(Bolding mine.)
I’m sure that there is an erudite Latin phrase that means You’ve just proved your opponent’s point, but I can’t think of it now … :rolleyes:
But just to be clear, though: Sometimes the authorities and their “strong suspicions” can be absolutely wrong and innocent people are wrongly arrested. Therefore, all arrested persons deserve the protections in the Constitution, be they accused terrorists or little old ladies accused of jaywalking.
Well, we could, you know watch him. He’ll have to take some intermediate steps before he can blow up the bridge. These intermediate steps are likely to be criminal and even if they’re not, they will provide evidence of criminal conspiracy.
It’s not a either or choice of detain suspects w/o charges or let them blow up bridges. To present teh predicament in such a way is to present a dilemna which is false.
Some suspected terrorists are falsely suspected, and are, in fact, part of the rest of us.
There’re procedures for determining whether suspicions are well founded enough to go about abrogating peoples rights. these procedures involve the due process of law.
Wow I totally missed that flub.
We finally totally agree on something.
If we agree that the war on terror is actually a war and that those being rounded up are prisoners of war, I would be willing to allow the millitary to dictate what manner of freedoms a prisoner of war is allowed. This particular war is being fought against a discrete enemy who are using underhanded tactics to inflict suffering on civilians and otherwise innocent people. Boohoo for them.
I feel no sympathy for anyone engaging in or planning an attack of terrorism. Throw all their rights in the garbage.
Is the civil court even a place to try a terrorist? I’d hate to see one of them get off because the search warrant wasn’t dated correctly or some such technicality.
If we allow them access to a lawyer then we give them a means to stay in contact with the outside world and possibly other terrorists in their group. Not to mention all of the stuff that comes out in a trial that would be counter productive to further arrests, such as classified information and other secrets we’d rather the enemy didn’t know.
Miller, I hoped by now you’d realize I’m referring to POWs that our millitary
has captured with intelligence provided by the CIA, the FBI, etc.
Yeah, I changed the name of the bridge to show how easy it would be for the terrorists to switch targets once the authorities were on to him.
These terrorists could care less about other peoples rights. And they probably could give a shit about their own rights. I’m saying that we need to deal with these people and these types of crimes differently than others. There are certain memebers of society that are just too dangerous to allow them access to the normal channels of due process. I am specifically referring to terrorists.
SimonX, I think there is an echelon of humans that the courts just could not deal with. Our courts are not designed to try individuals who have performed acts of terrorism when more than one country is involved, when there has been involvment by the CIA, the FBI, the millitary, and other groups, and evidence gathering techniques that can’t be revealed in a court of law.
Especially when statistically, those chances are pretty close to zero. I have more to worry about from lightning strikes than terrorist attacks. Of course, if they could figure out a way to drop bombs on lightning, it would rank much higher on the American Fear-O-Meter.
There are certain members of society that are just too dangerous to allow them access to the normal channels of due process. I am specifically referring to murderers.
I am specifically referring to rapists.
I am specifically referring to arsonists.
I am specifically referring to jaywalkers.
Bullshit.
Cool can the military also round up the people in the War on Drugs and the War on Poverty next? There’s no such thing as a war on terror how can you war against an idea? Or a situation?
If you don’t understand the irony of torturing innocent civilians to prevent the suffering of innocent civilians… :wally
We don’t agree. It’s NOT a war. There has been non formal declaration, no definition of the enemy and no definition of a goal. The “War On Terror” is just a meaningless, busllshit propaganda phrase with no legal meaning and has no legal authority.
If we’re going to call them POW’s then no, the miltary doesn’t get to decide how to treat them. There’s a little thing called the Geneva Convention, moron.
You keep banging on about “suspected terrorists” as though that is a classification with some sort of meaning. What constitutes “suspicion?” Who has to be “suspicious?”
I suspect that Kenny G is a terrorist. Should he be arrested and tortured?
While you’re at it, why don’t you tell me what the fuck a “terrorist” is?
I think I know someone else who fits this description … It’s not an uncommon name, if you get my sense. :rolleyes:
No. You just don’t get it, do you? You are specifically referring to accused terrorists. If you’d like a cite about the difference between the two, I refer you to the U.S. Constitution.
It’s not about blowing up a bridge, and they’re not interchangable. There are a completely different set of logistics you would use in blowing up the Golden Gate vs. Blowing up the Brooklyn bridge.
Not to mention if we’re keeping an eye on them and we disrupt their plot, wouldn’t we follow them if they went somewhere else?
The fuck?, Geneva convention? Since when is al Queda a country? Forwarding Geneva Convention status to a terrorist, suspected or otherwise, would be a kind gesture on our part.
How exactly do you define an enemy when you don’t know who they are until it’s too late or you get lucky and happen to catch a break or intelligence determines that so-in-so has contacts with groups of people who want to blow up buildings in Chicago.
Darkhold, lets not muddy the waters. I’d like to deal with terrorists here. Only.
Spiff, Does someone actually have to blow up a building before you consider them a terrorist. Do they have to be convicted in a US court of law before you consider them a terrorist? People don’t typically change direction during a mid-life crisis and decide to become a terrorist. This is a life style. Those who we suspect are probably up to their knees in the stuff.
Someone explain to me what a terrorist court proceding would look like. Pitch a tent and set up three rings…
You want to give these guys the best defense attorneys and the ability to plead the fifth? Laughable.
The bridge thing, it’s just an example. Let’s make it two different schools about four miles apart if that helps.
I’m sure that infringes on some rights too. Would you like to be spied upon all the time and have FBI and local law enforcement personel follow you everywhere?
Actually, this is not true. There’re cases where top-secret evidence is presented to judges who hold security clearance.
Fine by me. Now show me the magic scrying stone that shows you the difference between an innocent civilian and a ‘suspected’ terrorist with no evidence that would allow for torture and a violation of basic human rights.
Look, Dumbass, you’re the one who brought up the whole war bit. Prisoner of war means geneva conventions.
You’re the one who brought up the whole suspected terrorist thing.
When is it that they become terrorists? There’s some evidence that many people, UbL for example, became a terrorist in their mid-life.
Picture a federal courthouse with lots of security instead.
If they’re American citizens they should be allowed due process.
What’s laughable is that you’re willing to suspend Constitutional protections to protect the Constitution.
It depends on how it is done. IIRC, law enforcement officials monitor those suspected of criminal activies on a regular basis. It’s routinely and effectively done while remaining within the bounds of the law.
Who said no evidence?
I don’t consent to violence and torture and violating basic human rights.
On the other hand, I don’t want to see them acquire the same rights as every other American criminal. Not sure where, but there’s some middle ground here.
The fuck? Since when is al Queda anything other than a handy designation for a series of loosely-affiliated groups that oppose certain interests of the US and European countries?
Okey-doke, but how do you, you personally that is, decide who to suspect? What are the “life style” features that make someone a terrorist, and thus acceptably deprived of all right to due process?
For example: I have made several trips to Middle Eastern countries, as recently as last summer, and sometimes correspond with others who live there. At home I have an extensive collection of magazines and reference material on both miltary and commercial aviation. I have a recent copy of The Standard Catalog of Firearms. For more than twenty years, for my own enjoyment, I have photographed industrial facilities, including steel mills, refineries, railroads, and bridges. I have a large number of detailed maps. My home computer has several bookmarks to sites discussing the 9/11 attacks, particularly the details of the hijackings and an engineering analysis of the WTC collapse. I belong to a message board where terrorism is discussed frequently.
Quick now, am I a suspicious character? How do you know that any single person held incommunicado by military authorities at this moment is in fact a terrorist, other than that the military claims they are? How does any of us know that you, in fact, are not a terrorist?
Look, it’s quite simple telling who’s a terrorist and who’s not.
“If she weighs the same as a duck…then she’s made of wood…and therefore A TERRORIST! BURN HER!”
Right, name rank and serial number please.
I inferred that from the OP.
Don’t know any to ask. Some evidence?
Like I said…that doesn’t change much. The process is much the same.
Um, yes. However, once they’re found guilty they should be stripped of US status and labeled as enemy combatants.
In some eyes, yes. Not in mine. I wouldn’t offer them Constitutional Protection if the activity was directed against the US and in defiance of the vicitms Constitutional rights.
OK