Many criminals and psychopaths don’t care about human life, or even their own life. Should we punish their families too? How would we punish the McVeigh or Rudolph families under these guidelines? (And the Rudolph family really was a piece of work, IIRC).
Why is it that all the recent guest members in GD sound the same?
Or how about anytime a bunch of redneck yahoos roll into an islamic nation to steal their oil and slaughter the population, their people send terrorists over to the USA to paint an interesting mural of brain tissue and blood on an American subway car?
I’m sure an elite Jihad unit would have no problem doing this, damn the enemy casualties.
:rolleyes:
Representative Tancredo, is that you? 
Thank you, Bryan. This thread needed a chuckle.
I shudder at the thought of being held responsible for anything that another adult member of my family did. What “family” are you talking about? Wife and kids? Parents? Siblings? First cousins? I’ve got first cousins I haven’t seen in 30 years. For that matter, if one of my American cousins committed a terrorist act, what would happen to my Canadian cousins? And what about the relatives that were born in Canada but became U.S. citizens? If one of their Canadian relatives committed an act of terrorism, would they be forced to stay in the U.S., or sent back to Canada?
And what about me? I was born in the U.S. If one of my family members committed a terrorist act, would I be sent to Canada (where Dad was born), Scotland (where his family came from), or Germany (where Mom’s family came from)?
This is one of the most unworkable ideas I’ve heard here.
So you’re saying Larry the Cable guy is Big Brother?
1984 just became more horrifying than I’d ever realized.
We’ve been discovered by the folks over at <i>Little Green Footballs?</i>
And it seems that you believe a terrorist’s family forfeits their rights, even though they are innocent of any crime.
I assume the closed door involved in the title is your bedroom door. Well, at least your parents can rest easy that you’re not searching for porn.
Aside form the moral issues, I’d just like to point out some pratcical issues that seem obvious to me.
These people are attacking their ‘adoptive’ country because they see it as wrong in some way, whether in action or moral standard or law. It’s also implicit in the OP that they see it as wrong because it somehow affects their ‘native’ country. If that were not the case then I see no connection at all between ‘immigrant’ status and the crime.
So what exactly makes you think that these people would consider it a bad thing for their families to be sent back to their ‘native’ country? What makes you think that they wouldn’t see it as desirable that they have forced their families to leave the evil adopted country for their righteous homeland?
The next problem I’m having is, how far are you going to go back? Are you seriously suggesting that Timothy McCVeigh should be sent back to Ireland? And how are you going to convince the British government to take a 4th generation US citizen?
And if you don’t suggest deporting McVeigh to Ireland then when do you suggest the cutoff point comes? Only true direct immigrants? In which case how will you deal with the fact that parents and infant children will inevitably be separated as a result of this policy?
And what are you going to do in the numerous cases where these people won’t be able to be reptriated? If the brother of a family who has renounced citizenship commits a crime, are you going to send an invasion force to the ‘native’ country to force reptariation? Or insert women and infants via a covert operations squad in what is legally a people smuggling opertaion and then abandon them? Or imprison them in Gunatanomo Bay for the term of their natural lives? Or do people get an ‘out’ if the ‘native’ country says they don’t want them? And if so how many countries are going to be willing to take non-citizens born overseas?
And how are you going to get around the fact that in all western countries I know of such an approach will require numerous constitutional changes? These people are clearly guilty of no crime. How do you propose that we re-write constitutions to allow for people to be punished for commiting no crime whatsoever and not even having any knowledge of the crime?
I can’t see that this idea is even vaguely workable. I can only assume that the people who produced of it are either grossly ignorant of the way the real world works or else haven’t given even cursory consideration to the practicalities of the scheme.
Harebrained is the polite way of describing it.
We got a slap on the wrist and told to play nice by Uncle Clinton.
As for the OP? Collective punishment is a very poor idea, leaving aside the fact that its totally immoral and wrong, do you really want to increase, justifiable, resentment in Muslim communities by punishing the innocent as well as the guilty?
Yeah, it’s definitely wind, but I choose to pass.
How about large cash rewards for people whose tips lead to terror cells? The bigger the catch, the bigger the cash. That way, sleeper cells would know that the public was keeping a sharper eye out in anticipation of a payday.
Would it lead to false reports? Yes. But it also might be something that would cause law-abiding muslims to finally get tired of the extremists in their midst.
These statements are not only as tiresome as they always have been, but now known to be plain wrong.
If the guys’ own mothers had no idea that they were involved in anything like this, how should anyone else know? You’re presupposing a huge cloud of secrecy enveloping mosques and muslim areas, with all the evidence pointing the other way - pointing to small groups operating without any knowledge of the wider community.
Most of them, anyway.
This statement is simply not true unless being related to a terrorist is classified as a crime. But it’s not, nor should it be: You propose punishing law abiding citizens for the crimes of others.
Whether or not it would actually reduce terrorism is arguable, but it doesn’t really matter to me; I think it’s a horrific idea either way.
Some people really need to get it through their heads that there are worse things in the world than terrorism. Such as the suggestion in the OP of this thread. I’d take a thousand suicide bombers over one person in a position to actually enact this idiotic, racist, and barbarous policy. Thankfully, the odds that the poster who shared it with us will ever be in such a position are effectively nil.
Yeah, we wouldn’t want to make them mad, would we? Why, they might try something crazy like hijacking US airliners and crashing them into skyscrapers.
Why does everyone forget that part?
Making more of them madder solves the problem how? Stay on target, Kissinger.
I’m sure you think the 3000 people who died in 9/11 deserved it, but could you please explain why? Which “redneck yahoos” rolled into which “Islamic nation” and justified toppling the World Trade Center?
I’m just curious.
How much “madder” can they get? Four years ago they killed 3000 in one morning…two weeks ago they managed to kill 53…yesterday all they could do was injure a single person. I’d say the War on Terror is working. If you’d like to appease them and read them poetry and have a “group hug,” that’s great. A lot of us consider them brainwashed vermin who need to be exterminated with extreme prejudice.