Quote:
Originally Posted by tater
We're hardly hostile to our own citizens. Regardless, people come here in droves—even illegally—clearly they know something you don't.
Anyway, if you think they should be treated as POWs, you must agree with what I posted above. An al Qaida POW would obviously have to be held until we were no longer fighting al Qaida. Since the only solution to AQ is unconditional surrender or kill every last one of them, that means POWs for life. Note that letting them go would then result in AQ being back in existence. I suppose we could release them with a 60 second head start to make a run for it, then start shooting?
BTW, Alan Deshowitz (a liberal lawyer here in the US) has suggested judicial warrants for certain levels of interrogation. basically the worst we'd ever do to people, but it would require judicial permission, and only then under very limited conditions. This was his take on the "ticking time bomb" scenario.
For example:
The cops luck into catching a guy. Say they pull him over for speeding (as they did Muhammad Atta), and catch his name on a watch list, and detain him. His car had an odd electronic part he had purchased in it, and it sets off red flags. Then it turns out his car sets off a geiger counter. Other agencies have chatter about a big attack, and now it's starting to look like this guy they grabbed by accident is involved in an a-bomb attack.
This is a ticking time bomb. He's one member of a cell, and now they know he's arrested, they are likely to try and blow the device up ASAP.
The guy doesn't say a word when asked nicely.
Now what? This could literally be the difference between hundreds of thousands hurt and killed or not.
Realistically, if the feds think this, they're going to do whatever they think will work, and worry about legality later. Why not have a legal system that has some oversight and control, instead?
It's worth considering, anyway.
|
Well I know that even if they were treated as POW's the US would find some loopholes for torture etc. It's seems to be their modus operandi.
Majority of the people in, say, Guantanamo have been non-combatants, people like truck drivers from Kirgistan etc. who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Are you saying that I should sanction the US's treatment of folks like that as POW's held indefinitely and possibly even tortured?
Oh this is funny, Alan Dershowitz. I wrote a piece about Dershowitz's views a while back, he's a rabid zionist and, not surprisingly, as anti-muslim/pro-torture as they come. If you're in favour of separating religion from governing then Dershowitz might not be the right guy to turn to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tater
Another great analysis by Andy McCarthy (prosecutor of the 1993 Trade Center bombers):
http://article.nationalreview.com/33...rew-c-mccarthy
Salient points are that the US Constitutional challenges to torture with which everyone (in the US) agrees are to the 5th, 8th, and 14th Amendments. They apply only to people within the US judicial system, basically. Cruel and unusual punishment applies to what is meted out after a trial. |
Oh yea, why have a trial because it will only tie your hands about torture. Might as well torture them without a trial, completely by the book.
Quote:
|
Since waterboarding (what we are really discussing here, nothing else the US has done is even close to torture) does no real physical harm, we are limited to mental pain and suffering.
|
How do you know nothing else is used? We're only now beginning to find out about what happened in the Vietnam war, and a lot of nasty stuff did happen there. Torture of every type was used in South America by the US and School of America's graduates right up until the present day. The US has exported it's knowledge of torture to many governments in the Middle-East, including such differing nations as Israel and Egypt. So...what am I supposed to think about all this?