all al-Qaeda members and sympathizers, as well as all Hamas, Hezbollah and other Islamo-Nazi terrorists and sympathizers, and jihadists in general, are outlaws in the original sense of the word--they are outside the protection of the law, and can be targeted and killed at will by anyone.



The "idealists" would have left in place a regime that had killed many more than 100,000 of its own people (and that "100,000 Iraqis" figure you refer to is pure crap, long since refuted, and you know it), was actively financing terrorism in Israel, was in violation of the 1991 cease-fire agreement thereby giving us the legal right to resume hostilities, and was a clear threat to at least resume development of WMD's (and I am not convinced that no WMD's will be discovered). The "idealists" never would have enabled the Iraqi people to have two free and fair elections. The "idealists" never seem to want to take any action against anyone--that is, unless it's a friend or ally of the US, like Israel.

The "idealists" complain about 2700 casualties in three and a half years--a figure less than the deaths that occurred training for D-Day--while our enemies laugh and tell themselves that we're weaklings who can't take a punch.

The only people the "idealists" will actually make safer are those who want to be able to plot against us without being discovered and forced to reveal their plans.

Fortunately, the "idealists" aren't running the show. And even more fortunately, the 6th Circuit (IIRC) Court of Appeals has refused to enjoin the government's legitimate wiretapping program pending the outcome of the appeal of that Michigan trial judge's decision, which, as every lawyer knows, is a clear indication that the lower court's decision is probably going to be overturned :D
I'm sorry, NM, but you are so full of it.

You love freedom? Then why do you support, defend and encourage a US regime that is taking our freedoms away? You seem to think of "freedom" as something you keep under lock and key and preserve by not letting anyone use it. What you really seem to love is war and violence and a militaristic state that controls everything that goes on in American society and to which all people must bow down. That is what you seem to be happy to call "freedom" just so long as they keep demonizing the right kind of scapegoats.

And your constant repetitions of the Bush-Cheney Catalogue of Talking Points about how swimmingly all things are going in Iraq cannot erase the reality of your heroes' wretched failures. Also, you don't get to condemn all Muslims as your enemy who should be subjugated or killed in one breath and then claim credit for helping them in the next.

...
The idealists wouldn't have gone to war which would have saved over 2,700 American lives, would have spared the lives on 100,000 Iraqis, would have saved Americans $300 Billion, and would have made you safer. :p

Not only the idealists... The Intelligence Agencies would have had too, if anyone would have cared to listen...

Ah, yes, the old, "Don't fight back or they'll attack more" argument. Thank God we didn't think like that in the 1940's.
Interesting. I'm pretty sure that what people are suggesting is not encouraging people to attack the West because we are intolerant, bigoted, torturing bastards.
Or perhaps they are suggesting that deliberately 'dumb bombing' urban areas, destroying anything that might restrict the massacre of 500+ people a week (and that's just counting a handful of areas in Afghanistan and Iraq that the US and NATO have even the slightest control of), training and arming 'Death Squads' and sponsoring the growth of 90% of the world's heroine is the right way to think?

On a slightly unrelated note...I fed up of people from the US right-wing banging on about how all of us Europeans are 'surrenderer monkeys' is it? Appeasers? I thought it interesting that it took the US a couple of years to get involved. You would think that you 'war dodgers' would be a bit more supportive of Europe. Afterall, we were fighting a long time before you guys plucked up the courage to show up.

I love freedom. For me, my family, my fellow Americans, and generally for those who are not trying to physically attack and destroy my country.
Seems sensible. It would be nice if it extended to people such as innocent families in Iraq and Afghanistan. But it clearly doesn't, does it.
What about Darfur? 'Not on my Watch' Bush promised...clearly what he meant to say was "Freedom to commit genocide is important. We won't intervene to stop a genocide, despite the fact that it would take merely a fraction of our army, because we need an ally in Africa after we screwed over the people of Somalia by uniting the Sharia Warlords against the government."


I do not love freedom for the latter. As far as I'm concerned, all al-Qaeda members and sympathizers, as well as all Hamas, Hezbollah and other Islamo-Nazi terrorists and sympathizers, and jihadists in general, are outlaws in the original sense of the word--they are outside the protection of the law, and can be targeted and killed at will by anyone.
Just what do you mean by Islamo-Nazi terrorists?
I ask because, despite the fact that I agree that they are all terrorist organisations whose ranks hide some heinous criminals, I see you didn't mention any of the convicted war criminals who are trained and supported by the US and who are Christian?


The "idealists" would have left in place a regime that had killed many more than 100,000 of its own people (and that "100,000 Iraqis" figure you refer to is pure crap, long since refuted, and you know it),
But did removing an old Dictator somehow erase his past actions that he carried out during the substantial period of time that the US was supporting him? No.
It's like saying that it would have been justified to kill, say, 8 civillians in order to kill a 10 count serial killer, who had already killed his victims.
Oh, and Iraqi body count has it up to just under 50,000 and they quite happily say that if the press don't report it, they don't count it. Bearing in mind the press can't leave the greenzone without getting killed then I would guess the bodycount is a little higher... It also isn't counting those that were rendered unrecognizable by US ordinance during the invasion, the massacre at Falluja and the various other offensives carried out.

I know the British Government use a 6 digit figure.

was actively financing terrorism in Israel,
It may/ may not have been financing terrorism in Israel. But, so was the US and the UN. They all gave money to Palestine and some of that money sadly reached Hamas who used it to target mostly civillians.
I would be interested in see the evidence that shows direct funding of terrorism against a nation, which entirely incidentally carried out a terrorist act against a civilian nuclear facility.

was in violation of the 1991 cease-fire agreement thereby giving us the legal right to resume hostilities,
I thikn you will find that we broke the ceasefire on a regular basis and introduced sanctions that were only ever going to target the weak, the ill, the old and the young (e.g around 500,000 children dead from malnutrition or a lack of medical attention).

and was a clear threat to at least resume development of WMD's (and I am not convinced that no WMD's will be discovered).
I can't argue there was a threat. But there is a threat that the peasants on the slope of Mount Kilimanjiro might develop WMDs. The phrase you are looking for is 'a credible threat' and, as post war, 20/20 hindisght has shown, they weren't.

The "idealists" never would have enabled the Iraqi people to have two free and fair elections.
Would these be the elections where you could only vote for the candidates chosen by the US, several of whom were detained at various points by the US for criminal investigations?

This is what one Iraqi had to say about them at the time:-
"The first democratic elections were held in Iraq on January 29, 2005 under the ever-watchful collective eye of the occupation forces, headed by the United States of America. Troops in tanks watched as swarms of warm, fuzzy Iraqis headed for the ballot boxes to select one of the American-approved candidates..."

It won't look good.

There are several problems. The first is the fact that, technically, we don't know the candidates. We know the principal heads of the lists but we don't know who exactly will be running. It really is confusing. They aren't making the lists public because they are afraid the candidates will be assassinated.

Another problem is the selling of ballots. We're getting our ballots through the people who give out the food rations in the varying areas. The whole family is registered with this person(s) and the ages of the varying family members are known. Many, many, many people are not going to vote. Some of those people are selling their voting cards for up to $400. The word on the street is that these ballots are being bought by people coming in from Iran. They will purchase the ballots, make false IDs (which is ridiculously easy these days) and vote for SCIRI or Daawa candidates. Sunnis are receiving their ballots although they don't intend to vote, just so that they won't be sold.

Yet another issue is the fact that on all the voting cards, the gender of the voter, regardless of sex, is labeled "male". Now, call me insane, but I found this slightly disturbing. Why was that done? Was it some sort of a mistake? Why is the sex on the card anyway? What difference does it make? There are some theories about this. Some are saying that many of the more religiously inclined families won't want their womenfolk voting so it might be permissible for the head of the family to take the women's ID and her ballot and do the voting for her. Another theory is that this 'mistake' will make things easier for people making fake IDs to vote in place of females.

All of this has given the coming elections a sort of sinister cloak. There is too much mystery involved and too little transparency. It is more than a little bit worrisome.

American politicians seem to be very confident that Iraq is going to come out of these elections with a secular government. How is that going to happen when many Shia Iraqis are being driven to vote with various fatwas from Sistani and gang? Sistani and some others of Iranian inclination came out with fatwas claiming that non-voters will burn in the hottest fires of the underworld for an eternity if they don't vote (I'm wondering- was this a fatwa borrowed from right-wing Bushies during the American elections?). So someone fuelled with a scorching fatwa like that one- how will they vote? Secular? Yeah, right."

"We’re so free, we often find ourselves prisoners of our homes, with roads cut off indefinitely and complete areas made inaccessible. We are so free to assemble that people now fear having gatherings because a large number of friends or family members may attract too much attention and provoke a raid by American or Iraqi forces."

"This is like déjà vu from January when people in Mosul and other Sunni areas complained that they didn’t have centers to vote in or that their ballot boxes never made it to the counting stations. "

Can you smell the Democracy? Or is it the smell of hypocrisy mixed with excrement from a destroyed infrastructure and the blood of tens of thousands killed to get cheaper oil and to convince the gullible to vote for Republican?

The "idealists" never seem to want to take any action against anyone--that is, unless it's a friend or ally of the US, like Israel.
*sigh*. Yes, that's right. All the long posts, with supporting evidence, made detailing proven methods of fighting terrorism and stamping out 'evil' don't exist. Or perhaps when 'Idealists' say, "I think we should stop killing & torturing people for no reason because that only encourages people to attack" you don't realise that, sometimes, not being a an evil bastard is a positive thing and that, maybe, it might be part of a strategy to prevent terrorism from happening rather than (failing) to treat the symptoms of it.
What worries me are the 'Conservatives' who say "Let's go a massacre a few tens of thousands of innocent people because at least then we will be doing something. Afterall, wouldn't want to get bored."

The "idealists" complain about 2700 casualties in three and a half years--a figure less than the deaths that occurred training for D-Day--while our enemies laugh and tell themselves that we're weaklings who can't take a punch.
Which is better? That the pride of the US isn't at risk of people laughing at it (too late sadly) or that tens of thousands aren't killed to justify a false and bloodsoaked feeling of pride.
Tell me, when you switch on the news and you watch a US soldier walk up to an unarmed Iraqi, kick him and then shoot him when he shows he is alive, do you feel pride?
When you watch the news and it shows you missiles from a US helicopter hit a mob on unarmed civilians (including children) and see the reporter who was talking to you a second ago killed, is that when you feel pride?
When you see images of institutional torture paraded around the world and see a visible rise in the hatred of the US (often where there was no negative feeling before) is that pride?

And stop trying to trivialise deaths. 2,700 may be a small number to you (although the fact it is should make you ask questions about yourself) but to the families and friends of those 2,700 it is 2,700 too many, especially as all the impartial, or even semi-impartial evidence shows that all their deaths are achieveing is an increase in the threat of terrorism against the US.
Seriously, if 2,700 is an acceptable price to pay then ask yourself how many were killed in the WTC attacks and whether all the deaths and the stripping of your rights since then are worth it?

The only people the "idealists" will actually make safer are those who want to be able to plot against us without being discovered and forced to reveal their plans.
Actually, the 'idealists' are the ones who suggest following the experience and advice of countries that have eliminated terrorism by targeted strategies so that the US does not need to maintain a constant life of fear. Strangely, all the evidence (including US intelligence reports) and history tends to support them.

I would only just love to hear all about everything you've done to keep me safe. Please provide a list.

I'd like to see that list too!!!

"Naturally, the common people don't want war...but, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
- Hermann Goering

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President...or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong...is not only unpatriotic and servile, but it is morally treasonable to the American public."
- President Theodore Roosevelt

Not only the idealists... The Intelligence Agencies would have had too, if anyone would have cared to listen...

There's a reason why they call them "Intelligence Agencies." ;)

I'd like to see that list too!!!

Heh. Don't hold your breath.

And thank you for that in-depth expose of the faults in his thinking, above, but you're preaching to the choir. New Mitanni has heard it all before and doesn't care. Your audience is all the rest of us, sitting around, reading and nodding.

Regardless of what anyone else thinks, I say KILL the terrorists. You mustn't allow the damned terrorists to manipulate our judicial system. We mustn't allow the terrorists to manipulate our laws.

Also, please note, that a lot of these terrorists have no money of their own. So who would end up paying for their public defenders, the tax payers. As for a tax paying citizen, I would be outraged and so many others if we had to fork the bill for defending these terrorists. Bullshit! I say kill the terrorists. That is the only language that the terrorists understand is the language of violence. So let's give it to them.

Regardless of what anyone else thinks, I say KILL the terrorists. You mustn't allow the damned terrorists to manipulate our judicial system. We mustn't allow the terrorists to manipulate our laws.

Also, please note, that a lot of these terrorists have no money of their own. So who would end up paying for their public defenders, the tax payers. As for a tax paying citizen, I would be outraged and so many others if we had to fork the bill for defending these terrorists. Bullshit! I say kill the terrorists. That is the only language that the terrorists understand is the language of violence. So let's give it to them.

Backwards twat.

Regardless of what anyone else thinks, I say KILL the terrorists. You mustn't allow the damned terrorists to manipulate our judicial system. We mustn't allow the terrorists to manipulate our laws.

Also, please note, that a lot of these terrorists have no money of their own. So who would end up paying for their public defenders, the tax payers. As for a tax paying citizen, I would be outraged and so many others if we had to fork the bill for defending these terrorists. Bullshit! I say kill the terrorists. That is the only language that the terrorists understand is the language of violence. So let's give it to them.

Do we kill them before or after the trial?

If it is before the trial, how do we know we are killing terrorists and not innocent people?

If it is after the trial, we are not saving any money for taxpayers. By the way, terrorists can not manipulate the judicial system or the laws.

Do we kill them before or after the trial?

If it is before the trial, how do we know we are killing terrorists and not innocent people?

If it is after the trial, we are not saving any money for taxpayers. By the way, terrorists can not manipulate the judicial system or the laws.

okay, well I say let you pay for their defence. As for me I say Hell no. A lot of the people at Gitmo were found with known terrorists. If they didn't believe in the terrorists mission they shouldn't of been in their presence. Tax payers money should NOT be used for the defense of suspected terrorists, period. If you or the so many who are crying human rights wish to foot the bill then so be it, more power to you.

In my opinion, torture is wrong. But something is needed in order to get the information out that we need. Yes it is wrong to go around torturing others like they do us but we do need to somehow get the information that is needed

okay, well I say let you pay for their defence. As for me I say Hell no. A lot of the people at Gitmo were found with known terrorists. If they didn't believe in the terrorists mission they shouldn't of been in their presence. Tax payers money should NOT be used for the defense of suspected terrorists, period. If you or the so many who are crying human rights wish to foot the bill then so be it, more power to you.

I think you would prefer to pay for their defence and execution or acquittal rather than paying for them to be held indefinitely without charge. Seems cheaper to me.

How do you know how many of the people at Gitmo were found in the company of terrorists? Link, please.

I love it when people say period at the end of a sentence. It shows a refusal to debate the issue. Tax-payers money should be used to protect and help taxpayers. Paying for trials protects us from arbitrary detention and punishment.

-snip-
No, no no! A wrench won't do! I want 'MeansToAnEnd' here discussing his/her findings. He sorta promised...

pretty please..?

I'm sure most of you will say this next link is illegitimate but what the hell, here ya go... http://www.defenselink.mil/home/features/gitmo/

then there's this.... http://washtimes.com/national/20041018-124854-2279r.htm

and....... http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/07/11/guantanamo.geneva/

now this is torture.... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061003/ap_on_he_me/guantanamo_fat_detainees

is this enough?....... http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-07-11-detainees-geneva_x.htm

okay, well I say let you pay for their defence. As for me I say Hell no. A lot of the people at Gitmo were found with known terrorists. If they didn't believe in the terrorists mission they shouldn't of been in their presence. Tax payers money should NOT be used for the defense of suspected terrorists, period. If you or the so many who are crying human rights wish to foot the bill then so be it, more power to you.


A reply from a better man than myself:


. . .For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies. . .

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.


Further, an even more wise person:


You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'
But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you,
that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust.
For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same?
And if you greet your brothers only, what is unusual about that? Do not the pagans do the same?
So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.

You may not like this, but one of the prices of liberty is that everyone, even those we don't like, are treated as if they have human decency as well. This isn't a question of what they are; it's a question of how just we are. If you don't like it, feel free to move somewhere that treats only some people as more equal than others. I hear places like Darfur are great for that.

Interesting. I'm pretty sure that what people are suggesting is not encouraging people to attack the West because we are intolerant, bigoted, torturing bastards.

Faulty premise. We were under attack at least since 1993, under Europe's favorite former President, that pantload from Little Rock, William Jefferson Clinton, and nobody back then put forth the opinion that it was because "we are intolerant, bigoted, torturing bastards." We were, and are, under attack because the world Islamo-Nazi movement hates us for being in the way of their demented dreams of global Islamization.

Or perhaps they are suggesting that deliberately 'dumb bombing' urban areas, destroying anything that might restrict the massacre of 500+ people a week (and that's just counting a handful of areas in Afghanistan and Iraq that the US and NATO have even the slightest control of), training and arming 'Death Squads' and sponsoring the growth of 90% of the world's heroine is the right way to think?

If we had "dumb bombed" a few more areas, like Sadr City and Fallujah, the situation would have been resolved a lot more quickly. Part of the problem in Iraq today is that we didn't use enough force and deploy enough troops, that we were too concerned about avoiding collateral damage and not concerned enough with applying overwhelmingly disproportional force to crush the enemy. The critics are right on this point. Much like the broken clock that's still right twice a day.

On a slightly unrelated note...I fed up of people from the US right-wing banging on about how all of us Europeans are 'surrenderer monkeys' is it? Appeasers? I thought it interesting that it took the US a couple of years to get involved. You would think that you 'war dodgers' would be a bit more supportive of Europe. Afterall, we were fighting a long time before you guys plucked up the courage to show up.

If you're referring to WWII, I've got two words for you: Lend Lease. Meanwhile, "surrender monkeys" remains as applicable as ever, at least as far as France is concerned. Unfortunately, there weren't more Churchills at the time.

Seems sensible. It would be nice if it extended to people such as innocent families in Iraq and Afghanistan. But it clearly doesn't, does it.

Casualties happen in war. When we start deliberately blowing up busses and restaurants in exclusively civilian areas, then you can complain about "innocent families."

What about Darfur? 'Not on my Watch' Bush promised...clearly what he meant to say was "Freedom to commit genocide is important. We won't intervene to stop a genocide, despite the fact that it would take merely a fraction of our army, because we need an ally in Africa after we screwed over the people of Somalia by uniting the Sharia Warlords against the government."

1) So, it's fine to invade a country, as long as it's for a reason you approve of? Aren't you supposed to be saying, "Give the sanctions time to work"?

2) An "ally in Africa"? Sudan?! Please, put the bong down, put your hands up and back away slowly from the keyboard.

3) We "screwed over the people of Somalia by uniting the Sharia Warlords against the government"? And how precisely did we do that? And those good little "Sharia Warlords" were perfectly content to lurk in the shadows and the slums and never try to seize power until those bad old Americans "united" them? Somebody say it with me: PUH-LEEEEEEASE!

Just what do you mean by Islamo-Nazi terrorists? I ask because, despite the fact that I agree that they are all terrorist organisations whose ranks hide some heinous criminals, I see you didn't mention any of the convicted war criminals who are trained and supported by the US and who are Christian?

Any individual whose claims to be a Muslim, whose goals include imposing Islamic rule by violence and/or subversion, and who employs or supports terrorist activity deliberately targeting unarmed civilians, is an Islamo-Nazi terrorist. Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, groups in Indonesia, Kashmir, Thailand and the Philippines whose names escape me at present, and the like, are all Islamo-Nazi terrorists.

As for "convicted war criminals" who "are Christian," there is no comparable, or even arguable, Christian equivalent to the Islamo-Nazi organizations and movements mentioned above. However, if indeed "attacks on innocent families only breeds hate and recruits terrorists," then you should expect an anti-Islamic terrorist movement to emerge at any time. If such a movement should in fact emerge, we can discuss "Christian" terrorists and war criminals at that point.

It may/ may not have been financing terrorism in Israel. But, so was the US and the UN. They all gave money to Palestine and some of that money sadly reached Hamas who used it to target mostly civillians.

Nice try, but it won't wash. Neither the US nor the UN made cash payments directly to the families of homicide bombers. The Saddamite regime is known to have done so.

I would be interested in see the evidence that shows direct funding of terrorism against a nation, which entirely incidentally carried out a terrorist act against a civilian nuclear facility.

If you're referring to Israel's destruction of the Osirak nuclear installation, not only was that not a "terrorist act against a civilian nuclear facility," it was a legitimate military response to a clear and direct threat to the existence of the state of Israel. It was furthermore something the world should be grateful for. Props to Israel for doing what needed to be done.

I thikn you will find that we broke the ceasefire on a regular basis

Wrong again. Enforcing the no-fly zones was by no means breaking the cease-fire.

and introduced sanctions that were only ever going to target the weak, the ill, the old and the young (e.g around 500,000 children dead from malnutrition or a lack of medical attention).

The responsibility for any "dead children" lies soley and exclusively with the former Saddamite regime. Saddam chose not to comply, and chose not to expend the resources necessary to keep alive whatever number of children (and I don't believe that "500,000" figure for an instant) died as a result of his choices.

I can't argue there was a threat. But there is a threat that the peasants on the slope of Mount Kilimanjiro might develop WMDs. The phrase you are looking for is 'a credible threat' and, as post war, 20/20 hindisght has shown, they weren't.

1) "Peasants on the slope of Mount Kilimanjaro" have no capability whatsoever for developing WMDs. Silly argument.

2) The WMD threat from Iraq was "credible" enough for the US to have gotten support from most of the UN.

3) 20/20 hindsight is never a basis for criticism. Better to act on information at hand at the time and be found later to have been incorrect (if in fact you were incorrect, which I don't concede) than not to act and later be found to have been correct.


Would these be the elections where you could only vote for the candidates chosen by the US, several of whom were detained at various points by the US for criminal investigations?

This is what one Iraqi had to say about them at the time:- [snip]



For every critic of the Iraqi elections, there are many others who found them to be free and fair. The fact remains that two separate elections were held, millions participated, and Iraq has an elected government, whether or not it passes the purity test of critics, many of whom are looking for any reason to cast doubt on them in the first place.

Can you smell the Democracy? Or is it the smell of hypocrisy mixed with excrement from a destroyed infrastructure and the blood of tens of thousands killed to get cheaper oil and to convince the gullible to vote for Republican?

"Cheaper oil"? Right. Paying $1.00+ more per gallon than pre-war somehow constitutes getting "cheaper oil." I guess you must have picked up the bong again. Let me say it slowly: We-did-not-fight-a-war-for-oil!

Or perhaps when 'Idealists' say, "I think we should stop killing & torturing people for no reason because that only encourages people to attack" you don't realise that, sometimes, not being a an evil bastard is a positive thing and that, maybe, it might be part of a strategy to prevent terrorism from happening rather than (failing) to treat the symptoms of it.

Another false premise. Nobody--let me repeat, nobody--is "killing and torturing people for no reason".


What worries me are the 'Conservatives' who say "Let's go a massacre a few tens of thousands of innocent people because at least then we will be doing something. Afterall, wouldn't want to get bored."

Show me a single "Conservative" who has ever made such a statement. Failing that, your argument must be considered a mere straw-man.


Which is better? That the pride of the US isn't at risk of people laughing at it (too late sadly) or that tens of thousands aren't killed to justify a false and bloodsoaked feeling of pride.

"Pride" isn't the issue. The perception of weakness is. Our enemies perceive those who whine about the casualty level to be a sign that the US is weak, indecisive and unwilling to continue the fight to its conclusion, and are thus emboldened to continue their campaign against us in the hope that we will quit and run away. As many in the "give peace a chance" crowd want as well.

And with that, I'll have to wrap it up for today. But I must say, you did present reasoned arguments, unlike some who shall remain nameless.

A reply from a better man than myself:



Further, an even more wise person:



You may not like this, but one of the prices of liberty is that everyone, even those we don't like, are treated as if they have human decency as well. This isn't a question of what they are; it's a question of how just we are. If you don't like it, feel free to move somewhere that treats only some people as more equal than others. I hear places like Darfur are great for that.

okay, that was nice.....you read my first couple of posts.......I was a bit sarcastic but a bit serious....you didn't mention my last post, though. So did you read my last post.

I am simply rebuking against some extreme thinkers of how allegedly evil gitmo is.....hence, my last post. Also, if we have read most of my posts here in the NS you would understand the fact that I Love my country regardless of what some views me as. And who are you to tell me to move. Are you judging me? I thought the only one who had that right was the ultimate judge who in fact is not you.

okay, that was nice.....you read my first couple of posts.......I was a bit sarcastic but a bit serious....you didn't mention my last post, though. So did you read my last post.

I am simply rebuking against some extreme thinkers of how allegedly evil gitmo is.....hence, my last post. Also, if we have read most of my posts here in the NS you would understand the fact that I Love my country regardless of what some views me as. And who are you to tell me to move. Are you judging me? I thought the only one who had that right was the ultimate judge who in fact is not you.

You're right, it's not him, and it's not me, and it's not YOU, either.

But that doesn't seem to stop you from judging every Muslim in the world and condemning them to war and death. Nor does it stop you from making judgments against the character of every American who disagrees with you.

okay, well I say let you pay for their defence. As for me I say Hell no. A lot of the people at Gitmo were found with known terrorists. If they didn't believe in the terrorists mission they shouldn't of been in their presence. Tax payers money should NOT be used for the defense of suspected terrorists, period. If you or the so many who are crying human rights wish to foot the bill then so be it, more power to you.
You don't mind paying Billions of tax dollars to blow innocent Iraqis to bits?

You invade their country and you arrest them for shooting back at you and you don't want tax dollars to pay for their defence?

okay, that was nice.....you read my first couple of posts.......I was a bit sarcastic but a bit serious....you didn't mention my last post, though. So did you read my last post.

I am simply rebuking against some extreme thinkers of how allegedly evil gitmo is.....hence, my last post. Also, if we have read most of my posts here in the NS you would understand the fact that I Love my country regardless of what some views me as. And who are you to tell me to move. Are you judging me? I thought the only one who had that right was the ultimate judge who in fact is not you.

I wouldn't go assuming that your celebrity precedes you, n00b.

Regardless of what anyone else thinks, I say KILL the terrorists. You mustn't allow the damned terrorists to manipulate our judicial system. We mustn't allow the terrorists to manipulate our laws.

Also, please note, that a lot of these terrorists have no money of their own. So who would end up paying for their public defenders, the tax payers. As for a tax paying citizen, I would be outraged and so many others if we had to fork the bill for defending these terrorists. Bullshit! I say kill the terrorists. That is the only language that the terrorists understand is the language of violence. So let's give it to them.


Really? :confused:

Why? :confused:

By the way... Are you a terrorist? Prove it! :eek:

I think you are right, you should be killed. :mp5:
You are in the way of the fighters for freedom. :headbang:


*

Torture is any act by which severe pain, whether physical or psychological, is intentionally inflicted on a person as a means of intimidation, deterrence, revenge, punishment, sadism, information gathering, or to obtain false confessions for propaganda or political purposes. It can be used as an interrogation tactic to extract confessions. Torture is also used as a method of coercion or as a tool to control groups seen as a threat by governments.

Do you really thinh he did not?
I think you did not.

I think that that definition is vastly different than this one that he provided: "To me "torture" is the application of pain to promote behavioral change"

Especialy when he includes such things as scolding a child.

. . .For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies. . .

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

bah, that's all just filler

okay, well I say let you pay for their defence. As for me I say Hell no. A lot of the people at Gitmo were found with known terrorists. If they didn't believe in the terrorists mission they shouldn't of been in their presence. Tax payers money should NOT be used for the defense of suspected terrorists, period. If you or the so many who are crying human rights wish to foot the bill then so be it, more power to you.

That's exactly what they should be used for!

The key word is "suspected". Combine that with "Innocent until proven guilty".
It is / should be up to the government to prove that one is, in fact, a terrorist - the burden of proof does not lie with the suspect.
If it does... Well, can you please prove to me that you're not a terrorists? Because I might be inclined to believe that you sympathise with them. It's not easy to prove is it? And don't worry, you won't be pestered with one of them nasty lawyers to defend you. The tax-payers wanted to save $1.50, so you're on your own. Have fun :)




Oh, and links to those people at Gitmo that were found to be known terrorists would be nice ;)

I'm sure most of you will say this next link is illegitimate but what the hell, here ya go... http://www.defenselink.mil/home/features/gitmo/

This link seems to be a general information link about Gitmo. It does not answer my question to you: how do you know how many of the people at Gitmo were found in the company of terrorists?

then there's this.... http://washtimes.com/national/20041018-124854-2279r.htm

At least seven former prisoners of the United States at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have returned to terrorism, despite gaining their freedom by signing pledges to renounce violence.... U.S. officials released 146 detainees from Guantanamo, but only after determining the prisoners no longer posed threats and had no remaining intelligence value.

So, the current regime in the USA imprisoned 139 innocent people, and released 7 who were actually guilty. Are these the people who were caught in the company of terrorists. The article didn't say so.


and....... http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/07/11/guantanamo.geneva/

What is this article supposed to prove? That in July the current US regime thought about treating the prisoners with rights?

now this is torture.... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061003/ap_on_he_me/guantanamo_fat_detainees

This article about diets at Guantanamo has nothing to do with torture. Try to stay on topic.

is this enough?....... http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-07-11-detainees-geneva_x.htm[/QUOTE]

Again with an article from July that discusses Geneva convention rights. Perhaps you are not aware of the latest news concerning a bill passing through the US government. You may search for it here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/

the info is
Bill#:S.3930
Title: Military Commissions Act of 2006
(thanks to JuNii for originally providing the link and info.)

And one more thing, try to include some sort of point so we can understand why you posted links.

okay, well I say let you pay for their defence. As for me I say Hell no. A lot of the people at Gitmo were found with known terrorists. If they didn't believe in the terrorists mission they shouldn't of been in their presence. Tax payers money should NOT be used for the defense of suspected terrorists, period. If you or the so many who are crying human rights wish to foot the bill then so be it, more power to you.

And people should not be flown halfway acroos the globe and rot in jail for five years at the tax payer's expenses either. Maybe we should relieve the tax payer and close Gitmo?

Or better yet, save a few dollars to each tax payers and stop invading countries with no justifiable reasons.

And, the best money saver at all: stop spending so much in foreign policies that make people hate you and want to strap a bomb to their chest to show you how much they hate you.

Taht would save a bit more money than paying for the legal expenses of people who, by some account, were grabbed by warlords and sold to the us to get money to grow heroin.

Your Opinion on the Torture of Terrorists


I am only in favor if they can be boiled in oil first before they are tortured .


Non trans fatty oil...must not be cruel .

MeansToAnEnd, have you ever said "God bless America"?

He comes across as someone who'd sincerely yell "America, FUCK YEAH!!" and believe every bit of it.

And it's a nice strawman poll too, assuming that anyone who's being tortured is automatically a terrorist and that anyone who's against torture supports terrorists.

This thread is torture it should be banned ,

okay, that was nice.....you read my first couple of posts.......I was a bit sarcastic but a bit serious....you didn't mention my last post, though. So did you read my last post.

I am simply rebuking against some extreme thinkers of how allegedly evil gitmo is.....hence, my last post. Also, if we have read most of my posts here in the NS you would understand the fact that I Love my country regardless of what some views me as. And who are you to tell me to move. Are you judging me? I thought the only one who had that right was the ultimate judge who in fact is not you.

We've read plenty of your posts.

You don't love this country. You THINK you do because you hate other countries more. I suppose certain Biblical apologists would argue that hating less = love just like hate = love less, but it's bullshit.

You have demonstrated yourself over and over to simply be a hateful person who wishes to champion policies of fear and hatred. Not as bad as MeansToAnEnd, but still pretty bad.

Off hand, I can't remember which one of you was only a kid, so I'll say now, Chuck Norris movies are not works of moral philosophy. Broaden your perspective a bit, or you're going to grow up into a completly fractured individual. If you're not the one that's still a kid... well, then you're never going to grow up at all.

There's a very good reason that suspected anythings are entitled to defense. The purpose of a trial is to determine what they are. "Suspected terrorist" is not a legal status. You can be a terrorist or not a terrorist, but it is not inherently your fault if someone else suspects you of being one. I could just as easily say that your statements are pro-terrorist counter-propaganda. You're now a suspected terrorist because I suspect that what you're doing helps terrorism. Are you any different now than you were before I made my suspicions known? The purpose of the trial is to determine which of the two you are, not the three.

You don't mind paying Billions of tax dollars to blow innocent Iraqis to bits?

You invade their country and you arrest them for shooting back at you and you don't want tax dollars to pay for their defence?

Could be worse. Bill O'Reilly has said that "the civilian lawyers defending them are supporting the terrorists..." arguing that if you argue the defense then you should be arrested as one of them. Even in Salem they let you argue a defense. Although the 15th century Europeans tried the logic O'Rielly is now using.

"Cheaper oil"? Right. Paying $1.00+ more per gallon than pre-war somehow constitutes getting "cheaper oil." I guess you must have picked up the bong again. Let me say it slowly: We-did-not-fight-a-war-for-oil!


Errr... ok. I am left to wonder, then, about the extremely convenient timing of the current drastic drop in gasoline prices coinciding with an election.

Coincidence? Or, perhaps, does effective control of a major oil producing nation perhaps figure in there somehow or other?

Could be worse. Bill O'Reilly has said that "the civilian lawyers defending them are supporting the terrorists..." arguing that if you argue the defense then you should be arrested as one of them. Even in Salem they let you argue a defense. Although the 15th century Europeans tried the logic O'Rielly is now using.

McCarthy would have been proud. "Are you now, or have you ever been a terrorist?"

Errr... ok. I am left to wonder, then, about the extremely convenient timing of the current drastic drop in gasoline prices coinciding with an election.

Coincidence? Or, perhaps, does effective control of a major oil producing nation perhaps figure in there somehow or other?


Only if you can figure out how to get OPEC and all the rest of the friends of the US club like Venezuela and Iran to go along with it .


You must be an economy major right ?

Could be worse. Bill O'Reilly has said that "the civilian lawyers defending them are supporting the terrorists..." arguing that if you argue the defense then you should be arrested as one of them. Even in Salem they let you argue a defense. Although the 15th century Europeans tried the logic O'Rielly is now using.
From what I have seen so far from Bill O'Reilly, I believe that he thinks that the sun rises and sets on the US. His misguided patriotism is spoon fed to his faithful follwers, or should I say flock. Although I must admit that there was interview that he did with Arianna Huffington (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/TOF-Arianna9-13-06.wmv) whereby he did seem to be taken aback by this straight forward lady. However, for the most part, he is just an overpaid Bushevik.

However, for the most part, he is just an overpaid Bushevik.

Not for the most part. He is an overpaid Bushevik, period.