This is repulsive [politics]

[FIREWALL]

Originally Posted by Castout

For the two PMs you sent me I'm quite disappointed with you Firewall.


You see sooner or later someone's going to abuse the war on terror and the victims would be innocent Americans. To make sure that the law doesn't get abused the law should be made so that the innocent should be able to defend their case reasonably against the charges brought against them. It's called justice and not purge. If you are being indiscriminate against all terror suspect including Americans who may not be guilty at all then by what moral authority do you stand against the very terrorist you claim to make war with?

I think you misunderstood me. In these dangerous times how do we solve this and, make everyone happy.

Who knows, if we all discuss this we may come up with an answer.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by FIREWALL

I think you misunderstood me. In these dangerous times how do we solve this and, make everyone happy.

Who knows, if we all discuss this we may come up with an answer.

No such thing as making everyone happy. The best we can do is find a method that works and serves the common good and the core values we have instituted.

[FIREWALL]

Originally Posted by Aramike

No such thing as making everyone happy. The best we can do is find a method that works and serves the common good and the core values we have instituted.

I go along with you Aramike. What is the best method that most Americans can live with ?

[Skybird]

Guilt must not just be assumed or claimed - guilt and/or responsibility must be proven.

"Pressumed innocent as long as not proven guilty" is an inevitable pillar of Western justice systems that separates a police-state's arbitrariness from justice.

Rumours, hear-say and suggestions that a suspect is guilty, is no replacement for proving guilt. Claims that so9mebody would not be held by the military or the police if he were not guilty, are not only circular logic, but illustrate a deeply worrying lack of care and an as deeply worrying, unfounded blind trust in these organisations. But hierarchical organisations like these are runb by humans and thus they are as prone to human flaws, errors and corrupt decisions, like any other - you never should trust blindly.

Holding people in captivcity without being able to prove their guilt, is a sign of a dictatorship both in that it can be done without society and government objecting, and in that the intention is illustrated to act that arbitrarily.

Protecting intel sources which would get compromised if evidence needs to be shown to prove a suspect'S guilt, is not acceptable in that intelligence preventing a fundamental principle of the justice system does not serve peace, freedom and democracy, but tyranny - it is the intel of a policestate, then. That can be a dilemma, yes. But who said life is easy.

Police work done at home, suspects captured in own home nation, is not comparable to a shooting war at the frontline in another country.

Suspects held by the military, also need to be proven guilty within a reasonable timeframe. Else the miliutary behaves as a tyrant and a threat to freedom itself.

"Guilt must be proven". That is as simple a truth as is "Waterboarding and implementing agony on a subject is torture". It is disgusting to weasel around these simple truths.

And some people here give me the feeiling that they have not understood the difference between law-and-order, and revenge.

[Castout]

I agree with your point Skybird.


If US wanted revenge the way would be through CIA and not legal system. And once done it's done imo. Hasn't the war in Afghanistan and Iraq been enough already. And if not then the question then is why? and what kind of retribution that hasn't been done and when exactly would it end?


Going berserk is not a solution it's a desperation and a sign of frustration.

[the_tyrant]

terrorism would win in the short term, but they would lose in the long term
Why?
because they are indiscriminate
for the US, only some islamic people are considered "bad"
for them, everybody with a different religion is considered "bad"

therefore, terrorists could nuke Washington DC, but the US could not nuke Mecca

in the short term, indiscriminate warfare could work, but in the long term it would only reduce their support and ability to continue the war

therefore, i believe that the US should not detain everybody that has even the slightest ties to terrorism, but instead treat convicted terrorists horribly. A firring squad is too good for them, they should be executed with even worse methods

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

And some people here give me the feeiling that they have not understood the difference between law-and-order, and revenge.

Says the guy who once wrote right here on this board that he favored killing the wives and children of foreign potentates in order to teach them a lesson. Why the sudden concern for our enemies rights?

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

Says the guy who once wrote right here on this board that he favored killing the wives and children of foreign potentates in order to teach them a lesson. Why the sudden concern for our enemies rights?

That ad hominem doesn't address his very well reasoned points.

The justice system, and indeed our entire political system, was originally set up to discourage individual abuses of power. It's the reasoning behind checks and balances. If you institute a justice system that has the right to unilaterally imprison people indefinitely under the assumption of guilt then the individual holds too much power over the system. It becomes subject to the whims and caprices of the individual. It goes entirely against how our country was established.

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

That ad hominem doesn't address his very well reasoned points.

Perhaps that's because my post wasn't intended to address them mookie. (please note my very clever use of the question mark). All I wanted to know was how his willingness to murder innocent people jibes with his demand that we afford our enemies the standards and protections we afford our own citizens.

Is that really, as he says: "turning words & manipulative quoting", or is it just that he doesn't like it when people point out his contradictions? You decide.

[Skybird]

I said that potentators must be made feeling the price of sanctions against them, in case of wars against their countries: targetting their families for example (while often civil populations gets bombed or at least "collateralised" without discrimination, while the families of those ruling often get explicitly saved from targetting).

I also said that one should not just ignore family members that can take revenge against yourself in case you killed the chieftain of the gang because he was a leading figure of the regime. At least those who likely have been risen and educated in the same mental attiotude like the - father or husband you had targetted.

And in my previous post in this thread I said that frontline action in a war does not compare to the policework needed to be done in your own nation in order to catch a criminal, since waging war does not compare to the instruments of enforcing law and order by the means of a justice system.

Finally, "potentators" refers to figures whose guilt and record is obvious and proven.

I see you are still good at your favourite hobby, August: turning words & manipulative quoting.

[tater]

He should have gotten 280 counts of murder, and he should be on death row. A minor conviction is not a win.

As for his confession, he was not waterboarded. The other enhanced interrogation techniques are not even close to waterboarding—which is the only EIT that you can even make an argument is torture. BTW, to be torture is has to cause "severe" physical or psychological harm, which is certainly grey enough to be debatable. The other EITs, again, and not even close to waterboarding, though.

Regardless, the same government (Clinton, Bush, then Obama) have killed people with no due process as a matter of course. Actionable intell, cruise-missle/JDAM through roof. Actionable intell, guy grabbed up at great risk to troops... that's "bad." I guess we can learn the lesson not to take prisoners, and simply kill anyone even suspected, instead.

Lower sentences for military tribunals should give lie to the notion that it is some sort of conspiracy to murder them. Bottom line is that virtually all evidence must be thrown out in a civil court, and certainly everything after they were captured since they were not Mirandized.

If these guys deserve constitutional protections, why are we allowed to summarily execute them? Shouldn't we need to convict them before dropping the JDAM?

As for his confession, he was not waterboarded. The other enhanced interrogation techniques are not even close to waterboarding—which is the only EIT that you can even make an argument is torture.

Same old rubbish with you trying to justify the unjustifiable, its a really simple matter tater. If the US calls it torture when other countries do it then its torture when they do it.
Besides which he was held first by Pakistan and then in secret prisons so your saying anything about what methods may have been used either on him or on any of the others whose testimony was refused means absolutely nothing as on top of trying to justify the unjustifiable to are attempting to justify things you don't even know about.

BTW, as I said in other threads, and up in this one, we should have declared war on AQ, allied terrorist organizations, and any nation abetting them back in late 2001 (when it would have sailed through with 100% support ('cept maybe some idiots like Maxine Waters)).

What a novel concept, a state declaring a war on a non state actor.
How exactly would that work?
Allied terrorist organisations and any nation abetting......wouldn't that mean the US had to declare war on itself?

I thought I was giving him an opportunity to explain the apparent contradiction.

You are going to end up as a member on Skys ignore list

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by FIREWALL

I go along with you Aramike. What is the best method that most Americans can live with ?

I made my suggestion. What do you think?

[tater]

Great stuff by Andy McCarthy (who knows more than a little about trying terrorists in civilian court):

Obama officials are now complaining about “torture.” Their spin
today is that we were lucky to get the one conviction we got given that the
Bush administration abused the defendant, resulting in the suppression of
evidence. Of course, this does not match up with statements they’ve been
making for months, expressing complete confidence in their ability to get a
just result. Nor does it jibe with the facts that this case was indicted years
before there was a 9/11 or a Bush administration, and that the government in
2001 managed to get sweeping convictions against four terrorists based on
the case as it existed in 1999.

The brute fact here is that DOJ got unlucky. Jury selection is tricky, and
prosecutors ended up with a bad juror who refused to deal rationally with the
evidence. When that happens, you either get a mistrial or the jurors
compromise in a way that can be unsavory. That is not the Bush
administration’s fault.

Speaking of unsavory, though, the Obama Justice Department took a
calculated risk, they’ve gotten burned on it, and it’s scape-goating to try to
shift the spotlight to the Bush counterterrorism tactics. Judge Lewis Kaplan’s
pretrial ruling, denying prosecutors the ability to call a key witness (who sold
Ghailani TNT), was very questionable. The Justice Department could have
appealed it, but elected not to. DOJ decided to roll the dice with what was left
of the case.

That they lost does not necessarily mean it was a bad gamble. The case they
put on clearly persuaded most of the jurors, and who knows whether the TNT
witness would have brought the loopy juror around? But let’s face it: in opting
against appeal, the Justice Department left itself vulnerable to the claim that
it failed to do everything it could have done to try to bring its best case.

Judge Kaplan’s ruling might have been upheld, but that’s anything but clear.
Ghailani was not tortured by the CIA – in fact, he wasn’t even water-boarded.
He was surely coerced in an aggressive way that would have made his
confession inadmissible. But there’s a big difference between using a coerced
confession against someone (which was not done) and calling a witness the
government learns about by coercion. The witness’s testimony is not scripted
by the confession – the witness has to come to court separately, provide
information from his perspective (not the defendant’s), be subjected to cross
examination, etc. Plus, even if you think the CIA’s tactics (whatever they
were) went too far, Ghailani was later interviewed by the FBI and repeated
the same information, under gentler questioning.

Judge Kaplan assumed that the alien terrorist had a Fifth Amendment
privilege, and the Obama administration does not seem to have contested
that assumption. This led the judge to conclude that the “fruit of the
poisonous tree” doctrine applied. To permit the witness’s testimony, Kaplan
reasoned, would violate Ghailani’s purported Fifth Amendment rights – i.e.,
evidence traceable to the CIA’s interrogation would be introduced against
him. But there was nothing “poisonous” about what the CIA did – they were
not rogue cops kicking down an American citizen’s door without a warrant;
they were gathering life-saving intelligence from a foreign enemy during
wartime. And, again, a witness’s testimony is not really the “fruit” of that
tree; it is related but independent in a way the substance of the confession is not.

I think the administration should have appealed and should not have
conceded Ghailani full Fifth Amendment protection. But reasonable minds can
differ, including about whether the appeal would have been successful,
whether further delay would have damaged the case (given the difficulty of
getting testimony from Kenya and Tanzania about events that happened a
dozen years ago), and whether even a successful appeal and the TNT
witness’s testimony would have made a difference to the juror who needed
convincing. Americans would have a lot more respect for the Obama
administration if it forthrightly explained the difficult choices it had to make
rather than dragged out that grating retread: It’s all Bush’s fault.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...-andy-mccarthy

McCarthy also says the guy is gonna spend life in prison for that one count, and that some on the right are accusing Holder of stuff he had nothing to do with (the indictment was handed down before 911, after all).

the government in
2001 managed to get sweeping convictions against four terrorists based on
the case as it existed in 1999.

Thats the main point of it all, it was easier to btring people to justice before some idiots tried to take shortcuts under the illusion that it would make it easier.
Worldwide there are terrorists simply walking free from court because either the evidence has become screwed by the short cuts some fools introduced, or because the government simply refuses to show the evidence.