Poll on Christmas Bomber

[vodean]

kill the son of a

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't know that stamina can be counted when the overall total worth of his arguments isn't really that impressive. It's like crediting someone for plagiarizing. Sure, it looks like a lot, but the effort isn't really there.

Oh ahaha, I'm not giving him any props for his arguments and lack thereof. I'm just impressed that he keeps on going and going and going and going with it.

[joecoolfrog]

Nice to see somebody so concerned about a subject that he trivializes it by introducing a poll designed only to troll......

[MeDeFe]

We're all used to Phatscotty being a de facto troll, an idiot, and usually unable of arguing a point coherently by now. What worries me is that 12 people have voted to torture the guy before giving him a trial or anything at all. Woody said it already, if it's ok not to give this guy a fair trial and have him tortured and summarily killed instead, when else will it be ok?

The guy is accused of being a member of a terrorist organization, should all alleged members of exceedingly badly defined "terrorist organizations" be tortured then? For example the Ku Klux Klan, The Animal Liberation Front or the Army of God, all homegrown in the US. Why respect civil and human rights? Just torture the suspects, that'll show them.

Every time you deny someone their rights you get a step closer to the point where your rights will be gone. Nobunaga, colton, vodean, is that really what you want? Once you begin walking down the path of "in this case it's ok not to afford the suspect any rights" you're tumbling down a slippery slope with hardly any way of stopping or turning back. You're bit by bit killing the free and democratic society you live in whenever you say that the rules don't apply in a case, there will be another slightly different case where the rules will also not apply, and another, and another and some day there will be no more rules. Then you yourself will have destroyed the society you sought to protect. The enemy is not out there somewhere and you can go there and shoot them and be done, the enemy is already within your borders, in your legislative chambers, in your heads.

In the EU we're already at the point where all telecommunication data on who contacted who when has to be stored for 6 months, phone calls, what websites a person visits, text messages, all of it. Factually that means that anyone with a mobile phone can be tracked for the last 6 months, all their movements. Purportedly this is for the purpose of better prosecuting terrorism or "severe crimes" or something other horrible, that part never became quite clear. That's where you in the US are headed as well (I think you're already 3/4ths there with the PATRIOT Act, but I think that only concerns communication that has one end point outside the US), general surveillance, just collect every information on everybody, that way everything suspicious will be recorded and can be used against the guilty, those who are innocent will of course have nothing to fear.

[vodean]

but terrorists arent people, they're savages, and therefore, they don't get the same rights, or shouldn't, in any case.

[Neoteny]

but terrorists arent people, they're savages, and therefore, they don't get the same rights, or shouldn't, in any case.

What's the difference between a person and a savage? You don't like savages?

[MeDeFe]

but terrorists arent people, they're savages, and therefore, they don't get the same rights, or shouldn't, in any case.

"Blacks aren't people, they're savages"
"Indians aren't people, they're savages"
"Communists aren't people, they're savages"
"Muslims aren't people, they're savages"

You, on the other hand, are a moron. It also seems you are unable to read a text and understand it. Savage or not doesn't matter, "savage" is merely a matter of perspective, a handy label for those wearing different clothes than oneself. Terrorists are people and so are alleged terrorists who have not yet been found guilty. Whenever you deny some people rights you're happily preparing for when your rights will be denied you until noone has any rights anymore. Do I need a hammer and chisel to get that through your skull into your brain?

[jonesthecurl]

Never heard of human rights. That makes a lot of sense.

It's all clear to me now.

Say it with me now:

"Methinks it is like a weasel."

Very like a weasel.

[Pedronicus]

Why wasn't this an option in the poll:

Place in a small room with colton.

(That's got to be a fate worse than torture)

[Phatscotty]

Giving a terrorist a fair trial does not seem to me to be lying down. It seems to me that we would be taking the moral high road, while they are resorting to the low. It might not seem fair, since the retribution is not as harsh, but we have this system for a reason.

the rule breakers ALWAYS WIN if the opponent ALWAYS plays by the rules.

I'm afraid I disagree completely (again). If we DON'T "play by the rules", then we lose ALL credibility in trying to get other nations to play by the rules. We lose our credibility in expecting anyone else to play by the rules. This is precisely why our military forces should still ALWAYS abide by the Geneva Conventions...not because we expect that our enemies will (many times, we expect that they will not), but because by doing so ourselves, we ensure that our indiscretions can't be used against us.

WE should be acting as if the airplane did blow up

I actually agree with you on this, as far as his sentencing/punishment goes...but the difference is that if the airplane had blown up, we wouldn't have a perpetrator. Since we DO have one, we should be following our procedures.

do not under-estimate the overall value of a good public-stoning

I'm afraid the value of it in this case would be to justify to many in the world that the terrorists might just be right about us.

well, you are completely discounting the actions of the CIA, FBI, state, federal, and local police, they really don't play by the rules.

That is no excuse at all. Because some organizations in our nation are fucked up is not an excuse to give up and let all of them be fucked up.

CIA is a necessary evil my friend

The CIA has a very important mission. However, that is not an excuse for them to operate outside of the law.

and the don't give a shit about human rights, and every single country has an agency that equally does not give a shit about human rights.

What other countries do is irrelevant to what we should be doing.

if your point is that we have to play by the rules out in the open, I will hear that.

I suppose it's better than nothing, but no...I don't agree that's the way things must be done.

But I am coming more from an element of human nature. Humans still mostly believe an eye for an eye.

I'm not one that necessarily believes that a majority opinion is the correct or appropriate stance. Commonness is, more often than not, a reason to go AGAINST something.

I am also coming to the entire subject believing terrorism is war.

I don't disagree that it's a war, but it is an IDEOLOGICAL war more than it is a militaristic war. You don't win an idealogical war with weapons, you win an ideological war by SHOWING THAT YOUR IDEOLOGY is one that respects people and allows them to thrive (because that is, primarily, what people really want). Will it work on everyone who disagrees with your ideology? Of course not...but it IS the only chance.

f*ck it! we straight up disagree.

[Woodruff]

f*ck it! we straight up disagree.

Nothing wrong with that.

[Phatscotty]

We're all used to Phatscotty being a de facto troll, an idiot, and usually unable of arguing a point coherently by now. What worries me is that 12 people have voted to torture the guy before giving him a trial or anything at all. Woody said it already, if it's ok not to give this guy a fair trial and have him tortured and summarily killed instead, when else will it be ok?

The guy is accused of being a member of a terrorist organization, should all alleged members of exceedingly badly defined "terrorist organizations" be tortured then? For example the Ku Klux Klan, The Animal Liberation Front or the Army of God, all homegrown in the US. Why respect civil and human rights? Just torture the suspects, that'll show them.

Every time you deny someone their rights you get a step closer to the point where your rights will be gone. Nobunaga, colton, vodean, is that really what you want? Once you begin walking down the path of "in this case it's ok not to afford the suspect any rights" you're tumbling down a slippery slope with hardly any way of stopping or turning back. You're bit by bit killing the free and democratic society you live in whenever you say that the rules don't apply in a case, there will be another slightly different case where the rules will also not apply, and another, and another and some day there will be no more rules. Then you yourself will have destroyed the society you sought to protect. The enemy is not out there somewhere and you can go there and shoot them and be done, the enemy is already within your borders, in your legislative chambers, in your heads.

In the EU we're already at the point where all telecommunication data on who contacted who when has to be stored for 6 months, phone calls, what websites a person visits, text messages, all of it. Factually that means that anyone with a mobile phone can be tracked for the last 6 months, all their movements. Purportedly this is for the purpose of better prosecuting terrorism or "severe crimes" or something other horrible, that part never became quite clear. That's where you in the US are headed as well (I think you're already 3/4ths there with the PATRIOT Act, but I think that only concerns communication that has one end point outside the US), general surveillance, just collect every information on everybody, that way everything suspicious will be recorded and can be used against the guilty, those who are innocent will of course have nothing to fear.

First off. f*ck you and kiss my ass. Secondly, who said anything about torture? An interrogation along the likes of I would expect had I tried to massacre almost 300 innocent men, women and children, would expect. I am tickled about how you are judging me though, as if you are the law written on stone yourself, and only you are able to tell what is right, and only you can understand these kind of issues. really, just kiss my ass. I am not in this thread telling anybody anything. I posed a question. If you can't handle it and need to go into an immature name-calling rant....hey, your not the first person I ever met that loses his argument literally at the same time he started it.

In fact, you live in a whole different country. What the F do you know about America? oh, right, what the TV tells you. got it. And the only thing I find trollish is a certain groups last resort to call people trolls.

In all reality, the question I posed is going 50-50 right now. At least it's a good question. I also tend to think Liberals are making security decisions as it relates to politics. Conservatives aren't running anything at the moment, and if they were, I would be saying the exact same things

[nippersean]

Phat you really are one extremely strange guy.....

I hope you ain't gonna hire a plane and suicide it into Mecca

[Phatscotty]

Phat you really are one extremely strange guy.....

I hope you ain't gonna hire a plane and suicide it into Mecca

that doesnt make any sense

[vodean]

but terrorists arent people, they're savages, and therefore, they don't get the same rights, or shouldn't, in any case.

"Blacks aren't people, they're savages"
"Indians aren't people, they're savages"
"Communists aren't people, they're savages"
"Muslims aren't people, they're savages"

You, on the other hand, are a moron. It also seems you are unable to read a text and understand it. Savage or not doesn't matter, "savage" is merely a matter of perspective, a handy label for those wearing different clothes than oneself. Terrorists are people and so are alleged terrorists who have not yet been found guilty. Whenever you deny some people rights you're happily preparing for when your rights will be denied you until noone has any rights anymore. Do I need a hammer and chisel to get that through your skull into your brain?

only terrorists. if i was guilty, as this guy is, of terrorism, this is how i would want to be treated, IMHO.

[Woodruff]

but terrorists arent people, they're savages, and therefore, they don't get the same rights, or shouldn't, in any case.

"Blacks aren't people, they're savages"
"Indians aren't people, they're savages"
"Communists aren't people, they're savages"
"Muslims aren't people, they're savages"

You, on the other hand, are a moron. It also seems you are unable to read a text and understand it. Savage or not doesn't matter, "savage" is merely a matter of perspective, a handy label for those wearing different clothes than oneself. Terrorists are people and so are alleged terrorists who have not yet been found guilty. Whenever you deny some people rights you're happily preparing for when your rights will be denied you until noone has any rights anymore. Do I need a hammer and chisel to get that through your skull into your brain?

only terrorists. if i was guilty, as this guy is, of terrorism, this is how i would want to be treated, IMHO.

Of COURSE you'd want to be treated that way, because that would make your martyrdom even more clear. That is one thing a terrorist definitely wants. We should not be giving them what they want.

[riodeishere]

Human rights should be upheld but
it would seem to me in more recent years in the US and UK the basic human rights have been eroded. it the UK unlike the USA , the human Rights are not entreched in a codified constitution. but suprisingly the erosion of human rights has been greater in USA than the UK. to change the constitution u need a 2/3 vote in each house of the USA. this normally needs large public support as the house of congress and house of representative are both elected, therefore accountable to the people. This meant after 9/11 human rights in america started to cave in. Until very recently when obama has taken steps to re- introduce some human rights but is struggling to do it as it would be to be passed by the supreme court as it apposes a previous amendment to the constitution.
it the same in the UK examples such as the anti terror laws of 2005,2006 and 2008 were said to be unlawful by the head of the european court but as the UK still has soverignsy it refused to listen. But now with the chance of a more liberal goverment by june 2010 , the UK might start regaining some lost rights.

n fact, you live in a whole different country. What the F do you know about America? oh, right, what the TV tells you. got it. And the only thing I find trollish is a certain groups last resort to call people trolls.

and before u ask i'm studying UK and USA politics, currently working on Rights and the european union. so probally know what i'm on about some of the time.

PS: REMEMBER WW2 human Rights are there for good reasons , they should never be destroyed

[Woodruff]

Until very recently when obama has taken steps to re- introduce some human rights but is struggling to do it as it would be to be passed by the supreme court as it apposes a previous amendment to the constitution.

I have two questions for you, because your post has confused me some:

1) What human rights has Obama taken steps to re-introduce?
2) What amendment goes against the rights he is attempting to re-introduce?

[MeDeFe]

First off. f*ck you and kiss my ass. Secondly, who said anything about torture? An interrogation along the likes of I would expect had I tried to massacre almost 300 innocent men, women and children, would expect. I am tickled about how you are judging me though, as if you are the law written on stone yourself, and only you are able to tell what is right, and only you can understand these kind of issues. really, just kiss my ass. I am not in this thread telling anybody anything. I posed a question. If you can't handle it and need to go into an immature name-calling rant....hey, your not the first person I ever met that loses his argument literally at the same time he started it.

In fact, you live in a whole different country. What the F do you know about America? oh, right, what the TV tells you. got it. And the only thing I find trollish is a certain groups last resort to call people trolls.

In all reality, the question I posed is going 50-50 right now. At least it's a good question. I also tend to think Liberals are making security decisions as it relates to politics. Conservatives aren't running anything at the moment, and if they were, I would be saying the exact same things

Grammar and spelling, Phatscotty, they'll help you make your point, if in fact there is one hidden in those ramblings.

There's one thing I managed to decipher and can answer: You brought up torture when you proposed to forcibly inject people with drugs. When you proposed forcibly injecting people not yet tried and convicted of any crime with drugs you also threw out the rule of law in favour of tyranny.

[vodean]

I would say treat them like that, but dont kill them. very frustrating. then they are forced to betray their friends. They are then outcast.

[MeDeFe]

I would say treat them like that, but dont kill them. very frustrating. then they are forced to betray their friends. They are then outcast.

Torturing people who have not been tried and convicted.

Do you see any problem with that? I'm asking because I really don't understand what you are possibly thinking.

[vodean]

I would say treat them like that, but dont kill them. very frustrating. then they are forced to betray their friends. They are then outcast.

Torturing people who have not been tried and convicted.

Do you see any problem with that? I'm asking because I really don't understand what you are possibly thinking.

when they are guilty of killing or trying to kill (this man is guilty, as it has become apparent) hundreds or thousands of people, i believe that the punishment should be severe.

[MeDeFe]

I would say treat them like that, but dont kill them. very frustrating. then they are forced to betray their friends. They are then outcast.

Torturing people who have not been tried and convicted.

Do you see any problem with that? I'm asking because I really don't understand what you are possibly thinking.

when they are guilty of killing or trying to kill (this man is guilty, as it has become apparent) hundreds or thousands of people, i believe that the punishment should be severe.

Ok.

So let's say the police are investigating a crime, e.g. murder, and are certain that a person was involved, they also know this person had an accomplice. Should they be allowed to torture this person in order to find out who the accomplice was?

[vodean]

I would say treat them like that, but dont kill them. very frustrating. then they are forced to betray their friends. They are then outcast.

Torturing people who have not been tried and convicted.

Do you see any problem with that? I'm asking because I really don't understand what you are possibly thinking.

when they are guilty of killing or trying to kill (this man is guilty, as it has become apparent) hundreds or thousands of people, i believe that the punishment should be severe.

Ok.

So let's say the police are investigating a crime, e.g. murder, and are certain that a person was involved, they also know this person had an accomplice. Should they be allowed to torture this person in order to find out who the accomplice was?

this is not murder, its mass murder. and truth serum drugs are not torture

[MeDeFe]

I would say treat them like that, but dont kill them. very frustrating. then they are forced to betray their friends. They are then outcast.

Torturing people who have not been tried and convicted.

Do you see any problem with that? I'm asking because I really don't understand what you are possibly thinking.

when they are guilty of killing or trying to kill (this man is guilty, as it has become apparent) hundreds or thousands of people, i believe that the punishment should be severe.

Ok.

So let's say the police are investigating a crime, e.g. murder, and are certain that a person was involved, they also know this person had an accomplice. Should they be allowed to torture this person in order to find out who the accomplice was?

this is not murder, its mass murder. and truth serum drugs are not torture

Injecting people with drugs (not medication) against their will is certainly torture. There is no truth serum with zero side-effects that will somehow prevent a person from lying.

But let's say the police are investigating a case of mass murder then, same thing by me.