8 out of TEN or TEN in 80???? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-04-2005, 09:07 PM   #16
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:44 PM
I think there is a difference between 80 Islamists arrested in Kabul and 80 random civilians in an American city.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 11-04-2005, 09:10 PM   #17
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 06:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
I think there is a difference between 80 Islamists arrested in Kabul and 80 random civilians in an American city.
what is the difference?
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 11-04-2005, 09:24 PM   #18
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:44 PM
Off the top of my head the suspension of habeas corpus for individuals captured overseas and classified as Illegal enemy combatants. Contrasts with those caught on US soil who still get tried (I think that was tied to Ex Parte Quirin but I would have to check it). The treatment of captured US citizens overseas like John Walker or Salim Hamdan shows that they are treated differently.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 11-04-2005, 09:31 PM   #19
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 06:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Off the top of my head the suspension of habeas corpus for individuals captured overseas and classified as Illegal enemy combatants. Contrasts with those caught on US soil who still get tried (I think that was tied to Ex Parte Quirin but I would have to check it). The treatment of captured US citizens overseas like John Walker or Salim Hamdan shows that they are treated differently.
why should it make any difference where a person is captured?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 11-04-2005, 10:00 PM   #20
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:44 PM
One would be the issue of jurisdiction and national soverignty, if the individual were to be formally extradited to face trial or serve sentence then it would require evidence, Then again the actions of intelligence services have seen violations of those principles all the way up to the rendition of suspects in other nations.

The bulk of those held in Guantanamo were captured in 2002 in Afghanistan by the US military or were handed over to the US. They still have to have trials to determine their status as combatants, and the avenues of appeal have to be nailed out. Even then the military tribunal system has not started yet and the validity of them is being put to the judicial branch.

The legal situation of these people, captured by US forces is different than those arrested in the US or extradited to the US where there has been a violation of the law and they are tried.

I think that it would probably be quite illegal to arrest 80 people in the USA without evidence and suspend their right to a trial. This is different for those captured in a war zone where their combatant status is to be determined before they can be tried.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 11-04-2005, 10:20 PM   #21
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 06:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
One would be the issue of jurisdiction and national soverignty, if the individual were to be formally extradited to face trial or serve sentence then it would require evidence, Then again the actions of intelligence services have seen violations of those principles all the way up to the rendition of suspects in other nations.

The bulk of those held in Guantanamo were captured in 2002 in Afghanistan by the US military or were handed over to the US. They still have to have trials to determine their status as combatants, and the avenues of appeal have to be nailed out. Even then the military tribunal system has not started yet and the validity of them is being put to the judicial branch.

The legal situation of these people, captured by US forces is different than those arrested in the US or extradited to the US where there has been a violation of the law and they are tried.

I think that it would probably be quite illegal to arrest 80 people in the USA without evidence and suspend their right to a trial. This is different for those captured in a war zone where their combatant status is to be determined before they can be tried.
why should it make any difference where a person is captured?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 11-04-2005, 10:25 PM   #22
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:44 PM
Because if you are arrested in a different part of the world you are subject to different laws and legal status.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 11-05-2005, 02:05 AM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 04:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
I hope that those that pick 'B' out of fine moral conviction would also accept the concequences of such action in the event that terrific violence is inflicted on many innocent people as a result of their decision - but that in terms of a thought experiment is unbound and far too difficult to get a straight answer about.
I predicted this argument. It´s so typical

I am not for B. because of fine moral conviction. Your cynical tone doesn´t help at all.

I am for B. because those are the principles our justice systems are built upon. I´m all for accepting the consequences. I am for police/ military action only when its proved up to 98% that they deal with a terrorist. Even then, I will not excuse torture. Because everyone uses those excuses! Saddam has tortured his opposition with the same arguments: "they pose a threat to society".

Apparently you put the people in two classes. 70 innocent Americans, or Australians, shouldn´t be caught. But there, in those terrorist countries.. you never know who´s a terrorist and who isn´t, so why not arrest all of them who wear a beard, and find out later.

This is applying two standards: one for Westerners, and another one for Muslims from Afghanistan.

You totally forget the UNA bomber though. If 80 people were caught, they all were tortured, and he was amongst them and because of torturing him, they find out about his plans. Say the UNA bombing never happened. You excuse the torture of 79 other Americans to catch him.

Its not a big surprise that laws in every country and warzones and whatnot differ. deep is trying to ask you why should it make a difference. Not why does it make a difference.

It is so interesting how some people defend torture here and in the other thread.. wow. You are a potential danger not only to my democratic country but also to myself.

A danger because you defend the change of a juridicial system based on seperation of powers. Dangerous for me because I could be the next caught "suspect" who´s innocent and tortured.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 11-05-2005, 02:25 AM   #24
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:44 PM
Did I advocate torure of all 80 suspects? of political prisoners? of anybody deemed subversive?

I stipulate that there is a single situation where I think the ends justify the means based on independent evidence and judicial review and I make absolutely no apology for placing the preservation of a lot of innocent life over the infliction of brief, extreme pain on a person whose involvedment has been established by independent evidence, not to get a confession but to get information to save lives once a plot has already started and has to be stopped.

The Unabomber was nothing, he was a domestic terrorist who killed 3 people ~ it is absolutely nothing compared to thousands to hundreds of thousands that AQ and its ideological ilk aim for, hell McVeigh would have been a better example because he is a violent right wing terrorist who murdered more people.

Torturing 79 innocent people is wrong to get 1 guilty, torturing 1 innocent people is wrong to get to a guilty individual. But when you have the guilty party with independently obtained evidence of their involvement in a plot to kill >1000 people then I think that there is an amoral imperative to do whatever can be done to prevent it up to causing them pain.

I do not think that holding such views is a potential danger to you anymore than your insistence that people be denied free speech on the basis that hate speech is bad is a threat to me.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 11-05-2005, 02:43 AM   #25
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:44 PM
Quote:
Apparently you put the people in two classes. 70 innocent Americans, or Australians, shouldn´t be caught. But there, in those terrorist countries.. you never know who´s a terrorist and who isn´t, so why not arrest all of them who wear a beard, and find out later.

This is applying two standards: one for Westerners, and another one for Muslims from Afghanistan.
I will go on the record that I find an Afghani Muslim in Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban to be a lot less suspicious than a Westerner, Arab or Asian in that same situation. The latter examples have all travelled to a country that had a regime that sponsered terrorist training camps and all things considered wasn't a thriving tourist destination, people came to train to fight their holy war, the battle was raging against the second biggest Satan at the time, their presence there and then is in itself suspicious.

Being an international terrorist takes money and expertise, the only common thread with Islamist terrorists is their adherence to more fundamentalist teachings of the Islamic faith. It is fair to say that not all Muslims are terrorists or sympathise with terrorists but the vast majority of Islamist terrorists and their sympathisers are Muslim, this does not justify different legal status, unwarranted suspicion or internment.

I am applying two standards one for people captured in a warzone who cannot be charged under US criminal law, another for those who are arrested in places where rule of law applies and they must be charged with a crime when they are arrested and evidence must be presented to show that they pose a threat to society. If anybody is arrested in the US or gets extradited then they will have different legal status and course of action just like Ramzi Yousef.

This war is not an issue of race it is an issue of ideology, "those terrorist countries" contain the key to defeating the cause of the Islamists and their aspirations to restore the caliphate in the form of grand pan-Islamic states, treating the victims of the terrorists as the threat is fundamentally flawed.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 11-05-2005, 02:53 AM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 04:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
The Unabomber was nothing
Oh I see. Youre trying to tell me the death toll makes a difference? So its not ok to torture when 3 innocent people get killed by an American bomb but its ok to torture, but it is ok when hundreds or thousands of lives are potentially endangered.

So what about the guy in Iraq who plants a bomb and blows up a car and kills three people. I take from your words he should not be tortured? Or should he? Because theoretically he could be part of AQ and plan a big attack and fly the next plane into the fucking Chrysler Building.

See, I am not accusing you of anything. I just would like you to check your opinion on this. I am sure you will think, now even the guy who blew up three people in Iraq should be interrogated, and by all means. Then why not the UNAbomber.

Because he was nothing. Or, lets rather say, because he was American, didn´t wear a long black beard, didn´t speak a strange suspicious language and wasn´t one of those middle-aged Muslimofascists who make their women wear burkas and want to rule the world.

How will you secure this practice is not misused? How can you secure that a government doesn´t use its right to catch innocent individuals who happen to be opposition, with wrong documents/ evidence faked by incapable intelligence? You can´t guarantee it.

On the other hand, if you restrict hate speech for certain groups like Neonazis, you can still guarantee free speech for all other occasions. There is absolutely no problem with that, it is tested, we have had those laws (restricting Nazis) for half a century now, and we have free speech here ..just in reply, not to derail the thread.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 11-05-2005, 03:13 AM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 04:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
This war is not an issue of race...

...the Islamists and their aspirations to restore the caliphate in the form of grand pan-Islamic states
Very contradictive statements in one sentence. To imply that all Islamists aspire to restore the caliphate in the form of a great pan-Islamic state is racist.

I have friends who believe the Islam, they have just finished their Ramadan. I admire them for their strength of faith, in a practical sense they do have stronger faith than me. They pray when they have to pray, couple of times every day. They didn´t eat or drink until darkness sets in - I could be comfortable with not eating, but not drinking the whole day... must be hard. They even accuse me that I don´t believe in my God because I´m not following every rule my church tells me!

I´d say some of them are Islamists. They believe their religion to be the ultimate religion, but that has nothing to do with the aspirations you talked about.

Thats why I say your statement is racist. I´m not saying you are, but your statement goes very much in that direction. Also if you deny it. Think about it.

Next time tell me about twenty Muslims you have met and what they said, not about one single book (which seems to have formed your opinion to a great extent) you have read ages ago that paints evil "Islamofascism" in its darkest colours, identifying the big new threat of the millenium.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 11-05-2005, 03:32 AM   #28
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars


Oh I see. Youre trying to tell me the death toll makes a difference? So its not ok to torture when 3 innocent people get killed by an American bomb but its ok to torture, but it is ok when hundreds or thousands of lives are potentially endangered.

So what about the guy in Iraq who plants a bomb and blows up a car and kills three people. I take from your words he should not be tortured? Or should he? Because theoretically he could be part of AQ and plan a big attack and fly the next plane into the fucking Chrysler Building.
I do not think that either of those cases torture is justified. Interrogation to be sure but not torture or abuse. They are not the ticking time bomb situation that I have described and admit is extremely unlikely and rare. In the cases you have cited the individuals could only have killed a few people, they are not known to be part of a larger plot and "theoretically" does not justify such action at all. I described a specific case where casualty count exeeded thousands and the individual is known to be part of the plot and knows the precise details through evidence that is independent and has been reviewed by an accountable authrity to warrants the action, without all of those prerequisites it is not valid and I do not condone it.

Two cases, same casualties, pretty much same potential for more casualties you get the same answer from me. Hell if a Christian or Buddhist group started getting all tetchy, blowing up cars and buses around the world and they mounted a plot to kill thousands I would advocate that their ticking time bomb terrorist recieve just the same treatment as the Islamist.

Quote:
See, I am not accusing you of anything. I just would like you to check your opinion on this. I am sure you will think, now even the guy who blew up three people in Iraq should be interrogated, and by all means. Then why not the UNAbomber.
Interrogated is not torture, interrogated is asking questions, acting menacing and having them sit around until they answer or not. It is presumably common practice to do this with captured criminals.

Quote:
Because he was nothing. Or, lets rather say, because he was American, didn´t wear a long black beard, didn´t speak a strange suspicious language and wasn´t one of those middle-aged Muslimofascists who make their women wear burkas and want to rule the world.
Oh yeah, the big bad streaks of racism and religious bigotry that I am showing, my inherent hatred of Muslims and foreign culture that is perfectly in line with my answer that the unabomber be spared torture but the Muslim caught doing more or less the same thing get hot pokers rammed through his scrotum and needles in his eyes ~ oh wait I didnt.

There are organisations of Salafists and Wahabists out there that believe in an outward Jihad directed against infidels, they have proven that they are willing to commit acts of violence time and time again around the world. They want to restore purity to the Islamic world, end the corruption and have an ideologically compatible state to do so, the caliphate. Once established they can set forward on their big goal which is the extension of the house of Islam over the globe. It is what they say, again and again, it is what they put in their fatwas and spout in their condemnations.

The thing is that their campaigns of violence kill a lot more Muslims than others, they blow them up every day in Iraq because they consider shiites to be heretics, they murder them in Palestine as collaboraters, they slaughter indiscriminately against their percieved enemies and they do not stop no matter how much is given or how many concessions are granted. I will not make any apology for thinking that these people are a threat, I don't need to be told about it by Bush or FoxNews when with this wonderful thing called the internet you can go straight to the source.
Quote:
How will you secure this practice is not misused? How can you secure that a government doesn´t use its right to catch innocent individuals who happen to be opposition, with wrong documents/ evidence faked by incapable intelligence? You can´t guarantee it.
Not misused by having independent inquiry and review of any evidence presented, having judicial oversight, scrutinizing all the evidence and making damn sure that if an innocent person somehow got subjected to such treatment then heads would roll with full accountability and a paper trail. The cause for such action is probably inconceivable but in that highly unlike 1 in 10^9 situation where it happens it would be good for there to be such a system present.
Quote:
On the other hand, if you restrict hate speech for certain groups like Neonazis, you can still guarantee free speech for all other occasions. There is absolutely no problem with that, it is tested, we have had those laws (restricting Nazis) for half a century now, and we have free speech here ..just in reply, not to derail the thread.
Having one group censored for their views because they are racist and loathsome (but not up to advocating violence or violating libel laws) is not as free as a country that allows them to openly talk and show the world just how vile they are.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 11-05-2005, 04:00 AM   #29
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars


Very contradictive statements in one sentence. To imply that all Islamists aspire to restore the caliphate in the form of a great pan-Islamic state is racist.
My oh my how is it racict to say that there are fundamentalist RELIGIOUS believers that want to enforce such a thing on all humanity ~ Muslim, Christian and Hindu. I say Islamist with specific meaning and intent, which is broadly adopted by many people when discussing the phenomena of Islamic terrorism and political Islam, it differentiated between practioners of faith and those that would impose their faith on the latter. I am against the latter not the former with the exception of the no harm principle violation.

Did I go out and say oh that brown fellow has Semitic characteristics so he must be a Mohammedan, I must strive to establish Indo-European supremacy once more by automatically opposing everything that he says - I said nothing whatsoever about race and it is flat out wrong to blame it on racism, most of the Muslims that I know are not Arabs they are Malay and they are perfectly normal people
Quote:
I have friends who believe the Islam, they have just finished their Ramadan. I admire them for their strength of faith, in a practical sense they do have stronger faith than me. They pray when they have to pray, couple of times every day. They didn´t eat or drink until darkness sets in - I could be comfortable with not eating, but not drinking the whole day... must be hard. They even accuse me that I don´t believe in my God because I´m not following every rule my church tells me!
Good excellent, people practicing faith something that I have absolutely no problem with. They want to fast in the day, let them fast, people should be free to believe whatever they want too.

Quote:
I´d say some of them are Islamists. They believe their religion to be the ultimate religion, but that has nothing to do with the aspirations you talked about.
Yeah great they think that their religion is the best, tell me do they advocate an Islamic theocracy, would they want to see sodomy laws back on the book with

I think that you are saying that 'Islamist' means dedicated believe or even fundamentalist, I think that 'Islamist' means advocacy of government that derives law and autority by religious decree over everybody. If you think that I am talking about all Muslims or even fundamentalists then you are mistaken.

Quote:
Thats why I say your statement is racist. I´m not saying you are, but your statement goes very much in that direction. Also if you deny it. Think about it.
How in the world does the stated political goals of these groups, to bring theocratic governance to the world equate to racism or even tilt towards suggestive racism. It is not racism to be opposed to ideals of a particular sect within a religion. Religion is ideas, race is genetic.
Quote:
Next time tell me about twenty Muslims you have met and what they said, not about one single book (which seems to have formed your opinion to a great extent) you have read ages ago that paints evil "Islamofascism" in its darkest colours, identifying the big new threat of the millenium.
One single book, praetel what sinister tome might this be? the Pat Robertson Guide To Islam and It's Satanic Believers? The Neocon Guide to Islamophobia and Genocide?

In truth there is no single book that I have read, all I have done is become immersed in the goings on in the world specifically related to the GWOT and read up a lot about the ideological influences of the jihadists and terror groups.

You assume so much about what I have and have not read. I have not read one single big book on Islam and decided that it is some sort of rotted out carcas of a death cult, my opinion is that it is one of the great religions of the world, practiced by over a billion people who overwhelmingly go about their lives the best possible way that they can and practice their faith in a manner that has been tempered by the regional culture (Indonesia for instance is the world most populous Muslim nation and its people are overwhelming peaceful regular people with the exceptions of some Darul Islam type groups that wish to make Indonesia, Malaysia and the Southern Phillipines an Islamist state. The schools of thought that advocate violence are reactionary products of modernity and money, ideological warfare.

You wrongly take a statement against Islamists as a statement against Muslims. Or misattribute it perhaps as racist fear and loathing.

I stand for secularism, rationalism and individual liberty. I think that most human beings in this world would desire the same basic things, at least to the point where we could live on the same planet. I have an ideological opposition to those that stand for the contrary and the extent of that opposition is in part determined by the action that they take in pursuit of their ideals. Banning the teaching of evolutionary biology makes me angry, murdering people because of their religion makes me livid.

On the basis of the no harm / harm minimization principle I support freedom of religious practice up to the unwarrented infringement of individual rights. On this basis I stand against any and all forms of religious governance. It also provides basis to stand against groups that murder a lot of people as a form of collective punishment because of their race and/or religion (or lack thereof).
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 11-05-2005, 04:14 AM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 04:44 AM
As to interrogated, I used the classical UN quote "by all means" which, according to some posters here, justifies a the use of military force.

You said this:

"I think there is a difference between 80 Islamists arrested in Kabul and 80 random civilians in an American city."

and you said this:

"perfectly in line with my answer that the unabomber be spared torture but the Muslim caught doing more or less the same thing get hot pokers rammed through his scrotum and needles in his eyes ~ oh wait I didnt"

So where is the difference now? Its ok to arrest 80 Islamists in Kabul but its only ok to torture them if there is proof that they plan a big attack? Its ok to torture when war is officially declared because in war the laws are different? Or not ok?

I think you are not so sure where to draw the line.

I am sure. I am not in between A. and B. like you. Democracy and the human rights are integral parts of our society. I believe those rights have to be protected.

Its still B. Regarding your last post, that includes everything you said about interrogating. The persons who are tortured in CIA camps or in Guantanamo, however, are not represented properly.

"I described a specific case where (...) the individual is known to be part of the plot and knows the precise details through evidence that is independent and has been reviewed by..."

To my knowledge, we didn´t have that case as of yet. The question remains: why didnt military and intelligence find Osama? With all torture and all those methods they use. Nailing him and his command structure doesn´t have anything to do with imprisoning 70 innocent people.

Secret Services must love the situation... it gives them tons of money and so much work to do after the Cold War.
__________________

__________________
hiphop is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com