quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: I firmly believe that in times of war, when necessary, there may be times for an exception.

Well, I asked a direct question to it I got a run around.
So I reverted back to this which was in reference to the Constitutionality of swiping people off the streets and sending them to cancentration camps for proper disposal...

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: It would haunt me for the rest of my life to know I harmed someone unnecessarily. It would haunt me more to know that I didn't do everything in my power to keep someone I love from harm.

Your life must be in total tumult because there is no way you can keep your "loved ones" from harm yet you know We The People are guilty of harming someone elses loved ones..
Safety and protection is more of an illusion than freedom will ever be...

I'd rather know the dangers of freedom than to not know freedom..

quote Originally posted by jstricker: What do you propose? A catch and release program? John Stricker

I am not opposed to killing in a war.
I am opposed to all the hiding, lieing, and torturing.

Here is my solution.
If we are convinced, as a nation, that the enemy is bent on destroying or dominating us, we must destroy them first.
But not all prettied up.
Ugly, destructive, and ruthless.
A war.
Not a "Police Action", not a "Liberation", or any of the other youthinisms.
If you are a civilan, duck and cover, and we will gather you up when we get to you.
As we move forward, leave behind bases & refugee camps.
After we have cleared the country, we help rebuild, maintain a pressence, and keep it secure, forever.
Then move on to the next country that harbors terrorism.
Let it be known that we don't play no more.
If you are a threat to us, we will destroy you, take your land, and rule your people.

Hey, i'm no brain.
But I don't have to be, to see errors.
Nor do I have to have answers, to be a witness to errors.

But I do know we have to stop going in, and then backing out, with out a win.
If you are going to fight a country, take it.
And then rule it.

Is it right?
No, but what other way works?
It's time to lay down the law.
It may not be right, but it's atleast honest.

I'm completely agreed, but you're avoiding the question.

It's undeniable that we have in this country and in our allies' countries foreign (meaning Al Qaeda) agents and most probably cells. We catch them. They work independently but do have some co-dependence on a central command (someone is funding them, someone is giving orders, someone is orgainizing them). OK, we don't torture, but your complaints are also about other civil rights violations.

We break into an apartment without a warrant and, whaddayaknow, we get the right guys. They have laptops and handwritten notes. It's illegal for OUR people to use them as evidence, or even examine them. Should we anyway? Isn't that a violation of their rights?

Where is the line drawn, Boonie??

Don't think I'm picking on you. On the one hand, you and I agree that we should have a "take no prisoners" type of attitude with regard to the enemy................but you seem to be saying "Well, yeah, but, we can't violate their rights doing it......" Or can we? Which ones?

These are the real, practical issues our law enforcement and military are facing every day.

So, do we fight the enemy or play by the rules when they won't play by the rules?

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: I am not opposed to killing in a war. I am opposed to all the hiding, lieing, and torturing. Here is my solution. If we are convinced, as a nation, that the enemy is bent on destroying or dominating us, we must destroy them first. But not all prettied up. Ugly, destructive, and ruthless. A war. Not a "Police Action", not a "Liberation", or any of the other youthinisms. If you are a civilan, duck and cover, and we will gather you up when we get to you. As we move forward, leave behind bases & refugee camps. After we have cleared the country, we help rebuild, maintain a pressence, and keep it secure, forever. Then move on to the next country that harbors terrorism. Let it be known that we don't play no more. If you are a threat to us, we will destroy you, take your land, and rule your people. Hey, i'm no brain. But I don't have to be, to see errors. Nor do I have to have answers, to be a witness to errors. But I do know we have to stop going in, and then backing out, with out a win. If you are going to fight a country, take it. And then rule it. Is it right? No, but what other way works? It's time to lay down the law. It may not be right, but it's atleast honest.

quote Originally posted by jstricker: So, do we fight the enemy or play by the rules when they won't play by the rules?

John, who exactly is this "enemy" that you are referring to?

Convicted terrorists?

And/or..

Suspected terrorists? (who could be anybody and who could be completely innocent)

I know you're debating this with Boonie, but I respect your opinions and I'd like to know where YOU draw the line in regards to whom we should be torturing as part of our war against terrorists. Does not playing by the rules (if deemed necessary) include incarceration and torture of people who have not been charged or convicted of anything? Even if that person is your brother, your child... or yourself?

If somebody, in a 'Warzone', decides to take a potshot at you, and misses, and you then capture him....take him away, bully him, hurt him, starve him, don't let him sleep, don't give him water, or daylight, or a bed to try to sleep on.Make him tell all he knows.He signed his acceptance of this treatment, by shooting at you in the first place.
If you pull a woman or child out of a 'suspected' terror cell. you must treat them humanely. You don't know if they are involved, or even know anything.
If there is a mob shouting, chanting, waving 'kill' banners...go for the ringleaders, and give them the works.They too have signed their consent to that treatment, by their behaviour and words, whether uttered or written.
Anybody caught up in any of the above activities, but not showing in public view their opinions or wishes to harm anybody, you can't torture them.They haven't signed anything.....by actions or by words.They COULD be an innocent bystander, who couldn't get out of the way.
Naive..maybe..honest..yes.Effective? Who knows?? I guess all types of the above live now in Guantanamo Bay...surely it is apparent by now, who are the innocents?
Nick

------------------
fierofetish.PFF'S self-confessed Snowbird!!

Growing old is harder than growing up.
Responsibility: the solution for our World's Dilemmas..
Yahoo messenger:nickcannspain
MSN Messenger-nicholascann@hotmail.com

[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 09-21-2006).]

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: If somebody, in a 'Warzone', decides to take a potshot at you, and misses, and you then capture him....take him away, bully him, hurt him, starve him, don't let him sleep, don't give him water, or daylight, or a bed to try to sleep on.Make him tell all he knows.He signed his acceptance of this treatment, by shooting at you in the first place.

And we should expect our captured soldiers to be tortured, beaten and starved as well, then.

Terrorists might not give a damn about the Geneva Convention, but you know, we might be involved in a conflict with a country some day that does. Only if we don't honor it, there's no reason they should.

Better to just kill them on the battlefield.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Formula88:


And we should expect our captured soldiers to be tortured, beaten and starved as well, then.

End Quote..
??????????? Are you seriously trying to tell me they AREN'T, and haven't ever been???? Wow...should have talked to my Uncles, and a few others of their companions during the last two World Wars....only 3 of them ever even made it back home....
Nick
Edit to add...I am close on sixty...I was at school only 9 years after the WWII ended...and we were taught by men who had returned from concentration camps, battlefronts and dogfights. Torture is not only inflicted when you are captured, believe me. I have seen the pain in those men's eyes firsthand. Even at the age of 5 to 16, those faces ravaged by War, were horrifically apparent to me Three of my teachers were ex POW's..and were tortured, bearing the scars both physical and mental even then, some 10 to 20 years later.Oh, and that was three of 46 who left their jobs as teachers, and went to fight..the rest never came back. Either from battles, or concentration camps.
Edit to add more..
There will never be another War conducted in the way WWI and WWII were...and the Geneva Convention died, along with them.It is as useful, and outdated, and misused, as the UN, in my opinion. We shouldn't stick by it, if the opposition don't.Scrap it, and fight fire with fire, hate with hate and whatever other weapons the other side uses....or we will never, ever win again.

[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 09-21-2006).]

Patrick,

Leave it to you to come up with THE sticky wicket!

Of course you're right, and therein lies my moral dilemma with all of this. If we know, 100%, beyond any doubt, that we had a terrorist that had killed our guys or worse, non-combatants, or been instrumental in the planning and execution of such an attack, then I wouldn't hesitate for a heartbeat to do whatever nasty things it took to get whatever information I could out of him.

But, as you pointed out, HOW DO WE KNOW? Mistakes are made (re: the Canadian citizen) and THEN we truly have lowered ourselves to the bottom of the barrell. With that is MY moral dilemma with all of this.

My hearfelt belief has always been that "It's better to let 100 guilty men go free than imprison 1 innocent man". I happened to be home and stuck in front of a TV through almost all of the OJ trial. I thought he was guilty as sin. Still do. Having said all that, the police (Fuhrman, in particular) planted evidence. They perjured themselves. The prosecutor was inept. It was a shambles of a case and I was actually RELIEVED that he was NOT convicted. I always hoped that Karma in some form would snuff out his miserable existence, but above all that I would have been sickened if he had been convicted in that joke of a trial.

But in that case, it was one guy, one felon. Now we're dealing with people that have no qualms, no hesitation, about killing thousands, MILLIONS if possible, of innocent, non combatants at one time. So do the same rules apply?

I honestly and truthfully don't know. Boonie says we should stop. Period. This kind of thing is destroying our soul. He may very well be right. I acknowledge that. I say that I don't like it. I don't want it to happen. But before we say "no more" have other alternatives to use.

We are facing in this conflict an enemy that, as civilized people, we have never had to face before and we don't know how to deal with it. NONE OF US DO. We are trying to fight a civilized battle with a barbaric and uncivilized enemy and generally speaking, I don't see us winning it this way. We can continue to try to do it this way, but in the long run, after something happens (a dirty bomb in NY, a nuclear attack on Israel, a gas attack in London) we are going to be forced to shrug off our cloak of civility and fight like we never wanted to, and never have had to, fight before.

I feel this is inevitable.

The only hope I have is that if we prevail, and when it's over, we are able to put that cloak of civility back on and never have to see it off of us again.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by Patrick: John, who exactly is this "enemy" that you are referring to? Convicted terrorists? And/or.. Suspected terrorists? (who could be anybody and who could be completely innocent) I know you're debating this with Boonie, but I respect your opinions and I'd like to know where YOU draw the line in regards to whom we should be torturing as part of our war against terrorists. Does not playing by the rules (if deemed necessary) include incarceration and torture of people who have not been charged or convicted of anything? Even if that person is your brother, your child... or yourself?

To add a few more thoughts..
When I was a kid, and had a scrap, it was fists only.Now look around, IN OUR WESTERN WORLD! I saw a fight just the other day, taking place outside the doorway of a Venue I was playing in. A semi-drunk lout was plagueing the wife of one of the families there.The husband stood up, and told the drunk to go outside.They did.The husband squared up, with his fists forward, poised to land a blow if he was attacked. He was. He was kicked in the nuts, and fell to the floor..to be kicked in the head. Queensbury rules? In OUR Western World? Hell no.At least he wasn't shot or knifed, as so many are nowadays.If our own ctizens have sunk so low, how on earth do we not learn from this? The dirty fighter nearly always wins.He might be taken to court afterwards, and MIGHT just pay some feeble penalty...but that doesn't negate the injuries, or deaths suffered every day in OUR 'civilised' World.Caused by dirty fighters who live to tell the tale, whilst their honourable victim is often crippled or killed.
Fire with Fire..or worse, if you want to win quickly, with far less 'peripheral' damage.
It doesn't shorten the War, or lessen the casualties, if the rest of the World applaud your decency, whilst the enemy takes ADVANTAGE of it.
Nick

[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 09-21-2006).]

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: ... Fire with Fire..or worse, if you want to win quickly, with far less 'peripheral' damage. Nick

Well, I don't agree with the "or worse" part, because that'll only motivate the enemy to stoop even lower, but I agree with the rest of it. But you're right that it causes less peripheral damage. Perhaps not the first day, or the first week, but after a while it shall become apparent.

Moleman....How much worse can these maniacs become? I dread to think if it is possible....
Nick

quote Originally posted by moleman_in_a_FieroGT: Well, I don't agree with the "or worse" part, because that'll only motivate the enemy to stoop even lower, but I agree with the rest of it. But you're right that it causes less peripheral damage. Perhaps not the first day, or the first week, but after a while it shall become apparent.

But you're going on the assumption that someone is a terrorist. Therefore, the torture can be justified.
Now, you catch a guy setting an IED, yeah, he's a terrorist/enemy combatant, whatever. I'm not concerned about the more obvious issues like that. My concern is the "suspected" terrorists in our midst. Do we KNOW they are a terrorist? Or do we just SUSPECT?

If it's ok to use extreme measures and tortures against terrorists because of the methods they've used against us, don't you need to know they're a terrorist BEFORE you torture them for operational information?

Is Maher Arar a terrorist? Apparently not, becasue if he was he wouldn't have been released. We're currently holding many "suspected" terrorists, so if we knew he was a terrorist, or even suspected of such, there's no way he'd be walking free.

So how do you justify torturing an innocent man? Even if you're given carte blanche to torture, maim and kill terrorists with extreme prejudice, does that extend to the regular Joe, too, just because he MIGHT be a terrorist?

You can no more defend freedom and liberty by abolishing it than you can cure blindness by plucking out your eyes.

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 09-21-2006).]

I know nothing about the man you have quoted, and therefore cannot make a sound comment.And so I refrain from doing so.Unlike so many equally ill-informed people rush to judge, without a shred of evidence to back up their opinion...just a global media report.Which I could also have read, and equally been as justified in having a totally opposite view than they do.Because they are only hearsay, uttered by other equally fallible humans.Just because he is released, doesn't mean he is innocent, though.Maybe they just couldn't prove it. In the same way as OJ, and quite a few others are walking the streets now. But, the main point about my comments was based on people picked up on a current battlefield, actually engaging in warfare.I stated that quite categorically in one of my earlier posts, in case you missed it.
I always regret the loss of innocent life, believe me, please.After all ,Jesus lost his innocent life, for the good of the World,at the hands of thevery World he was trying to defend..I shouldn't like it if it happened to me, I promise. But, then again, I have never been in trouble, or arrested, or even interviewed about terrible things that occur near me. Why? Luck? Chance? Or because I make damned sure that everybody KNOWS I am 100% unlikely to be involved? I have never been involved in a road accident where I was driving one of the vehicles, and found to be guilty of any error of judgement-lucky,or was it because I try to drive as responsibly as I can, just as I lead my life.
A practical example of how being honest and reliable can produce benefits.. a silly example, maybe, but true. I ordered a Skype phone from a Company in the US about 4 weeks ago. It hasn't arrived yet.They thought it should have, because they know they sent it. After several emails, I asked them to send me another, on the understanding I would return the original should it appear, or sell it on, and pay for it. They checked my feedback, and came straight back and agreed to send another under those terms.My feedback on eBay is currently at 53..out of which the last 52 are excellent. They trust me, because I do my best to keep my word and obligations.The first rating I received was a bad one...and if you check the guy's feedback, it is apparent that I was honest, and he wasn't......trivial example, but holds the same water as a massive one
In a banal fashion, the public highways exemplify the tragedy in a parallel fashion.Innocent people die every day in car accidents, and in a way they die for a cause: a right for us to drive where we wish. If we weren't allowed to have that liberty to do so, then most people killed in road accidents would still be alive.They are mainly innocent..but we chose not to see them as Martyrs for the cause, although they are in a strange, and undebated way.We don't take away the general public's right to drive, because a miniscule minority suffer because of that right.
And so, one good man loses his liberty, or is badly treated, in order for the majority to continue to live in the way he did, until fate led to his arrest, death, torture.. It is a fact of HUMAN life, that a percentage of people lose something important in their lives, because the majority want, or demand, that THEY may continue to enjoy theirs. It is a sacrifice. The only difference between their losses, and that of Jesus, was that he KNEW he would lose his life..the aforementioned victims had no idea it was going to happen, and didn't choose to die as martyrs, for the good of the rest left behind. Doesn't change the fact that they equally died in a way that could be translated as a kind of martyrdom.
Every week, somewhere in the World, a minute number of ordinary people win a fortune on the Lottery or football pools, or gambling.They enjoy their fortunes.The equally minute number of innocents who lose their liberties/lives at the hands of humans exercising, or protecting, their 'rights', have to endure their pain and loss.The price that is paid by them for their innocent suffering, is the capture of evil people in the same net.A fishing trawler catches a myriad of fish, many of which are useless for the purpose of fishing..yet they still die because of that net.Neither group has the choice, yet they both suffer/enjoy luck, or the lack of it.Stopping the Lotteries will not stop the sufferers of misfortune enduring their pain...The thing that is disproportionate is the amount of publicity given to a Worldwide audience about one person's suffering, or fortune.It won't lessen the occurence of these events, because it is so small, and happens so infrequently. And, unfortunately, it is almost a requisite for our Human World to continue as it does.It is fallible.And extremes are newsworthy, in the eyes of Editors around the World. And unfortunately, we tend to prove them right.And the more they publish the extremes, the more they seem to be prolific the World over.They aren't, I tend to believe.
It is 4:45am, I am tired, and tiredness leads to rambling, and not making the sense I would wish to portray. And so I apologise if some of the analogies I use to illustrate my confused thoughts seem rather trivial.But please don't think I don't care for those who suffer misfortune at the hands of the Causes for the majority. I do.
I'd better get to bed...
Nick

[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 09-21-2006).]

They quote the Canadian Justice who cleared his name in saying he had nothing to do with terrorism. If he's been misquoted, you can bet he'd be raising hell.

Also, given how many people are currently held just at Gitmo, do you really think they'd release a suspected terrorist just becasue they couldn't prove it? If the government still thought he was a threat, he'd be labeled an enemy combatant and shipped to Gitmo.

I'm not primarily concerned with battlefield prisoners. Rules are in place for that, and to be honest, I'm much less worried about their "rights" than I am people back home.
My concern is the people taken off the street and interrogated becasue they are suspected of being a terrorist or having terrorist ties.

Be careful sacrificing the "individual" in order to protect "the people."

quote Originally posted by jstricker: We are facing in this conflict an enemy that, as civilized people, we have never had to face before and we don't know how to deal with it. NONE OF US DO. We are trying to fight a civilized battle with a barbaric and uncivilized enemy and generally speaking, I don't see us winning it this way.

John, thanks for the thoughtful response.

I don't have any qualms about us being less than civilized with known terrorists. It's how we treat our own people in the process that concerns me the most. I'm upset that in this particular case, an innocent Canadian was taken by American agents to Syria to be tortured. However, unlike a previous poster in this thread, I'm not trying to dwell on whether it was American or Canadian agents who screwed up the most. That's besides the point. We're all in this together, and our countries (the US, Canada, Britain, etc) have to pull together to help quell this dark force which is growing exponentially at the moment.

I don't believe the answer is to lock up and torture our own citizens simply because they are suspected of supposedly being terrorists. That makes it just too damn easy for people to disappear (for WHATEVER reason). Seriously, how long will the public put up with this nonsense if/when it starts striking closer to home as friends and family begin to be plucked off the streets. Reminds me too much of the horrible things which transpired in several Central and South American countries two decades or so ago.

We don't need enemies on TWO fronts - terrorists as well as our own government.

[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 09-22-2006).]

we can be pretty sure that any of us would confess to being the queen of england if tortured long enough. the value of the information gained is dubious. since some people are so inclined to use torture, i must conclude that they dont much care about the information. what they do appear to care about is the infliction of suffering.

at least it keeps sadists busy and off the (american) streets.

Just for those that do not have a grip on the seriousness of the enemy we are facing in this conflict I thought I might post this link to a video here so you all might get a first hand look.
I never did get an answer as to how many people on this thread viewed it, though I asked twice. The pictures are gruesome but you will not get the full effect without the gestures and sound.
Their ultimate goal is to do this to YOU, your CHILDREN, and your heretic WIFE, oh and don't leave out MOM!. Did I mention your MOM!
Let's see who has the nads to watch it. This isn't some poor guy jumping or falling from a burning building, watching a hollywood movie or the horrific story from your newscaster this is what it is all about. We are in this for survival, just because of who we are.

http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/bergvideo.html

It has been said here that a higher thinker taking in the whole picture will not have a reactionary childlike want to get revenge attitude towards this kind of behavior, well it has been quite awhile now for me and I see nothing childlike about wanting revenge, getting ugly and making them pay! every dam last one of them until they realize it is not in the interest of their cause to continue. This is what a MAN is supposed to do. There will always be the do nothing, it won't happen to me, and hope it just goes away crowd. If you don't watch this vid you really have no right to comment and expect to be taken seriously.
I know this is straying away a bit from the Canadian torture episode but I believe it is a necessary premise for discussing REAL terrorism, which is the beginning.

I thought the comment on being able to get down and do what is necessary and then put back on the cloak of civility was excellent! I believe that we as a country CAN do that! and that IS what defines who we are above our enemy while we undertake the unpleasant task ahead.

RE: your comment about fighting on two fronts......

You know, there is such an outcry about profiling. At airports, whatever. "Oh, we can't just search the middle eastern guys.........." Yes, we can. Why? Because history has shown them to be THE most likely to be involved in something like this. I agree with your point about our citizens. How many US or Canadian citizens have been involved in terror plots like 9/11 or similar? McVeigh and company is about it. Why? I think it would be VERY HARD for them to become involved. First, it's going to be difficult for a US or Canadian citizen to gain the trust of these groups and actually get anything accomplished with them and second, we just aren't raised in this country or Canada with the kind of mentality that is conducive to being a part of something like that.

Not that it can NEVER happen, obviously it can, but that's not where the real threat lies, IMHO. Almost as bad as the spiriting away of this innocent Canadian that nobody has really thought about is that while they were messing with him, it was all a waste of resources. Sure, that's going to happen. Investigations go down blind alleys. But in reading the link here, and a few others I've found, this whole thing just sounds like a monumental screw up. Your tax dollars at work, I guess.

I'm all for aggresively fighting the enemy but I agree with you Patrick, let's be sure we're fighting the enemy and not ourselves.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by Patrick: John, thanks for the thoughtful response. I don't have any qualms about us being less than civilized with known terrorists. It's how we treat our own people in the process that concerns me the most. I'm upset that in this particular case, an innocent Canadian was taken by American agents to Syria to be tortured. However, unlike a previous poster in this thread, I'm not trying to dwell on whether it was American or Canadian agents who screwed up the most. That's besides the point. We're all in this together, and our countries (the US, Canada, Britain, etc) have to pull together to help quell this dark force which is growing exponentially at the moment. I don't believe the answer is to lock up and torture our own citizens simply because they are suspected of supposedly being terrorists. That makes it just too damn easy for people to disappear (for WHATEVER reason). Seriously, how long will the public put up with this nonsense if/when it starts striking closer to home as friends and family begin to be plucked off the streets. Reminds me too much of the horrible things which transpired in several Central and South American countries two decades or so ago. We don't need enemies on TWO fronts - terrorists as well as our own government.

Very good post, IMOH.I didn't look, and have no need to. I know the fire is hot, without putting my hand into it to see. I understand your motives for posting the link, but I don't think it is neccessary to watch the horror, and be scarred for life by doing so.By watching it, it seems to almost be allowing the inhuman creatures who perpetrated that sickening act to cause further damage to us.
Nick

quote Originally posted by Red88FF: Just for those that do not have a grip on the seriousness of the enemy we are facing in this conflict I thought I might post this link to a video here so you all might get a first hand look. I never did get an answer as to how many people on this thread viewed it, though I asked twice. The pictures are gruesome but you will not get the full effect without the gestures and sound. Their ultimate goal is to do this to YOU, your CHILDREN, and your heretic WIFE, oh and don't leave out MOM!. Did I mention your MOM! Let's see who has the nads to watch it. This isn't some poor guy jumping or falling from a burning building, watching a hollywood movie or the horrific story from your newscaster this is what it is all about. We are in this for survival, just because of who we are. http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/bergvideo.html It has been said here that a higher thinker taking in the whole picture will not have a reactionary childlike want to get revenge attitude towards this kind of behavior, well it has been quite awhile now for me and I see nothing childlike about wanting revenge, getting ugly and making them pay! every dam last one of them until they realize it is not in the interest of their cause to continue. This is what a MAN is supposed to do. There will always be the do nothing, it won't happen to me, and hope it just goes away crowd. If you don't watch this vid you really have no right to comment and expect to be taken seriously. I know this is straying away a bit from the Canadian torture episode but I believe it is a necessary premise for discussing REAL terrorism, which is the beginning. I thought the comment on being able to get down and do what is necessary and then put back on the cloak of civility was excellent! I believe that we as a country CAN do that! and that IS what defines who we are above our enemy while we undertake the unpleasant task ahead.

quote Originally posted by 84Bill: Your life must be in total tumult because there is no way you can keep your "loved ones" from harm yet you know We The People are guilty of harming someone elses loved ones.. Safety and protection is more of an illusion than freedom will ever be... I'd rather know the dangers of freedom than to not know freedom..

There's no point in running laps with you Bill, or anyone else. First off, I didn't give you any runaround, I'm just not interested in enagaging in a game of lingual karate with you. After all the discussions we've engaged in, even when we agree on something, you still seem to make it an argument. We don't like each other, so our conversations are rarely civil, never "friendly". These discussions are a complete waste of time; no one changes their minds about anything, many people end up resorting to verbal attacks on one another, or trolling for ways to make trouble. Ignoring tough questions they know they can't answer or would make them contradict themselves. Or, cutting/pasting only the comments that will help to perpetuate their agenda, while leaving the rest out. It's pointless.
Second of all, if you *really* have any interest in what I think (which I know you don't, you're only interested in stirring the pot) read all of my posts. Don't forget the part where I said it's not an easy topic and give second of thought to what that might actually mean. Include where I asked for an alternative method, which the only one provided offered no real alternative-it was basically what I said in a sarcastic tone, give the guy a cup of coffee, ask him pretty please to tell us what we want and call it a day if he won't tell us what we want. How many thousands of people do you think have been saved using aggressive interrogation techniques. How many people do you suppose have actually been through what this poor shlub went through? Should we calculate a ratio? You may be willing to sacrifice all of those thousands of lives in exchange for a touchy-feely approach to interrogation, I'm not.
Lacking a more or equally effective alternative to information gathering, I say we have to do what we have to do. It sucks. I wish we lived in the kind of society where none of this would even be necessary. Where we wouldn't even have to have this conversation. But we don't live there, we live in the real word with real enemies who would eradicate us from the face of the planet if given half a chance. And you would sarifice our entire existance in order to spare one person some discomfort? I'm not saying it's an easy call by any means, but I just wouldn't make that choice.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: And you would sarifice our entire existance in order to spare one person some discomfort? I'm not saying it's an easy call by any means, but I just wouldn't make that choice.

You're right. We aren't going to change any opinions. I understand where you're coming from and I can respect it. I agree to a point, but just think we have to be careful where the line is drawn to avoid becoming a threat to our own citizens.

I'll leave with one final comment on your quote here. I believe that if we sacrifice our values and freedoms in the cause of fighting terrorism, we have already sacrificed our existance. What is a man if he has no honor? The same holds true for a country, IMO.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: You're right. We aren't going to change any opinions. I understand where you're coming from and I can respect it. I agree to a point, but just think we have to be careful where the line is drawn to avoid becoming a threat to our own citizens. I'll leave with one final comment on your quote here. I believe that if we sacrifice our values and freedoms in the cause of fighting terrorism, we have already sacrificed our existance. What is a man if he has no honor? The same holds true for a country, IMO.

I agree completely that it's dangerous territory. And as I've been saying all along, I don't like it any more than anyone else. I'll also say that aside from anything else, if there wasn't some serious due diligence by the proper authorities with regard to this guy, then some heads definitely should roll. I really would like to give the right people the benefit of the doubt in that they had real, adequate cause for what they did. I'm betting that there is information involved with this situation that is classified, and that we may never be made aware of.

I can't really argue with the comment about honor. I guess I can only assume that *most* people value life above honor. You only have to look around to recognize that a great deal of people will discard honor for a lot less than survival; people conduct themselves dishonorably every day for monetary gain, to manipulate others, or to "get ahead". That you regard honor so highly could be an admirable thing. If you're actually willing to die for that honor, that could be even more admirable. The problem is, we have a government that is responsible for the lives of millions and millions of people, and most of them fall in the former catagory: screw honor, I want to live! So the government, and the people in the government will conduct themselves in a way that they see appropriate, even if we don't agree with it personally. "The needs of the many, blah blah blah". Does that make me or anyone else less honorable? You and some others may think so- but what is honor anyway? I think this portion of the definition from Websters covers what we're talking about: 8 a : a keen sense of ethical conduct : INTEGRITY <wouldn't do it as a matter of honor> b : one's word given as a guarantee of performance <on my honor, I will be there> The problem is, it's not uncommon for us to find ourselves in situations where there just is no right answer. I think this is absolutely one of those situations. We have to make a choice, not all of us would make the same one.
BTW, I've enjoyed discussing this with you, it's nice to actually have a respectful, calm discussion about something like this for a change.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: BTW, I've enjoyed discussing this with you, it's nice to actually have a respectful, calm discussion about something like this for a change.

Agreed.

You can't have a meeting of the minds if you don't understand the other person's viewpoint, and you can't do that if you're busy yelling and screaming. (that's the problem with most nation's foreign policy all throughout history, too)

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: There's no point in running laps with you Bill, or anyone else. First off, I didn't give you any runaround, I'm just not interested in enagaging in a game of lingual karate with you. After all the discussions we've engaged in, even when we agree on something, you still seem to make it an argument. We don't like each other, so our conversations are rarely civil, never "friendly". These discussions are a complete waste of time; no one changes their minds about anything, many people end up resorting to verbal attacks on one another, or trolling for ways to make trouble. Ignoring tough questions they know they can't answer or would make them contradict themselves. Or, cutting/pasting only the comments that will help to perpetuate their agenda, while leaving the rest out. It's pointless. Second of all, if you *really* have any interest in what I think (which I know you don't, you're only interested in stirring the pot) read all of my posts. Don't forget the part where I said it's not an easy topic and give second of thought to what that might actually mean. Include where I asked for an alternative method, which the only one provided offered no real alternative-it was basically what I said in a sarcastic tone, give the guy a cup of coffee, ask him pretty please to tell us what we want and call it a day if he won't tell us what we want. How many thousands of people do you think have been saved using aggressive interrogation techniques. How many people do you suppose have actually been through what this poor shlub went through? Should we calculate a ratio? You may be willing to sacrifice all of those thousands of lives in exchange for a touchy-feely approach to interrogation, I'm not. Lacking a more or equally effective alternative to information gathering, I say we have to do what we have to do. It sucks. I wish we lived in the kind of society where none of this would even be necessary. Where we wouldn't even have to have this conversation. But we don't live there, we live in the real word with real enemies who would eradicate us from the face of the planet if given half a chance. And you would sarifice our entire existance in order to spare one person some discomfort? I'm not saying it's an easy call by any means, but I just wouldn't make that choice.

I agree with EVERYTHING you have posted in this thread 500%

It would seem that those of us who have served (4 yrs EW3 USS Dewert), share the opinion that "better to safe that sorry" , in reguards to national security....

That often seems to translate to a callous perspective, on how we treat and interrogate our POW's...

The way I see it..... if somebody does have any usefull information, (please no arguments on the effectiveness of torture), it's better to get that info, than to risk american lives.

With reguards to this war on terror, if/when any of our servicemen are interrogated. Do you think they would be treated with white gloves..... Tapes with be-heading suggest not.

I don't think we have gone that extreme, but for what we have done..... does that make us justified in our actions? maybe.

Has it saved lives....? Maybe not in this case, but fore sure sompleace else.

Does that make us right for what we have done..... No, but thats just how it is....and we are safer for it.

[This message has been edited by intlcutlass (edited 09-22-2006).]

quote Originally posted by intlcutlass: That often seems to translate to a callous perspective, on how we treat and interrogate our POW's...

Does that extend to non-POWs as well?

This is the point of my argument I think most people miss. I'm not talking about POWs. I'm talking about Joe Average on the street who for whatever reason is deemed suspicious, so they pick him up and interrogate him.

So we treat our own people, our own citizens, the same way we treat POWs?

The rules are different when you're in a war zone. I'm talking about on American soil, not in Iraq or Afghanistan. Do we shoot first and ask questions later in Fallujah? Probably. How about Cleveland? Or Seattle? Or Dallas?

That would depend on the level of suspicion.

If you pull over a middle-age male of middle-eastern descent who is jittery, would you treat that person different than a soccermom with a carload of kids and groceries?

If he IS an legitimate citizen, chances are he will understand a certain level of "cautiousness".

quote Originally posted by intlcutlass: That would depend on the level of suspicion. If you pull over a middle-age male of middle-eastern descent who is jittery, would you treat that person different than a soccermom with a carload of kids and groceries? If he IS an legitimate citizen, chances are he will understand a certain level of "cautiousness".

If you were a middle-age male of middle-eastern descent in the U.S., wouldn't you be jittery if you were stopped and questioned? I'd be terrified.

But you're talking about the initial encounter. How about once you take them into custody for interrogation. Is it ok to send the man off to a secret prison to be tortured for information? How about the soccer mom? Assume both are U.S. Citizens. Both are "under suspicion" because they were seen speaking to someone who is "suspected" of being a terrorist.

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 09-22-2006).]

quote Originally posted by Formula88: If you were a middle-age male of middle-eastern descent in the U.S., wouldn't you be jittery if you were stopped and questioned? I'd be terrified.

Not if I hadn't done anything.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: But you're talking about the initial encounter. How about once you take them into custody for interrogation. Is it ok to send the man off to a secret prison to be tortured for information? How about the soccer mom? Assume both are U.S. Citizens. Both are "under suspicion" because they were seen speaking to someone who is "suspected" of being a terrorist.

I'll assume from this argument, you didn't know the person in question was a suspected terrorist, otherwise, you probably would have not delt with them anyway, or turned them in.

If you had unknowingly been dealing with a suspected terrorist, and all the sudden you found out about it, I would think you would want to be as forthcoming as you could. Not only from the self presorvation point of view, but also from the national security viewpoint.

Without trying to denigrate you, or your opinions, I would ask just how many 'average Joe's' do you think get picked up, and subjected to heavy interrogation? I would estimate that number to be around .00000001% of the population, for the sake of argument.. In those terms, no.It is not excessive, in my opinion.This kind of event is probably so rare, as to be impossible to put a number on it.It is purely that the Press chose to highlight this event out of all proportion..and not because they care.They thought it would sell.And it did. Maybe this guy objected to being questioned in the first place, and that aroused suspicions? Perhaps he refused to willingly help in the investigation? Was obstructive in his replies? Who knows? We don't.We don't know all the facts at all, if hardly any.And so the argument is pointless really.
It goes somewhat along the lines that, everybody who gets murdered, according to friends/family of the victim, was 'kind, bubbly, full of life, loved and respected by all...' Do bad people never get killed or murdered? Do bad people regularly get picked up off the streets, for no apparent reason, and subjected to vicious torture? During WW1 and WW11, were mothers/family members/friends given the opportunity to express to the whole World how terrible and undeserved was the death of their son? It was no less sad, traumatic and undeserved 60 years ago, as it is now.But they had to bear their grief in private. The Press and Media are responsible for so much unrest nowadays. I grieve every time I hear of a soldier killed in action.I am AWARE that his family is distraught beyond belief. Same as murder victims' families.But to overstate and emphasize that grief to the whole World won't bring them back, or prevent another soldier from dying in the future.Or another murder victim being laid to rest. All it does is enflame Public opinion.Against that which is being done in the majority's interests.I find it hard to believe the Special Agents got together at the start of the shift, and discussed what they were going to do that night, and decided to go and jump on somebody..ANYBODY..in the street, take them away and beat and torture them.No way. And so, I trust in the process that is used today, albeit flawed. It is better than nothing, surely.
Nick
And just one more point, if I may. In the quote below, you refer to treating 'our own citizens this way..'Can you categorically confirm, beyond all reasonable doubt, that there is not one 'citizen' who is potentially a terrorist? If, as I suspect, the answer is no, then what has to be done to find, and isolate those potential terrorists? It is generally agreed that there are hundreds, if not thousands of potential terrorist living normal lives in the West. You advocate giving them carte blanche to plot and plan their terrible atrocities, by refraining from looking for them? I can assure you that if that was the case, the Terrorist organisations would soon enough exploit it, and fill the resident citizenship with as many potential terrorists that they could, and pretty damn quick.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Does that extend to non-POWs as well? This is the point of my argument I think most people miss. I'm not talking about POWs. I'm talking about Joe Average on the street who for whatever reason is deemed suspicious, so they pick him up and interrogate him. So we treat our own people, our own citizens, the same way we treat POWs? The rules are different when you're in a war zone. I'm talking about on American soil, not in Iraq or Afghanistan. Do we shoot first and ask questions later in Fallujah? Probably. How about Cleveland? Or Seattle? Or Dallas?

[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 09-22-2006).]

I think fetish he was speaking from the platform of: rather let a guilty man go free, than lock up an innocent. So there is no room for error....

His POV is 1 person wrongly imprisioned is too many.

My argument, is , we do the best we can, and to expect perfection with reguards to that system is impractical. There will always be compromise's, it's just reality.

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: Without trying to denigrate you, or your opinions, I would ask just how many 'average Joe's' do you think get picked up, and subjected to heavy interrogation?

I don't know. Secret prisons don't typically publish their activities. We only heard about this case because he was released and spoke out, and then it was only after a 2.5 year investigation that his name was finally cleared.

I understand where people are coming from, and I know I personally have little chance of being one of the ones spirited away. I'm still concerned about it. I am realistic and know there is not perfect system. But when screw ups like this happen, I'm not willing to be cavalier about it and say "well, thems the breaks." I want to find out why the system failed and what can we do, if anything, to prevent it from happening again.

Most everyone here that has said they don't have a problem with the extreme methods says it's because the terrorists deserve it, or because they're barbaric it doesn't matter, etc. That means you're going on the assumption that anyone you're questioning is guilty. Well, if you know they're guilty, you don't need to question them, do you? Just take them out back and shoot 'em.

I see this as a change of attitudes of what's acceptable in a civilized society, and I'm alarmed at what I see. This isn't something new, either. Earlier examples have been seen during the war on drugs where Police officers have been given unprecidented powers in the name of catching drug dealers. People in bad neighborhoods say they don't care if the Police violate their rights - it's a small price to pay to get the dealer's off the streets.

It's a progression of what's allowable and how much of our freedom and rights we're willing to give up in the name of whatever cause is in the news. I don't see it getting better. I see it getting worse.

I just hope if any of you or your loved ones are ever tortured by mistake, that you can still feel it's worth it. It's easy to say when it's someone else.

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: 'Can you categorically confirm, beyond all reasonable doubt, that there is not one 'citizen' who is potentially a terrorist?

Of course not. John Walker Lindh is an American citizen who was caught working with the Taliban. Timothy McVeigh was an American citizen who perpetrated the Oklahoma City bombing. Although not affiliated with an Islamic terrorist group, he would be classified as a terrorist.

Does that mean all American citizens should be treated as potential terrorists?

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 09-22-2006).]

quote Originally posted by intlcutlass: Not if I hadn't done anything.

Uhh, did you read the intial story?!

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: It is generally agreed that there are hundreds, if not thousands of potential terrorist living normal lives in the West. You advocate giving them carte blanche to plot and plan their terrible atrocities, by refraining from looking for them?

I don't recall Formula88 saying anything remotely like that. How can you possibly interpret his (and my) concerns about not wanting to torture our own citizens in secret prisons (people who haven't even been charged with anything) as "giving them (the actual terrorists) carte blanche to plot and plan their terrible atrocities, by refraining from looking for them"?

Honestly Nick, that's quite a stretch.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Most everyone here that has said they don't have a problem with the extreme methods says it's because the terrorists deserve it, or because they're barbaric it doesn't matter, etc. That means you're going on the assumption that anyone you're questioning is guilty. Well, if you know they're guilty, you don't need to question them, do you? Just take them out back and shoot 'em. I see this as a change of attitudes of what's acceptable in a civilized society,

If we have evidence that proves guilt---em yea shoot them. I would question them first still to get as much info as we could.

Sure this is a change in attitudes.... this is a different type of warefare. Nobody likes it, and I'm sure you could go to every person in the US and ask them , Do you want terrorism or peace? and get a pretty consistant awnser. Nobody want's it.... but it IS here. So what the best way to deal with it.

Well we know that the fanatical POV of the terrorist's. I think it's pretty obvious they don't car if they die as long as they take as many Americans with them as they can.... I have NO problem if identified correctly, taking them outback and shooting them. It's unfortunate, but it is our reality.

quote Originally posted by intlcutlass: I'll assume from this argument, you didn't know the person in question was a suspected terrorist, otherwise, you probably would have not delt with them anyway, or turned them in. If you had unknowingly been dealing with a suspected terrorist, and all the sudden you found out about it, I would think you would want to be as forthcoming as you could. Not only from the self presorvation point of view, but also from the national security viewpoint.

Um, if you read the article, you'd know Maher Arar hadn't done anything. He was seen talking to two suspected terrorists. He said he knew them from when they lived in the same neighborhood.

He was still interrogated until he confessed to training at terrorist camps in Afghanistan. It was later proven he had never been to Afghanistan. The link to the article doesn't work anymore, and I don't remember off the top of my head what that proof was, but it was enough for the Canadian justice to publicly state he had no terror ties and was not and never was a security threat.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Um, if you read the article, you'd know Maher Arar hadn't done anything. He was seen talking to two suspected terrorists. He said he knew them from when they lived in the same neighborhood. He was still interrogated until he confessed to training at terrorist camps in Afghanistan. It was later proven he had never been to Afghanistan. The link to the article doesn't work anymore, and I don't remember off the top of my head what that proof was, but it was enough for the Canadian justice to publicly state he had no terror ties and was not and never was a security threat.

I had read it, but we were discussing different specifics.

I have NO problem with what happened. The man was exonerated. Sad and unfortunate for sure. He will have reason for suit, wich I also fully support.

Ya know, sometimes I don't know half of what I think I do.
Just when I get a clear-cut idea of how, when, why, what, & where, I am thrown back into indesision.
I may not be near as smart as I think I am.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-letter20sep20,0,41 88916.story?coll=la-home-headlines

How can we help a people that have been reduced to this?
Fearfull for thier own life, they turn a blind eye and pretend it isn't happening.
Very understanding, concidering they can't trust us, thier military, or thier police.
How do we turn them around?
How do we get them to fight for thier own freedom?
It seems they are just waiting, to see who comes out on top, so they are sure to be on the right side.

But could they do more?
Could I, or would I, living in thier shoes?
I am ashamed to think that I would probibly act in exactly the same way as they are.
Talk of bravery is easy for me, setting at the computer, shaking my finger at the World.

I'm just not sure of anything, anymore.
The World is becomming a crazy, ugly place.
Or maybe it always has been.

I think I'm just going to leave the big desisions to those more qualified to make them.
I just want everything to be all right.
For those that believe, pray em' if ya' got em'.

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 09-22-2006).]

quote Originally posted by Formula88: The link to the article doesn't work anymore...

That's unfortunate, but I did a search on Google for "Maher Arar" and was surprised at the huge amount of material to be found. Just as an example, Here is an informative article by CBS news dating from January 2004 . I have to admit that after reading some of this material that I'm embarrassed and ashamed of not knowing more about this story much earlier.

quote Originally posted by intlcutlass: I have NO problem with what happened. The man was exonerated. Sad and unfortunate for sure. He will have reason for suit, wich I also fully support.

Nice that he's out of prison and still alive to pursue this suit.