I am so angry at my country right now (re: North Korea, Nukes, Iraq, Trans Fats)

[Green²]

But on the habeus corpus assault, can't really say the media has been ignoring it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUzUljH8EHU

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by Spectacular_Insanity

I have some more fun facts.

Dubyuh's done it again (okay, and the Bush administration). Only now, he's taken away habeus corpus from all non-US citizens within the US with a new law just passed (see date of post). So it's not just Guantanamo Bay any more, it's now also applicable to 12 million permanent US residents (plus or minus a million or so). That includes immigrants and aliens of any kind.

The US Supreme Court is sure to declare it unconstitutional, but that doesn't mean that the Court can enforce it. Only Congress can. This could present a problem, as Congressmen were the ones that passed it in the first place....

There's a major nitpick here: Bush may have supported it, and he darn well should have vetoed it, but CONGRESS did it.

The bill had bi-partisan support and bi-partisan opposition in Congress.

Fortunately, it applies only to military detainees, but it is still a tremendous problem.

[SpecterVR]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aeCc_UYLM8
And the commentary that should be heard.

I dunno, I think I can hear people screaming "revolt! revolt!" from their sofas.

[Demongod86]

Originally Posted by SpecterVR

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aeCc_UYLM8
And the commentary that should be heard.

I dunno, I think I can hear people screaming "revolt! revolt!" from their sofas.

I don't see the problem here...we're in a time of war, so we have to loosen the rules which don't let us gather information as easily...shit, I think if you threatened to remove someone's arm with a rusty chainsaw, I think they'd talk a lot faster than any FBI interrogator can make them?

[Shay]

Originally Posted by Demongod86

I don't see the problem here...we're in a time of war, so we have to loosen the rules which don't let us gather information as easily...shit, I think if you threatened to remove someone's arm with a rusty chainsaw, I think they'd talk a lot faster than any FBI interrogator can make them?

Tickle my feet with a feather and I'll spill the beens on my own mother!

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Demongod86

I don't see the problem here...we're in a time of war, so we have to loosen the rules which don't let us gather information as easily...shit, I think if you threatened to remove someone's arm with a rusty chainsaw, I think they'd talk a lot faster than any FBI interrogator can make them?

Well the problem is the constitution is very specific about habeus corpus. It can only be suspended in times of revolt or invasion. We dont' have anyone rising up against the government, and we dont' have a foreign army launching an amphibious assult on washington, so there is NO legal basis for this. Inother words, this is ignoring the constitution completely. Further, as Keith Olbermann pointed out in that clip, without habeus corpus, most of the other rights are meaningless.

Habeus corpus is the cornerstone of all of our rights. Without it you can be arrested for any reason, and have no recourse. After all, if you dont' have the right to protest your detention, they don't have to have any evidence against you, now do they?

As for torture, it isn't a reliable way to get information. The victim will eventually say anything his captors want to hear to get the pain to stop. The key words there are "want to hear". What you get isn't necessarily the truth, but the statement the torturer is looking for.

Apart from it's ineffectiveness, it's against US and international law and just barbaric. Cruel and unusual punishment is expressly forbidden under the constitution. If torture doesn't count, what does? The America I was born in was a civilized nation. I don't want my country to become a nation that does exactly the same things as a third world dictatorship.

Warrentless wiretaps? I believe that falls under illegal search and seizure, also forbidden under the constitution. Not to mention they have 72 hours after they begin to get a warrent. If they can't get a warrent, that means they don't have probable cause.

Data mining? Why does the government find it necessary to track who's calling who? Are we living in a police state? Not to mention the whole illegal search and seizure thing again...

These rights were guaranteed in the constitution for a reason. Denial of them is the path to totalatarianism. Even if the Bush adminstration doesn't abuse them, what about the next adminstration, or the one after that? Can you be certain that there will never be a president that will abuse these tools? I can't, so I'm forced to conclude it's better not to have them at all.

[Demongod86]

Bear in mind that the conditions that the constitution was written under are different conditions than we face today. When G.Washington and Ben Franklin and whoever were around, we didn't have people blowing themselves up in restaurants or flying planes into our workplaces.

About being arrested for no reason or data mining or phone wiretaps, I don't find any of that scary. I have no intention of violently overthrowing the government, and this is why we have a democracy, so if some party in office does something stupid, they get voted out en masse with the coming elections.

As for torture, put it this way, as I've said to my friends at university yesterday:

When you have people organizing the slaughter of civilians for political reasons, when you have religious fanatics willing to kill themselves to kill civilians, and when you have human beings (and I use that term generously) willing to take other human life over a perverted interpretation of a book written by those just as fallible as we are today (if not moreso, due to the lack of knowledge back in the 7th century AD when the Koran came about), then I think they at some point or another lose the privilege of having what we here call "human rights".

If you even so much believe that martyrs blowing themselves up to kill Jewish youth in clubs is right, or that smashing planes into American workplaces is right, or that America is the coming of the devil or anything of that nature, in my book, YOU LOSE YOUR HUMAN RIGHTS. If you were flayed of your skin alive and then had your raw bleeding flesh burned, guess what? You're a terrorist, and if you really think you're going to go to heaven and become a martyr, then perhaps you can suffer a little taste of "hell" before going to the afterlife.

There is a BIG difference between the military torturing subhuman terrorists, and the President becoming Big Brother. We have a long, LONG way to go until we have to start thinking about Big Brother-type leaders, and if that ever comes around, said Big Brother type leader will not be effective and nor will he last long.

Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong...we've learned from their errors, and we will not repeat those mistakes. Or so I hope.

Frankly, I think our willingness to treat our sworn enemies with human rights is our biggest mistake. Clearly, we haven't struck enough fear into the hearts of terrorists because they know that if caught, they'll be placed in a jail cell, but won't really suffer that much...

Now on the other hand, if caught, maimed, burned, inhumanely tortured (and I'm not talking lack of sleep/chained vertically to prevent sleep, I'm talking getting medieval on their ass and really torturing in the cruelest sense of the word), then maybe that would strike fear into their hearts so as to not try anything, or they'll go through such excruciating physical pain that not even their perverted interpration of Islam will help them get through it.

That said, my belief is that America's constitution was made for America. Not Afghanistan, not Iraq, not for the nation of Sheik Abdulla-NoJewsa-I'm-a-terrorist-Namar or whoever...

The geneva convention was also made in the context of a war between nations, so that the human rights of a SOLDIER, whose job it is to fight for his country and his country's beliefs, isn't inhumanely killed simply because he was captured. He is removed from the war, but not from life.

But in the context of terrorists, why should documents drafted in the context of civilized peoples (relatively, anyway), such as America and Europe be applied to subhuman terrorists?

The answer is it shouldn't. By choosing to slaughter civilians, the terrorists and all under them have given up their rights to be treated with basic human decency.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Demongod86

Bear in mind that the conditions that the constitution was written under are different conditions than we face today. When G.Washington and Ben Franklin and whoever were around, we didn't have people blowing themselves up in restaurants or flying planes into our workplaces.

So the principles this country was founded on, the principles that made this country great no longer apply because some nuts like to blow stuff up? Terrorism is nothing new. Only the motives are different. While they can kill people, they lack the power to be considered a serious threat to the nation itself. *Terrorists getting a nuke won't change that, btw, it'll just lead us to do something we'll regret for the rest of time.*

About being arrested for no reason or data mining or phone wiretaps, I don't find any of that scary. I have no intention of violently overthrowing the government, and this is why we have a democracy, so if some party in office does something stupid, they get voted out en masse with the coming elections.

I don't think you understand just how powerful the suspention of habeus corpus is. You don't have to be doing anything wrong, just something the current adminstration doesn't like. What it is they don't like can of course vary. Also what if they make a mistake? Suppose there's someone with the same name as you, living in the same town. What if he's a radical of some sort, but they pick you up instead? Without habeus corpus, tough shit. There is nothing you can do about it. Also if they're allowed to torture you to extract a confession, they will get it eventually.

These rights are there for a reason.

As for torture, put it this way, as I've said to my friends at university yesterday:

When you have people organizing the slaughter of civilians for political reasons, when you have religious fanatics willing to kill themselves to kill civilians, and when you have human beings (and I use that term generously) willing to take other human life over a perverted interpretation of a book written by those just as fallible as we are today (if not moreso, due to the lack of knowledge back in the 7th century AD when the Koran came about), then I think they at some point or another lose the privilege of having what we here call "human rights".

If you even so much believe that martyrs blowing themselves up to kill Jewish youth in clubs is right, or that smashing planes into American workplaces is right, or that America is the coming of the devil or anything of that nature, in my book, YOU LOSE YOUR HUMAN RIGHTS. If you were flayed of your skin alive and then had your raw bleeding flesh burned, guess what? You're a terrorist, and if you really think you're going to go to heaven and become a martyr, then perhaps you can suffer a little taste of "hell" before going to the afterlife.

Wait, so are we torturing them to extract information, which is dubious at best, or just for the sake of revenge? Also where do we draw the line? Should a regular murderer have rights? A sexual predator? A bank robber? Some poor guy that was falsely accused?

There is a BIG difference between the military torturing subhuman terrorists, and the President becoming Big Brother. We have a long, LONG way to go until we have to start thinking about Big Brother-type leaders, and if that ever comes around, said Big Brother type leader will not be effective and nor will he last long.

No there isn't. The slope is a lot steeper than people want to believe. Once you start compromising your values as a people, it's a short path to losing them all.

Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong...we've learned from their errors, and we will not repeat those mistakes. Or so I hope.

You just called a group of people subhuman. Way to learn from those mistakes.

Frankly, I think our willingness to treat our sworn enemies with human rights is our biggest mistake. Clearly, we haven't struck enough fear into the hearts of terrorists because they know that if caught, they'll be placed in a jail cell, but won't really suffer that much...

Now on the other hand, if caught, maimed, burned, inhumanely tortured (and I'm not talking lack of sleep/chained vertically to prevent sleep, I'm talking getting medieval on their ass and really torturing in the cruelest sense of the word), then maybe that would strike fear into their hearts so as to not try anything, or they'll go through such excruciating physical pain that not even their perverted interpration of Islam will help them get through it.

You just talked about learning lessons, yet once again you've missed an important one... What you're proposing is ruling though fear. Are you serious? All that will do is unite the entire world against us.

That said, my belief is that America's constitution was made for America. Not Afghanistan, not Iraq, not for the nation of Sheik Abdulla-NoJewsa-I'm-a-terrorist-Namar or whoever...

The constitution applies to everyone in the US or in US custody. It doesn't apply to Iraq or Afganistan, but as soon as someone is turned over to american agents, be them military or law enforcement, they are protected by it.

The geneva convention was also made in the context of a war between nations, so that the human rights of a SOLDIER, whose job it is to fight for his country and his country's beliefs, isn't inhumanely killed simply because he was captured. He is removed from the war, but not from life.

Fine, then they're not POWs, they're criminals and should fall under the criminal justice system. Also, I would again point out that toture is against US law as well as international law. Unless the constitution no longer counts as law.

But in the context of terrorists, why should documents drafted in the context of civilized peoples (relatively, anyway), such as America and Europe be applied to subhuman terrorists?

Because we are supposedly civilized. If we don't follow our own rules, how are we any different from these terrorists?

There you go with the subhuman again...

The answer is it shouldn't. By choosing to slaughter civilians, the terrorists and all under them have given up their rights to be treated with basic human decency.

And of course everyone who's been picked up as a terrorist was one. It's not like any innocent people have been picked up...

[chucky]

To be honest -- kamui, I am still fond of the memory we fought against each other, but I am totally on your side this time.....

However one comment: why should we take anyone -- I really mean it, anyone -- serious if the people in question keep using words like "subhuman" to moralize, hightlight and justify his/her own argument? I really dont think that is even a merit in itself for responding......

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by Demongod86

Bear in mind that the conditions that the constitution was written under are different conditions than we face today. When G.Washington and Ben Franklin and whoever were around, we didn't have people blowing themselves up in restaurants or flying planes into our workplaces.

With a similar argument one could easily tighten weapon's laws. There is nothing like this going to happen, but the denying of Habeus corpus on certain people (this could be perverted to go against minorities) is legitimate?
A totalitarian regime could use it to declare every opposition to be part of a certain minority where Habeus corpus doesn't apply and imprison them (if you do some additional stuff, like controlling media this can be a powerfull weapon to destroy democracy). If such a regime finds a way to arrest such opposition in a lawfull way, it can blackmail/muzzle any other opponent with this behaviour. Once every opposition fears to be a possible victim to this practise of the regime, it can do whatever it wants to do.

Originally Posted by Demongod86

About being arrested for no reason or data mining or phone wiretaps, I don't find any of that scary. I have no intention of violently overthrowing the government, and this is why we have a democracy, so if some party in office does something stupid, they get voted out en masse with the coming elections.

Data mining can be perverted to a nation-wide monitoring. The more information you gain, the more easy it is to manipulate people. If you have control over certain media, this becomes a very easy practice.
Being arrested for no reason, is one of the points that would help to abuse the selectively inactivated Habeus corpus (see my first passage).

lets connect the puzzle pieces...

If the masses are monitored and controlled, and some opposig minorities can be muzzled by imprisoning them, and certain other things... you are not that far away from the regime in the country I was born ( former east germany - GDR - a one party, StaSi controlled (wikipedia -> Stasi) pseudo democracy).

It need not happen like this, but maybe similar... or not at all. But do you like to live with this potential risk?

Originally Posted by Demongod86

As for torture, put it this way, as I've said to my friends at university yesterday:

When you have people organizing the slaughter of civilians for political reasons, when you have religious fanatics willing to kill themselves to kill civilians, and when you have human beings (and I use that term generously) willing to take other human life over a perverted interpretation of a book written by those just as fallible as we are today (if not moreso, due to the lack of knowledge back in the 7th century AD when the Koran came about), then I think they at some point or another lose the privilege of having what we here call "human rights".

Fine. But who are you, or the people that will execute torture, to judge a person to be guilty of all these things you mentioned. Usually under torture people tend to admit anything in order to prevent further torture. So basically, such an executive officer could blame some person for something and by torturing this person get a guilty plea for something the person never did. The executive could abuse this to get rid of a minority of people (and this will be another thing that comes in handy for a totalitarian regime).

Originally Posted by Demongod86

If you even so much believe that martyrs blowing themselves up to kill Jewish youth in clubs is right, or that smashing planes into American workplaces is right, or that America is the coming of the devil or anything of that nature, in my book, YOU LOSE YOUR HUMAN RIGHTS. If you were flayed of your skin alive and then had your raw bleeding flesh burned, guess what? You're a terrorist, and if you really think you're going to go to heaven and become a martyr, then perhaps you can suffer a little taste of "hell" before going to the afterlife.

With other (yet similar) pre- and postconditions, thats the same argumentation such martyrs use as an excuse for killing people. And if everyone thought like that, we'ld face a very bloody future.

Originally Posted by Demongod86

There is a BIG difference between the military torturing subhuman terrorists, and the President becoming Big Brother. We have a long, LONG way to go until we have to start thinking about Big Brother-type leaders, and if that ever comes around, said Big Brother type leader will not be effective and nor will he last long.

I'ld like to know the reasoning for this. You seem to be pretty sure about it.

Originally Posted by Demongod86

Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong...we've learned from their errors, and we will not repeat those mistakes. Or so I hope.

Well, I have the impression, that there exist different oppinions about what actually were mistakes/errors and what not. You better be sure about it, just hoping won't help you, once you live in a country with a totalitarian regime.

Originally Posted by Demongod86

Frankly, I think our willingness to treat our sworn enemies with human rights is our biggest mistake. Clearly, we haven't struck enough fear into the hearts of terrorists because they know that if caught, they'll be placed in a jail cell, but won't really suffer that much...

Actually, human rights are constricted for people proven guilty for certain unlawfull things nowadays (otherwise you could never imprison someone). You seem to mix something up a little bit. The problem is, to refuse the human rights to people that may be the enemies. That is all very vague, how can one equalize all individuals of a minority in terms of refusing human rights to them?
Since it is obvious, I am not going to tell how this links to the practices of a totalitarian regime.

Originally Posted by Demongod86

Now on the other hand, if caught, maimed, burned, inhumanely tortured (and I'm not talking lack of sleep/chained vertically to prevent sleep, I'm talking getting medieval on their ass and really torturing in the cruelest sense of the word), then maybe that would strike fear into their hearts so as to not try anything, or they'll go through such excruciating physical pain that not even their perverted interpration of Islam will help them get through it.

Not fear (well maybe a little), but much more hate. Oh yes how we need even more hate in this world

Originally Posted by Demongod86

That said, my belief is that America's constitution was made for America. Not Afghanistan, not Iraq, not for the nation of Sheik Abdulla-NoJewsa-I'm-a-terrorist-Namar or whoever...

Well that does not mean US citizen should behave like barbarians outside the US?

Originally Posted by Demongod86

The geneva convention was also made in the context of a war between nations, so that the human rights of a SOLDIER, whose job it is to fight for his country and his country's beliefs, isn't inhumanely killed simply because he was captured. He is removed from the war, but not from life.

But in the context of terrorists, why should documents drafted in the context of civilized peoples (relatively, anyway), such as America and Europe be applied to subhuman terrorists?

The answer is it shouldn't. By choosing to slaughter civilians, the terrorists and all under them have given up their rights to be treated with basic human decency.

[cynical mode]
I wonder how such a master of torture will reintegrate into the USA after serving some time in a conflict zone. Moreso you can foresee that incidents like raping a 14 year old and killing her and her family will become common practice in such conflict zones, because its only the enemy... the enemy doesn't deserve our holy human rights. Torturing and killing for free; you just have to pretend its been the enemy. YEAH we bring them peace and justice, bring it on.
[/cynical mode]

Originally Posted by chucky

To be honest -- kamui, I am still fond of the memory we fought against each other, but I am totally on your side this time.....

However one comment: why should we take anyone -- I really mean it, anyone -- serious if the people in question keep using words like "subhuman" to moralize, hightlight and justify his/her own argument? I really dont think that is even a merit in itself for responding......

Thats a very good question. But unless trolling is obvious, one should always stand up to try to talk some sanity into people. Thats very important if you consider to be part of this online community and don't want to be reduced to such arguments. If the community ignores such arguments, other may think we accept it as our own.

[chucky]

Originally Posted by Jinto Lin

Thats a very good question. But unless trolling is obvious, one should always stand up to try to talk some sanity into people. Thats very important if you consider to be part of this online community and don't want to be reduced to such arguments. If the community ignores such arguments, other may think we accept it as our own.

Well I was being sarcastic but seriously, the rhetoric employed by this demongod guy (tons of whose stuff I have read before everywhere) pretty much says it all, and a lot of stuff are simply gibberish to reduce one's own enemy into faceless maggots to justify anything without answering any questions: we are dealing with maggots, hence we dont need any concrete arguments and reasonings and analyses of consequences....

You know, we always use the word "underlying assumption" to describe the underpinning premises in one's logic -- but well good for all of us, there is nothing much "underlying" to decipher in his post but just another at-your-face blatancy. Maybe it is a good thing afterall, at least minus the pseudo-intellectual aura....

[Demongod86]

First of all, I HIGHLY doubt there can be any single administration that can abuse lack of Habeus Corpus. We have a two party system, and with both of them constantly throwing shit at each other, anything fishy will be called out quickly.

My basic arguments are these: the laws we have in place are laws necessary for a time of war. And the brutal inhumane torture should only apply to those that forfeited their rights to human decency. Tell me, should a man that is thoroughly convinced of his martyrdom and that America is the devil be spared?

Yes, there IS the issue of us making a mistake and detaining somebody innocent. That is a problem with intelligence, rather than interrogation techniques.

And torture for revenge? No. Torture to scare away potential terrorists? Yes. Will the civilized world hate us because we torture terrorists? Please. The rest of the civilized world hates terrorists as much as we do.

The difference between torturing terrorists and the US administration becoming Big Brother is this: the terrorists are our wartime enemies. American citizens and people living within America have rights guaranteed by our constitution. Our wartime enemies have no right to our rights. They are trying to destroy our rights, they hate our rights.

Yes, there is always the fear that if we don't grant terrorists human rights that we can extend this to other minorities with some manipulation. This is why we have checks and balances in America. Terrorists are our wartime enemies. Someone talking shit about the president is not a wartime enemy.

And about tortured subjects lying to get the pain to stop...aren't there lie detector machines that monitor brainwaves.

My entire premise for this is that we have ways of corroborating the information extracted from tortured subjects. If we have no way of knowing whether or not they say the truth, of course it's not going to be a good method. But if we have a way of really telling if they're telling the truth, it might make a huge difference in fighting terrorism.

And Kamui, of course terrorists have the power to be a threat to our country. Unless you call 9/11 irrelevant, and the recently-foiled attempt to hijack several airplanes from Europe and smash them into American buildings...

Oh, and then there's the fact that there are [at least] two prominent troublesome nations...Iran and North Korea. Iran's president called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" and North Korea is flaunting nukes in the face of the world, trying to use them as a bargaining chip. If one or both of these nations backs terrorism, well, just imagine loading a nuke aboard a plane and crashing it into the center of LA (terror + North korea) or Tel Aviv (Iran + terrorists).

IMO America needs to show the world that it isn't going to go around putting up its "leader of freedom and democracy" image to those that sincerely wish for its demise. If you are trying to destroy civilians, then before you're given human rights, you will be brutally killed and you and your kind will be wiped off the face of the planet under a rain of bombs and hail of bullets.

Is the civilized world going to hate us for terrorizing terrorists? Come on now...

[Green²]

Originally Posted by Demongod86

First of all, I HIGHLY doubt there can be any single administration that can abuse lack of Habeus Corpus. We have a two party system, and with both of them constantly throwing shit at each other, anything fishy will be called out quickly.

Congress has been just a rubber stamp to the executive branch. All a system currently controlled by Republicans. And any crap that does get called out by the other side, just about nothing ever gets done to resolve or correct the problems.

My basic arguments are these: the laws we have in place are laws necessary for a time of war. And the brutal inhumane torture should only apply to those that forfeited their rights to human decency. Tell me, should a man that is thoroughly convinced of his martyrdom and that America is the devil be spared?

I'm sorry, when did congress declared war again? Anyway, I'm not going to drop down to the level of the terrorists and start burning bodies in the streets.

Yes, there IS the issue of us making a mistake and detaining somebody innocent. That is a problem with intelligence, rather than interrogation techniques.

Which is reason best to assume, innocent until proven guilty.

And torture for revenge? No. Torture to scare away potential terrorists? Yes. Will the civilized world hate us because we torture terrorists? Please. The rest of the civilized world hates terrorists as much as we do.

But does that work? No. Your talking about people that are already prepared to give their lives for what they believe.

Spoiler for rated PG story:

There was some time back hundreds of years ago, not us anyway, where fear tactics were used against certain factions. Most common were where convicted on foreign lands, maybe or not proven guilty in this case to some extent, they would line up a bunch of the folks against a wall, and they would shoot them. Shoot them, all except for a few, made to watch as their executioners spilled pigs blood over and into their bodies. The bodies of the executed, buried face down, covered in pig skin. Of those that were made to watch, they were set free. Free to spread the fear installed within.

Yet from what I've heard, to some extent, it worked.

But it's not who I am.

The difference between torturing terrorists and the US administration becoming Big Brother is this: the terrorists are our wartime enemies. American citizens and people living within America have rights guaranteed by our constitution. Our wartime enemies have no right to our rights. They are trying to destroy our rights, they hate our rights.

Think about that for an while. What good would it mean to even classify as a US citizen, if should they take you away, and they don't even give you the chance to prove who you really are. And as they torture you at their secret prisons, no matter who you believe you are, you will believe you are something that you are not. ...Or at least they will believe you are that something else, as you quiver in pain in the corner of a wet, cold, dark cell.

Yes, there is always the fear that if we don't grant terrorists human rights that we can extend this to other minorities with some manipulation. This is why we have checks and balances in America. Terrorists are our wartime enemies. Someone talking shit about the president is not a wartime enemy.

As the current congress and executive branch is not capable of performing those check & balances, is example of why they both should be replaced with someone that can do the job right.

And about tortured subjects lying to get the pain to stop...aren't there lie detector machines that monitor brainwaves.

The machines actually can't do squat if the people being monitored are under severe stress and trauma.

My entire premise for this is that we have ways of corroborating the information extracted from tortured subjects. If we have no way of knowing whether or not they say the truth, of course it's not going to be a good method. But if we have a way of really telling if they're telling the truth, it might make a huge difference in fighting terrorism.

Determining your enemies and allies is based on good evidence gathering. By relying on speculation alone, and you probably wouldn't be able to determine the difference between the two.

[Demongod86]

Well if the lie detector machines can't do the job then there goes my whole argument >.<

[Green²]

Originally Posted by Demongod86

Well if the lie detector machines can't do the job then there goes my whole argument >.<

Well, the people monitoring that data wouldn't be able to do the job with patients under those conditions. But still, just asking the questions under normal conditions, should be able to produce results. No need for torture in that case, especially as torture would make things only more difficult.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Demongod86

First of all, I HIGHLY doubt there can be any single administration that can abuse lack of Habeus Corpus. We have a two party system, and with both of them constantly throwing shit at each other, anything fishy will be called out quickly.

We don't have a 2 party system. It just so happens there are two parties a lot more powerful than the others. Also, if one party controls the media, the other is powerless to do anything. Just ask all those fox news watchers who still believe Iraq was responsible for 9-11.

My basic arguments are these: the laws we have in place are laws necessary for a time of war. And the brutal inhumane torture should only apply to those that forfeited their rights to human decency. Tell me, should a man that is thoroughly convinced of his martyrdom and that America is the devil be spared?

Only if we don't want to prove he's right.

Yes, there IS the issue of us making a mistake and detaining somebody innocent. That is a problem with intelligence, rather than interrogation techniques.

And if there's no way to contest imprisonment and those techniques will produce a confession no matter what?

And torture for revenge? No. Torture to scare away potential terrorists? Yes. Will the civilized world hate us because we torture terrorists? Please. The rest of the civilized world hates terrorists as much as we do.

Once we start down that path, we are no longer part of the civilized world.

The difference between torturing terrorists and the US administration becoming Big Brother is this: the terrorists are our wartime enemies. American citizens and people living within America have rights guaranteed by our constitution. Our wartime enemies have no right to our rights. They are trying to destroy our rights, they hate our rights.

They dont' hate our rights. That's just propaganda put out by the Bush adminstration. Sure, you have people like Bin Ladin who are just insane, but the guy actually doing the terrorism doesn't care about what we do in our own country. They're more likely to become terrorists because of our policies in the middle east, or more currently because a family member was killed as a result of our actions in iraq.

Yes, there is always the fear that if we don't grant terrorists human rights that we can extend this to other minorities with some manipulation. This is why we have checks and balances in America. Terrorists are our wartime enemies. Someone talking shit about the president is not a wartime enemy.

Well if they're wartime enemies, it comes back to the geneva convention. As for the checks and balances, they don't seem to be working. Whenever someone tries to put a check on things, they're accused of having pre-9-11 thinking at best and a traitor at worst.

And about tortured subjects lying to get the pain to stop...aren't there lie detector machines that monitor brainwaves.

They work by measuring galvanic skin responses to stress. Even under normal conditions they aren't accurate. That's why they aren't admissible in court.

My entire premise for this is that we have ways of corroborating the information extracted from tortured subjects. If we have no way of knowing whether or not they say the truth, of course it's not going to be a good method. But if we have a way of really telling if they're telling the truth, it might make a huge difference in fighting terrorism.

The problem is all too often accurate information is overlooked for what the people in power want to hear.

And Kamui, of course terrorists have the power to be a threat to our country. Unless you call 9/11 irrelevant, and the recently-foiled attempt to hijack several airplanes from Europe and smash them into American buildings...

At what point exactly did the government teater on the brink of collapse on 9-11? They can kill people, but they lack the power to defeat us.

Oh, and then there's the fact that there are [at least] two prominent troublesome nations...Iran and North Korea. Iran's president called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" and North Korea is flaunting nukes in the face of the world, trying to use them as a bargaining chip. If one or both of these nations backs terrorism, well, just imagine loading a nuke aboard a plane and crashing it into the center of LA (terror + North korea) or Tel Aviv (Iran + terrorists).

If North Korea launches a nuclear strike against the US, it will be reduced to radioactive cinders. If terrorists use a nuke, the entire middle east will be radioactive cinders. If Iran launches a nuke against isreal, well we'll find out if isreal really has nukes or not, which wouldn't matter, because it would also trigger a full scale responce from the US.

IMO America needs to show the world that it isn't going to go around putting up its "leader of freedom and democracy" image to those that sincerely wish for its demise. If you are trying to destroy civilians, then before you're given human rights, you will be brutally killed and you and your kind will be wiped off the face of the planet under a rain of bombs and hail of bullets.

Is the civilized world going to hate us for terrorizing terrorists? Come on now...

If we use the methods you've discribed, yes they will. What you're talking about is no different than what saddam was doing.

[aohige]

Originally Posted by Demongod86

I don't see the problem here...we're in a time of war, so we have to loosen the rules which don't let us gather information as easily...shit, I think if you threatened to remove someone's arm with a rusty chainsaw, I think they'd talk a lot faster than any FBI interrogator can make them?

Something from your great forefathers.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. " - Benjamin Franklin

That is all.

[raikage]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

They dont' hate our rights. That's just propaganda put out by the Bush adminstration. Sure, you have people like Bin Ladin who are just insane, but the guy actually doing the terrorism doesn't care about what we do in our own country. They're more likely to become terrorists because of our policies in the middle east, or more currently because a family member was killed as a result of our actions in iraq.

I absolutely agree.

If it were about 'who has what rights', do you honestly think they would care about what we're doing halfway across the world?

They hate us because we kept sticking our nose in their business.

A good way to stop getting bee stings is to stop punching the beehive.

From the American Conservative:
http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_10_23/cover.html

Spoiler:

Size Matters

The push for military strikes against Iran rests on inflated assessments of a minor threat.

by Gregory Cochran

We hear a lot about the menace of Islamic terrorism. In the run-up to the Iraqi invasion, our secretary of state told us about the risk Saddam posed to the entire world. Presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich says that Iran is now a threat comparable to Nazi Germany. Occasionally we even hear, from President Bush, no less, about the looming Islamic Caliphate—an evil empire that hasn’t bothered to go through the formality of coming into existence yet.

Ever since the fall of the towers, it’s been clear that Islamic terrorism is a threat. But how big a threat is it? We face all kinds of threats, everything from Alar to an asteroid strike. If we want to figure out what to do, if we hope to determine the best course of action, we have to understand the size of these risks. In order to do so, we have to understand an enemy’s potential to harm us and the probability of such actions taking place.

The immediate threat is that of amorphous terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda and its sympathizers. They’re obviously quite willing to attack the United States, but their ability to do so is limited. We smashed the core pretty thoroughly when we knocked over the Taliban: the survivors hiding in Pakistan’s Northwest Province can’t do much of anything to us. They were weak before we attacked them, and what’s left is incredibly feeble. We’re talking about a group with at most thousands of active members worldwide, with little money and no industrial base, an organization that doesn’t possess a single tank or fighter plane or long-range missile. Countries that nobody has even heard of—does Burkina Faso ring a bell?—have more raw military power than al-Qaeda.

Al-Qaeda hasn’t managed to do anything at all in the United States since 9/11. This is not because the Feds have made it impossible for foreigners to sneak into the country—indeed, they positively encourage it. And it is not because our national forests, dams, pipelines, malls, and refineries have been guarded and hardened to the point of invulnerability. We have done very little about that. It’s because al-Qaeda doesn’t have what it takes to continue doing us damage; it’s as if 9/11 was essentially a fluke, and stateless Islamic terrorism is not a very big threat to the country.

Obviously the Bush administration agrees that al-Qaeda is not much of a threat. Watch what they do, not what they say. They’re primarily concerned with countries that produced none of the 9/11 hijackers, had nothing to do with the attack, and had been hostile to the kind of fanatic Sunni fundamentalism that drove those attacks—countries like Iraq, Iran, and Syria. Administration policy—in particular the invasion of Iraq—has obviously exacerbated the threat of Islamic terrorism, for example radicalizing the bombers in London and Madrid. But the White House thinks that’s not terribly important, and as far as strategic threats go, they’re right. As for their concern for homeland security, well, they appointed Bernie Kerik, didn’t they?

Still many Bush loyalists argue that groups like al-Qaeda are dangerous because they may acquire nuclear weapons. How? It’s an important question. They can never make a bomb from scratch: the creation of atomic weapons requires the efforts of thousands of talented engineers and scientists, which they will never have. They could buy one (and a pony), if they had billions and any such weapons were for sale—but none are.

The usual suspects say that some state may eventually give terrorists an atomic bomb. That is, give the crown jewels of its national power into hands it doesn’t control, in much the same way that the great powers at the end of the 19th century were always handing out battleships to anarchists. Except that it’s worse than that: any state that hands out atomic weapons to jihadists seals its doom. And I mean real doom, not just turning its capital into radioactive slag. That’s the least that would happen. I figure that, if attacked, we’d inflict a fate worse than death—turning the nation responsible into animals that remember being men. We could, you know.

The second kind of threat is the rogue Islamic state with nuclear weapons. The usual argument is that many Muslims are willing, even eager, to die for jihad, that the prospect of 72 woefully inexperienced virgins makes the entire Muslim world undeterrable and therefore highly dangerous. Since a handful are willing to die for a cause, the people running Arab/Muslim governments must be too—even if they’ve never shown the slightest sign of it. Again, the focus has been on governments that had nothing to do with 9/11 and in fact opposed fanatical Wahhabi Islam. Somehow such states are considered especially likely to go crazy.

But Muslim rulers don’t act like that. In fact, they never have, not even in the early days of Islamic conquest. People who aren’t afraid to die lose wars: the enemy is always happy to oblige them. Patton knew this.

Muslim states fight wars in much the same way as Europeans have over the past few hundred years, only, of course, far less efficiently. Look at the record. Recall the Iran-Iraq War, back in the 1980s, for example. A nation shows its true nature in war, just as an author reveals himself in his book. Iran fought, all right—clumsily—but it didn’t fight with incredible fanaticism, even back when the fire of the Islamic revolution still burned bright. Many young men marched into murderous fire but no more so than at Gettysburg or the Somme. Iran didn’t take as many casualties (relative to its size) as most of the major players in WWI, not nearly as many as we did in the Civil War. They quit first, which might show common sense but certainly does not show exceptional fanaticism.

As a practical matter, anyone who is all that willing to die for his principles seems to manage to do so early in his career, well before he achieves high office. Most of the people running Iran today could have easily become martyrs under the Shah if they’d felt like it. Somehow they avoided it. In fact, somehow the people who do achieve high office—in every environment—don’t seem to have any principles at all, let alone ones they’re willing to die for. Funny how that works.

Such states, although stronger than a bunch of bandits hiding in caves, are very much weaker than the United States. Iraq was of course no threat to anyone: its armed forces were crumbling, its economy morbid, its weapons of mass destruction imaginary. The administration and most of our political establishment said otherwise, may even have believed otherwise. I’m sure we all wonder what they were thinking (and smoking).

Iran is now at the top of the enemies list, but of course it poses no strategic threat to the United States. Iran’s GNP is 20 to 40 times smaller than that of the U.S., and the Iranians are hardly sophisticated technologists. If they tried hard, if they spent a huge fraction of their GNP on weapons, they might be able to spend 1/30th as much on arms as we do. But they’re not trying hard.

In truth, Iran hasn’t embarked upon any military adventures in years: there is no pattern of aggression and conquest, no frantic military buildup. The war with Iraq a generation ago seems to have used up most of the Iranians’ revolutionary zeal. We do not hear of their “last territorial demands.” In fact, we’re still waiting for the first.

Even when provoked, they’ve been cautious. The Taliban, back in 1998, killed a number of Iranian diplomats along with thousands of fellow Shi’ites. The Iranian government was angry, as any government would have been. The Iranians threatened, they mobilized troops on the Afghan border—but never invaded. I can’t read their minds, but I’d guess that some in their government argued that they couldn’t afford it, others that they might lose, while still others had read their Kipling and couldn’t imagine what they would do with Afghanistan if they owned it. (Interestingly, Condoleezza Rice, back in 2000, seemed to have been unaware that this crisis ever occurred. When she was interviewed by the New York Times, she thought that Iran supported the Taliban. I guess future secretaries of state have better things to do than read.)

The Iranians may be working on nuclear weapons—there is no clear evidence, but it is at least physically possible for them to be doing so, unlike Iraq under sanctions. If they eventually succeed, they’ll have a few bombs without any long-range delivery systems. Not a threat to the United States. And of course, they’re deterred: like any enemy with a return address, any nuclear attack on the U.S. would be answered a hundredfold, leading to the extinction of their nation.

The simplest explanation for the current Iranian nuclear program is that it is an attempt at deterring the U.S. from invading. It is not part of an offensive strategy. Any kind of force projection strategy would require a general conventional military buildup, and no such buildup is underway.

As for the third threat—the looming Islamic Caliphate, the reason we need to stay in Iraq as long as grass grows and waters flow—it’s a bit hard to see how that is supposed to happen in a world in which Arabs exhibit poorer political cohesion than a bucket of scorpions. Look at the numbers: we can’t seem to control Iraq with 140,000 of the best troops in the world, but jihadists are going to conquer it if we leave—with something like 1,000 men whose main talent lies in blowing themselves up. They’re going to do this in spite of the opposition of the Shi’ites, the Kurds, and the Ba’athist plurality of the Sunnis, who together make up 95 percent of the population. And after that, they’ll go on to conquer half the world. Right.

This is undoubtedly the craziest argument for a policy ever put forth by the United States government. The only reason that we’re not bundling Bush off to the booby hatch is that he’s ramped up the insanity gradually: first the Iraqi peril, then the crusade for Arab democracy, now preventing the rebirth of the Caliphate. Manage the segue properly and people get used to all kinds of nonsense.

For some perspective, look back at a real threat. The Soviet Union had thousands of nuclear weapons that could reach the U.S. If the Soviets had attacked with all their might, they would have killed almost all of us. I’ve seen projected fallout maps that showed lethal levels everywhere in the continental United States except for one small patch of coastal Oregon, and I’m sure they would have targeted Coos Bay just to be thorough. Russia today still has enough of an arsenal to kill most of us. Maybe we should act as if that’s a bit more important than a wholly imaginary Caliphate?

Or we might look forward. China has four times our population, and its economy is growing far more rapidly than ours since the Chinese invest in manufacturing and infrastructure rather than Arabs. They add more industrial muscle in a few months than Iraq ever had, more in a year than Iran’s total. In the next generation, their GNP is likely to pass that of the U.S. If they decide to contend with us, they’ll be able to. We may see a global struggle more serious than the Cold War against a stronger and saner opponent than the Soviet Union, with proxy wars and arms races.

The administration needs to concentrate on our major strategic problems, not fixate on weak threats. Maybe Condi never told Bush, but size matters.

[SpecterVR]

Originally Posted by Demongod86

Iran's president called for Israel to be "wiped off the map"

Not quite true. An interesting little article was pointed out to me back when this was sorta kinda being brought up in a debate. Read and understand its not the only time this has occured.

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle12790.htm

[chucky]

Originally Posted by SpecterVR

Not quite true. An interesting little article was pointed out to me back when this was sorta kinda being brought up in a debate. Read and understand its not the only time this has occured.

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle12790.htm

Regarding the report on Ahmadineja's nuclear wipeoff: i believe the professor of u. of michigan Juan Cole said something about the translation of ahmadineja's statement from Farsi to English. You can find the piece on his webblog:

http://www.juancole.com/