An idea that is picking up momentum behind closed doors on terrorism.

Terrorists and suicide bombers often don’t give a damn about themselves. I have caught wind that there has been some high level discussions behind closed doors on a new way to limit terrorism. It has nothing to due with more adding more security people. It has everything to do with playing on the thing a terrorist holds most dear. His family.

The behind closed doors proposal I’m talking about suggests that if a terrorist attack a free country, his entire family is deported back from which country they came.

This is a radical idea for sure, but an idea according to psychologists and terrorism experts this will decrease the amount of people willing to become suicide bombers, and limit terrorism recruitment in general.

Where do you stand on this proposal?

If terrorists don’t care about anyone but themselves, as you claim, then how will it help to deport their families?

Oh, I thought you said “don’t give a damn about anyone but themselves.”
Never mind.

Argent Towers,

What do you think of this idea?

Did any of the 9/11 attackers have family here to be deported?

Aside from which, why should Joe or Susie Immigrant be punished for what their stupid ideologically-obsessed brother Mikey does?

And what if they’re citizens? We don’t deport citizens.

Israel has a similar policy.
It is common for Israel to destroy the home of the family whose son committed a terrorist bombing . Whether this policy is effective is impossible to know for sure–there have been cases of enraged family members who commit a second terror attack as revenge, and there have been cases where the family knows their son’s intentions and turns him over to the police in order to save their home.
(warning --GD territory ahead: )

It’s known as collective punishment, and is unheard of in western nations.
But it may be time to reconsider:
The reason is that terrorist crimes are not “regular” crimes. A regular crime like murder is an individual act that harms an individual victim, for which we arrest and punish the individual who did it. But a terror bombing is a collective crime, that harms thousands of collective victims–so collective punishment is worth considering, if it is an effective way of saving thousands of lives .

i could get on board with this idea

" And what if they’re citizens? We don’t deport citizens. "

I don’t know the answer to this question. I wish I got better clarification. It could be limited to illegal immigrants or 1st generation citizens. I do beleive it would deter terrorism in general.

Looks like a very thinly disguised fishing trip for British Right Wing Nationalist Parties, to wit, ‘send them all back where they came from’ - they are, of course, Nazis and have used deliberately similar insignia in the past, and have had a record of supporting Apartheid.

Let me see, what will you do with those who have children born in your country and hold the passport of your country ?

How are you going to maintain the services that these immigrants or dual nationals provide, because in many countries, these ar among the lower levels of employment, such as waiters, cleaners, public transport, street cleaners, these services will virtually collapse.

You appear to be holding a family as hostage, as what you are diong is seizing innocent people and forcibly removing ,them having commited no offence, and indeed they may very well oppose the actions of their relatives.

What distance of family relationship do you propose to include ?

Do you include direct blood relatives such as brothers, sisters father and mothers, do you include guardians, aunts, uncles, in an extended family - such as is more usual in Asian culture -, you have to understand that deporting a significant chunk of one family group will cause social devastation as family groups are broken down and mutual support is compromised.
In truth, what you propose is to effectively criminalise the innocent, and I can think of no better recruiting tool for the terrorists than than that you have proposed.

I’m not going to call you racist, because I don’t know you, however, your proposal is extremely close, be careful of the thin ice you are skirting.

This is the second time I’ve mentioned Richard Ried today - where would you send his parents “back to”?
BTW, I love the use of this phrase in an attempt to elevate the status of random speculation: I have caught wind that there has been some high level discussions behind closed doors…

Is this line of discussion perhaps a cynical reaction to the statement by British authorities that the families of the London bombers knew nothing about their loved ones’ involvement? :rolleyes: If so, geez.

Wel Casdave,

Since I don’t know you, I won’t take offense with the racist’s remark, nor will I lump you as a sympathizer for a terrorist’s family. I never said any particular ethic group or gender is the target. Terrorists come in all shapes, sizes, colors, creeds.

I beleive the idea is applied to direct family members who recently immigrated.

So different punishments for different people, according to their country of origin? How is that is not discriminatory?

Go ahead and lump me as a sympathizer for a terrorist’s family. If the family had no knowledge or involvement in the crime, they are as innocent as anyone else. Holding them responsible and punishing them for the act of another is barbaric. I agree that it might deter some terrorists, but at what cost? If we want to punish the innocent to deter crime, I submit that we could nearly eliminate rape by preemptively incarcerating all men.

I’m not sure I understand the “collective punishment” argument mentioned by chappachula. Is there some threshold number of victims after which we can hold families responsible? So in the case of serial murderers or spree killers, we can also arrest families and maybe close friends? What about massive corporate fraud cases? Here in the US, could we lock up the sons and daughters of Enron executives because of the scope of those crimes?

I don’t mean to deviate from GQ guidelines, but this really does sound like simply a lust for vengence in search of an outlet.

Are we also going to punish the families of Christian terrorists? Are we going to lock up Eric Rudolph’s family or Timothy McVeigh’s?

Innocent is innocent.

And why is this in GQ?

I imagine that this’ll end up in GD shortly, so:

How about this modest proposal…

If a western soldier kills civilians in Iraq or Afghanistan, their families kept deported to the Middle Eastern nation in question.

Fair is fair… right? :rolleyes: I mean, this seems to be the sort of world the OP encourages.

(I haven’t worked out what happens to the families of soldiers who create naked pyramids of POWs, but it’d have to be interesting.)

I also love the use of “free countries” within 24 hrs of the PATRIOT Act extended in the US House, a South Asian is shot to death for being swarthy and wearing a coat in London and NYC starts random bag seachers in the subway. Man, that is freakin’ irony .

All of the suicide bombers that killed so many in London recently were UK nationals, I do not see how this unworkable proposal would make anyone safer.

Why not address the point I make about providing an excellent tool for the recruitors of terrorsits, because if any particualr community feels it is being picked upon and discriminated against for no lawful reason, this will guaruntee that the terrorists ranks beome filled with willing volunteers, making us all les safe.

I have an idea, why not try to understand why these people feel the way they do, let us address some of the percieved injusticies, why not actually try to communicate, and instill and inspire values of freedom and democracy, of the genuine kind, and not the sort purchased by company directors on tax break political party contributions, and why not actually practice in our country and our international policies, the values that we preach to others.

Sure it’s not the whole answer, but maybe its a start, inclusiveness is far more likely to reduce the breeding grounds of discontent than the policy proposed.

Not just his parents. One look at that face should tell you that anyone that ever lived or worked around him should be sent to well, somewhere for not realizing that all’s not right in paradise.