Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 12/10/07 01:52 AM, Imperator wrote:
The hell news have you been watching? I must just be imagining the talk about how bad terrorists are, how Saddam was a big meanie, and the great "Axis of EVIL".

And evil is what? See that's your problem, you think your own code of ethics are the only "good" that can exist. Who are you to say what "good" means?

Little hard to spread democracy when you attach little rules and regulations....or deny it entirely.

Er no it isn't. You can have a totalitarian democracy, it has nothing to do with civil or economic rights. It only has to have elections, nothing else.

You can't win hearts and minds while torturing your enemies.

Says who? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean middle-eastern people who are used to severe punishment being prevalent won't.

We do "lose", because every time a scandal occurs, Bin Laden gets more recruits, and we look just as bad as "they" do.

No he doesn't, he gets more recruits as time goes by with his propaganda.

You can't win the war on terror by causing terror.

That's a double definition, dumbass. Being mean is not the same as being a terrorist. Stop trying to spin things.

---

At 12/10/07 09:38 AM, JerkClock wrote:
And evil is what? See that's your problem, you think your own code of ethics are the only "good" that can exist. Who are you to say what "good" means?

Who's the US to say what "evil" means?

Er no it isn't. You can have a totalitarian democracy, it has nothing to do with civil or economic rights. It only has to have elections, nothing else.

Simplistic view of the world there.....

Says who? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean middle-eastern people who are used to severe punishment being prevalent won't.

Ok. Fine. You go win hearts and minds by using waterboarding or whatever else your little mind desires. Lemme know how it turns out.

If you want a historical example of how treating people like shit doesn't do wonders for swaying them see any empire or emperor towards the end of their reign that gets overthrown. There's always some strict rule that turns the people 100% against the State. Always.

I have never, EVER heard of a case where being inhumanely harsh has worked in long term preservation of the status quo. EVER.

No he doesn't, he gets more recruits as time goes by with his propaganda.

And if the US plays into his propaganda, we coincidentally prove him right. It's hard for propaganda to work without any evidence. But when the US invades a Muslim country under false pretenses? Suddenly Bin laden doesn't look like he's talking jibberish.

Plus, this has been what our intelligence community has said for a while now. Read the 9/11 commission report if you want, it's in there too.

That's a double definition, dumbass. Being mean is not the same as being a terrorist. Stop trying to spin things.

I'm not spinning shit. When the US government starts playing word games with whether or not waterboarding is considered torture, it's not spin.

You wanna talk about "spin", let's talk about the US government and how they're ignoring some key issues to win this war. Let's talk about how Saddam was bad because he tortured people, but we're gonna try to claim waterboarding isn't torture. Let's talk about how the terrorists hate freedom, but we're denying basic rights to prisoners in Gitmo. Let's talk about how we're supposed to be afraid of the terrorists when our own government seems to do a better job of shafting the American public than any terrorist group ever has.

Yeah, I'll be more than happy to talk about "spin" here. Let's talk about War Propaganda and this bullshit "they want to kill you, vote for me" scare tactic that's been going on since 9/11.

---

At 12/10/07 09:38 AM, JerkClock wrote: Er no it isn't. You can have a totalitarian democracy, it has nothing to do with civil or economic rights. It only has to have elections, nothing else.

AFAIK, Saddam held elections. I am 100% sure China does.

---

At 12/9/07 06:27 PM, Imperator wrote: We have to show the world that all the stuff we say about Iran, Saddam, and Al-Qaeda is not only true, but that we're the much better alternative.

So you're saying that just because we delayed trial for enemy combatants held in guantanamo, that we are somehow no better than Iran, Saddam, and Al-Queda?

If that is what disqualifies us as being morally superior to them in your mind, then I would dare say that you have some very lofty and unrealistic ideals for what morality is, and I question whether or not we can actually do something that will make you happy.

At 12/10/07 06:31 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: Still, the right to a fair trial is a human right.

We're giving them trials as time goes on, rendering this a moot point of discussion.

Smart in just the same way as using hydrocyanic acid to kill jews.

Godwin's Law.

Mainly, it's other people who lose their rights, but yes, most western countries are losing their rights to the war on terror.

*rolls eyes*

Same thing when the US was found guilty of mining civilian docks in Nicaragua, they said that it was just a biased jury and refused to accept the decree.

Considering the fact that the World Court is nothing more than a judicial arm of the United Nations, it's not exactly a big stretch of the imagination to think that it wouldn't be a biased court to begin with.

At 12/10/07 11:19 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: Saddam held elections

Elections in which he ran unopposed, and won 100% through and through. Very democratic and commendable of the man.

At 12/10/07 10:20 AM, Imperator wrote: Let's talk about how we're supposed to be afraid of the terrorists when our own government seems to do a better job of shafting the American public than any terrorist group ever has.

Yeah, let's talk about how AMERICAN CITIZENS have been dragged off to the Gulags for speaking out against the government, where they were beaten and starved or just ultimately made to "disappear."

You know what, I've got a better one... let's talk about how people demanded better security measures be put in place after 9/11, and how the entire congress got involved in writing and subsequently passing the Patriot Act in response to those demands, then acted as though it didn't know what the bill contained.

---

At 12/10/07 11:48 AM, Proteas wrote::

So you're saying that just because we delayed trial for enemy combatants held in guantanamo, that we are somehow no better than Iran, Saddam, and Al-Queda?

Not at all. I'm simply saying it dilutes and diminishes our moral authority, and we cannot afford to do that in this War. We're not gonna be perfect, but we have to try harder to be so. Trying to weave around international law so waterboarding isn't torture, the god knows how many scandals this government has faced, and repeated incidents in Iraq are NOT gonna convince people we're such a better choice, no matter how many good merits we have to counteract the bad.

we can't make a flow chart of who's better, because we're the ones making the moral argument. We have to be perfect, and everytime we're doing something morally questionable it damages our case. It's hard to convince the world you're fighting for a just cause and that they should join you when 125 incidents of moral depravity are floating in their minds.

You know what, I've got a better one... let's talk about how people demanded better security measures be put in place after 9/11, and how the entire congress got involved in writing and subsequently passing the Patriot Act in response to those demands, then acted as though it didn't know what the bill contained.

What scares me more is that Congress passed that bill without reading it. And then when they finally did read it, they figured out parts were uncostitutional. On the one hand I'm glad the system works and the Court actually helped set the balance, on the other I'm a little worried about what Congress does over there if they're passing important bills like this with nil thought beforehand.

yes, the people want better security. they also want that security to be effective while not violating their rights. It's a tall order, but working for the proletariate was never an easy job to begin with.

And if Congress is passing bills simply out of appeasement with zero thought we have problems.....

---

At 12/10/07 10:20 AM, Imperator wrote:

Who's the US to say what "evil" means?

The country with the biggest guns is who. Yeah I know, we shouldn't have said, "Axis of Evil", that was a diplomatic blunder waiting to happen as is.

Simplistic view of the world there.....

No it's not, it's an objective definition of what exactly democracy is, thanks for dodging the point and proving me right.

Ok. Fine. You go win hearts and minds by using waterboarding or whatever else your little mind desires. Lemme know how it turns out.

If it's done to the savage fucks who do it to innocent people I don't see why it can't.

If you want a historical example of how treating people like shit doesn't do wonders for swaying them see any empire or emperor towards the end of their reign that gets overthrown. There's always some strict rule that turns the people 100% against the State. Always.

That's because they'd capture and torture random people, or people who simply weren't patriotic, not just criminals who deserved it. There's a difference between the 2, but yet here you are lumping them together as if they're one and the same, they aren't.

And if the US plays into his propaganda,

Dude seriously, muzzle that shit. Osama and his band of terrorists savagely saw people's heads off ever slowly while they suffer through that shit. There is no way in hell you are going to tell me that he turns people into savage brutal killers by telling them that's what we are. No he makes them hate us by telling them we're sinners who need to be purged. This is a fact, what you are pulling out of your ass is not his propaganda.

I know you wish to think it is, but it is not.

I'm not spinning shit.

Yes you are, you were playing semantics with 2 definitions of the word "terror." Making violent people afraid of you isn't the same as blowing up innocent people, but you tried to say it was.

You wanna talk about "spin", let's talk about the US government and how they're ignoring some key issues to win this war. Let's talk about how Saddam was bad because he tortured people, but we're gonna try to claim waterboarding isn't torture.

Why yes because tortuing savage fucks who cheerfully saw people's heads off ever slowly is EXACTLY the same as torturing innocent people who never hurt no one.

I seriously think you need to quit existing. You presence on this planet alone reduces its collective IQ quite substantially.

Let's talk about how the terrorists hate freedom, but we're denying basic rights to prisoners in Gitmo.

Enemy combatants don't get the same rights as US citizens and never have. Unfortunately, your low IQ blinds you to this.

---

At 12/10/07 01:48 PM, JerkClock wrote:
The country with the biggest guns is who. Yeah I know, we shouldn't have said, "Axis of Evil", that was a diplomatic blunder waiting to happen as is.

"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must".

No it's not, it's an objective definition of what exactly democracy is, thanks for dodging the point and proving me right.

I didn't mean to dodge, I just hoped you would catch the more symbolic meanings of democracy, a form of government that lends itself more to the ideas of freedom than setting up puppet regimes with dictators (something we've also done).

If it's done to the savage fucks who do it to innocent people I don't see why it can't.

Be careful when you fight monsters, lest you become one yourself....

That's because they'd capture and torture random people, or people who simply weren't patriotic, not just criminals who deserved it. There's a difference between the 2, but yet here you are lumping them together as if they're one and the same, they aren't.

Not all the people in Gitmo are criminals. We just recently released 4 of them after holding them for 5 years without trial or charge.

I believe I'm portraying things accurately here.

Dude seriously, muzzle that shit. Osama and his band of terrorists savagely saw people's heads off ever slowly while they suffer through that shit. There is no way in hell you are going to tell me that he turns people into savage brutal killers by telling them that's what we are. No he makes them hate us by telling them we're sinners who need to be purged. This is a fact, what you are pulling out of your ass is not his propaganda.

He doesn't have to tell them, the evidence speaks for itself. The Koran warns against that sort of stuff, and having a large empire invade a Muslim country enhances that fundamentalism. Our foreign policy has worked in HIS favor, and this is a sentiment that is stated in the 9/11 Commission Report and by numerous intelligence reports, including the former head of the CIA's Bin Laden unit. I'm not pulling this out of thin air dude.

I don't buy the "they attacked us for our freedom" bit, so sorry.

Yes you are, you were playing semantics with 2 definitions of the word "terror." Making violent people afraid of you isn't the same as blowing up innocent people, but you tried to say it was.

we're not just making violent people afraid, we're making our own citizens and other countries afraid. Afraid is afraid, and while there may be a different in degree and cause, the base fear that controls policy as a result remains.

Why yes because tortuing savage fucks who cheerfully saw people's heads off ever slowly is EXACTLY the same as torturing innocent people who never hurt no one.

It is. You can't claim to be better if you're doing the same fucking thing. I don't give a fuck WHO it is.
Moral crusades don't work when you play this "it's ok to be mean to bad people" game.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

I seriously think you need to quit existing. You presence on this planet alone reduces its collective IQ quite substantially.

Ad hominem.

Enemy combatants don't get the same rights as US citizens and never have. Unfortunately, your low IQ blinds you to this.

Ad hominem. They don't, but they should. If we're fighting a moral war, which I believe by our actions and words we are, then they NEED to have the same rights.

And the problem isn't one between POWs and US citizens, it's one between their rights as POWs or no rights at all. I'm not arguing they should have US citizen rights (although I think that would do more to scare them than some other things), but they need to have POW rights. We can't play semantics with the law because we feel like being mean to the bad guys. Sorry, but fighting for the Good Guys means we don't get that luxury. Superheros aren't allowed to kill for the same reasoning. Gotta fight that moral war with Godlike tenacity on moral convictions.

---

At 12/10/07 02:32 PM, Imperator wrote:

"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must".

It was a joke dude, see, you're not helping to make yourself look any better when you take an obvious joke serious.

I didn't mean to dodge, I just hoped you would catch the more symbolic meanings of democracy,

There's no "symbolic" meaning, democracy means rule by the people, it says nothing about civil or economic rights, not a single, fucking thing.

Be careful when you fight monsters, lest you become one yourself....

When someone gets what they deserve, I could give a fuck less when some idiot on the internet is going to say I am or am not, I know damn well they're getting what they deserve and that's all that matters.

Not all the people in Gitmo are criminals. We just recently released 4 of them after holding them for 5 years without trial or charge.

Doesn't mean they weren't criminals, in fact, we have no idea why they were even released.

He doesn't have to tell them, the evidence speaks for itself. The Koran warns against that sort of stuff, and having a large empire invade a Muslim country enhances that fundamentalism.

Right but not torturing people.

We can't just let people attack us on our soil simply because others will see it as a reason to take their place. If more rise up, they can be killed too, until there's nothing left if we have to. We don't need to sit here and let them attack whenever they please.

I don't buy the "they attacked us for our freedom" bit, so sorry.

That's because you lack the IQ points to learn it. Osama has demanded several times in publicly released videos that we stop our "sinful" lives. It's not if we "sin" because we are free to or if it's our government, it's that we, "sin" at all.

we're not just making violent people afraid, we're making our own citizens

Funny, I'm not very scared of the government.

Afraid is afraid, and while there may be a different in degree and cause, the base fear that controls policy as a result remains.

Well what do you propose we do? Never counter attack? Let only the innocent people be tortured who don't deserve it but never the savage fucks who do? Sorry but what you want is just plain illogical.

It is.

No it isn't, ferrous cranus. Punishing someone who deserves to be punished is not and never will be the same as doing it to someone who doesn't.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Yeah, you do know that's a crock of shit right? Just because someone invented some lame stock quote like that is not a sufficient reason to call retaliation a bad thing. Find your own argument instead of copy-pasting something that's been said billions of times by other people.

Ad hominem.

Which isn't a flaacy when it's not being used as part of the argument, which it was not.

Ad hominem. They don't, but they should. If we're fighting a moral war, which I believe by our actions and words we are, then they NEED to have the same rights.

In this case you low IQ is quite relevant to the situation because it is making you say things that are erroneous on quite a few levels. So Ad Hominem considerations are important. You can't give enemy combatants trials, what are our soldiers supposed to do? Testify that they captured the man holding a gun in a hail of gunfire only to have a lawyer spin the fuck out of that and have him walk free? No I think not.

And the problem isn't one between POWs and US citizens, it's one between their rights as POWs or no rights at all.

Right but they aren't conventional enemy combatants. They didn't obey the standard rules of war, and as such they don't get the same rights as those that do.

---

At 12/10/07 03:01 PM, JerkClock wrote: It was a joke dude, see, you're not helping to make yourself look any better when you take an obvious joke serious.

My apologies. Sarcasm does not travel well over the internet. And I don't pick it up well.

There's no "symbolic" meaning, democracy means rule by the people, it says nothing about civil or economic rights, not a single, fucking thing.

Alright, whatever.

When someone gets what they deserve, I could give a fuck less when some idiot on the internet is going to say I am or am not, I know damn well they're getting what they deserve and that's all that matters.

If that's what's important to you, by all means continue with that philosophy. Agree to disagree.

Doesn't mean they weren't criminals, in fact, we have no idea why they were even released.

Do we even know why they were captured in the first place? (honest question, out of curiosity).

We can't just let people attack us on our soil simply because others will see it as a reason to take their place. If more rise up, they can be killed too, until there's nothing left if we have to. We don't need to sit here and let them attack whenever they please.

According to the CIA Clinton had something like 10 chances to assassinate the fucker and blew them all. I have no problem putting people in their place. I have a problem with invading random countries for apparently little thought or reasoning (read, Iraq).

That's because you lack the IQ points to learn it. Osama has demanded several times in publicly released videos that we stop our "sinful" lives. It's not if we "sin" because we are free to or if it's our government, it's that we, "sin" at all.

Right. Our intelligence agencies and Osama himself has stated that it's our foreign policies which get them mad, but I lack intelligence because I don't buy the simplistic drivel of neocon fucktards. I'll take that as a compliment.

Funny, I'm not very scared of the government.

Good for you. I question them whenever they say "don't worry, we'll take care of you", which in today's world is quite often.

Well what do you propose we do? Never counter attack? Let only the innocent people be tortured who don't deserve it but never the savage fucks who do? Sorry but what you want is just plain illogical.

Absoutely not. Whatever you're reading from my posts is getting mixed with what my argument is. Either I'm doing a bad job or explaining or you're doing a bad job of reading. I'm not saying we shouldn't go in and kick some ass, I'm saying let's be SMART about this and make sure we're going after the right targets, and not looking like idiots making stupid statements.

Let's go after Osama. Let's fuck him and his crew up.

But Iraq was a mistake.
Waterboarding and whatever else we were doing were mistakes. The torture itself was probably fairly ineffective as well. If you get tortured, there comes a point where you'll tell your interrogators whatever they want to hear, whether it's truth or not. Plus, with Al-Qaeda working in cells I'm not sure how much info they could have gained anyways.

No it isn't, ferrous cranus. Punishing someone who deserves to be punished is not and never will be the same as doing it to someone who doesn't.

Cute. Let's be clear here. There's a difference between justice, which is punishment for one's crimes, and torture, which is not. I'm arguing that torture is torture, whether or not the fucker "deserves" it, because torture is outside the judiciary system.

Yeah, you do know that's a crock of shit right? Just because someone invented some lame stock quote like that is not a sufficient reason to call retaliation a bad thing. Find your own argument instead of copy-pasting something that's been said billions of times by other people.

retaliation is not a bad thing. REVENGE is. Learn the difference you thick headed sheep.

Which isn't a flaacy when it's not being used as part of the argument, which it was not.

So you were just being a douche-bag. Very well.

In this case you low IQ is quite relevant to the situation because it is making you say things that are erroneous on quite a few levels.

I've said little if anything that's erroneous, but please do show me the error of my ways Oh mighty internets King.

So Ad Hominem considerations are important. You can't give enemy combatants trials, what are our soldiers supposed to do? Testify that they captured the man holding a gun in a hail of gunfire only to have a lawyer spin the fuck out of that and have him walk free? No I think not.

If necessary, YES. You lose allies otherwise. Sucks, but when you're claiming moral superiority (which we are) then you've got to stick to the rules, even if they favor the enemy.

Right but they aren't conventional enemy combatants. They didn't obey the standard rules of war, and as such they don't get the same rights as those that do.

Doesn't matter if they are or aren't, my argument is we need to treat them as POWs regardless, because we're making claims of moral superiority. Had we gone in saying how bad ass we were, I'd have no objections to any of this, but when we went in claiming sainthood we absolutely HAVE to live up to our words.

---

At 12/10/07 11:48 AM, Proteas wrote:

Still, the right to a fair trial is a human right.

We're giving them trials as time goes on, rendering this a moot point of discussion.

Well, then every country is. Let's just believe God exists, that way everyone gets a fair trial sooner or later.

Smart in just the same way as using hydrocyanic acid to kill jews.

Godwin's Law.

You got me.

Same thing when the US was found guilty of mining civilian docks in Nicaragua, they said that it was just a biased jury and refused to accept the decree.

Considering the fact that the World Court is nothing more than a judicial arm of the United Nations, it's not exactly a big stretch of the imagination to think that it wouldn't be a biased court to begin with.

Biased for the United Nations, yes. In the same way that the US court is biased for the US so therefore no "enemy combatant" will get a fair trial there.

At 12/10/07 11:19 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: Saddam held elections

Elections in which he ran unopposed, and won 100% through and through. Very democratic and commendable of the man.

My point wasn't that Iraq was a democracy, it wasn't. My point was that just having elections doesn't make you a democracy automatically, that some other basic rights are needed for an election to do any good.

---

At 12/10/07 03:01 PM, JerkClock wrote: There's no "symbolic" meaning, democracy means rule by the people, it says nothing about civil or economic rights, not a single, fucking thing.

If you are gonna keep it literal, it means "the people's rule", not "rule by the people". If you are gonna be literal, only direct democracy is democracy, and every single individual would get the right to vote.

Be careful when you fight monsters, lest you become one yourself....

When someone gets what they deserve, I could give a fuck less when some idiot on the internet is going to say I am or am not, I know damn well they're getting what they deserve and that's all that matters.

How do you know they deserve it if they get it before facing trial?

Not all the people in Gitmo are criminals. We just recently released 4 of them after holding them for 5 years without trial or charge.

Doesn't mean they weren't criminals, in fact, we have no idea why they were even released.

It's like killing someone and saying "You don't know that he wasn't gonna hurt me! It's self-defence!"
If you're gonna have the attitude of "guilty unless otherwise proven (and don't think you're gonna get a chance to prove it!)", then you could as well put whoever you want in prison.

We can't just let people attack us on our soil simply because others will see it as a reason to take their place. If more rise up, they can be killed too, until there's nothing left if we have to. We don't need to sit here and let them attack whenever they please.

So it's more important to kill the ones you don't like than to protect the ones you like?

And the problem isn't one between POWs and US citizens, it's one between their rights as POWs or no rights at all.

Right but they aren't conventional enemy combatants. They didn't obey the standard rules of war, and as such they don't get the same rights as those that do.

But they should always get the HUMAN RIGHTS.
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/udhr.html
These rights should be NON-NEGOTIABLE. Everyone have them automatically by being a Homo Sapiens. They shouldn't be denied anybody, yet they are.

---

At 12/10/07 03:43 PM, Imperator wrote:
Do we even know why they were captured in the first place? (honest question, out of curiosity).

We know they were captured during the war on afgahnastan for being Al Qeada operatives, but that's it.

According to the CIA Clinton had something like 10 chances to assassinate the fucker and blew them all. I have no problem putting people in their place. I have a problem with invading random countries for apparently little thought or reasoning (read, Iraq).

I'm not advocating the war in Iraq nor am I saying Clinton shouldn't have seized on those opportunities, so I don'tsee your point.

Right. Our intelligence agencies and Osama himself has stated that it's our foreign policies which get them mad,

No it's the presence of American non-muslims in Saudi Arabia and was only a peice of it, not the whole thing.

simplistic drivel

This unsubstantiated presupposition is erroneous.

neocon fucktards.

This unsubstantiated invective is erroneous.

Good for you. I question them whenever they say "don't worry, we'll take care of you", which in today's world is quite often.

I quite often express dissent for them but have yet to be drug off for it so I dunno, I feel pretty safe.

I'm doing a bad job or explaining

You must be.

I'm not saying we shouldn't go in and kick some ass, I'm saying let's be SMART about this and make sure we're going after the right targets, and not looking like idiots making stupid statements.

The taliban were the right targets, as were Al Qeada, I dunno what more you want.

Let's go after Osama. Let's fuck him and his crew up.

We did go after him in Afgahnastahn, didn't we?

But Iraq was a mistake.

I'm not advocating Iraq.

Waterboarding and whatever else we were doing were mistakes.

No they weren't. Those sick fucks deserve to be tortured.

The torture itself was probably fairly ineffective as well. If you get tortured, there comes a point where you'll tell your interrogators whatever they want to hear, whether it's truth or not.

So? Why not do it just to punish them?

Cute. Let's be clear here. There's a difference between justice, which is punishment for one's crimes, and torture, which is not.

Playing semantics with the word justice does not change the fact that torture is just another way to punish someone. And let's face it, the definition of "punishment for one's crimes" does not outrule torture as said punishment.

I'm arguing that torture is torture, whether or not the fucker "deserves" it, because torture is outside the judiciary system.

So why not change that?

retaliation is not a bad thing. REVENGE is.

Says who? What's bad about payback?

If necessary, YES. You lose allies otherwise.

We have lost zero allies over this, you fail. No doing such a thing can lead to enemy combatants being released and attacking our soldiers again, sorry but that's not going to work.

Sucks, but when you're claiming moral superiority (which we are) then you've got to stick to the rules, even if they favor the enemy.

Then stop claiming moral superiority and just say that we don't like being attacked unprovoked.

Doesn't matter if they are or aren't,

Actually yes it does, the rules of combat have to mean something and it's basically the only incentive enemy combatants have to obey them. Because what else are you going to do to enforce those rules? Kill them? Oh wait.......................

---

At 12/10/07 04:03 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:
If you are gonna keep it literal, it means "the people's rule", not "rule by the people". If you are gonna be literal, only direct democracy is democracy, and every single individual would get the right to vote.

Which still means it has nothing to do with civil or economic rights, which was my point. You missed said point, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.

How do you know they deserve it if they get it before facing trial?

If they were found to be in Al Qeada and captured as such they were trying to kill our soldiers who witnessed being shot at by them etc. Then we certainly don't need to release them. Only our soldiers can truly know, yes, but calling for trials isn't going to make things any better. It'll just allow lawyers to get real Al Qeada operatives free, I'm not going to want to live with the possibility of being by released Al Qeada killed because some idiots are too stubborn to accept that maybe our soldiers know the enemy that's shooting at them.

It's like killing someone and saying "You don't know that he wasn't gonna hurt me! It's self-defence!"

No that's just your low IQ speaking. What I was saying is we, not being the captures or releasers have little to no info on the subject. What you are saying is that noting such is justifying killing people for no reason and taking a "guilty until proven innocent" stance which is idiotic at best. You really shouldn't talk out of your ass like that.

So it's more important to kill the ones you don't like than to protect the ones you like?

Where the fuck did I say that? Where? I did not. I said we retaliate against those who do attack us, I said nothing about importance of killing over protecting.

But they should always get the HUMAN RIGHTS.
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/udhr.html
These rights should be NON-NEGOTIABLE. Everyone have them automatically by being a Homo Sapiens. They shouldn't be denied anybody, yet they are.

That's a non-sequitur. I could define the right to be shot in the head as a "human right" and use that to say that every "homo-sapien" should be shot in the head, it won't make it so.

That is what you are doing here, playing semantics with the word "human" and arguing anything defined as "human" rights should be applied to all "humans" without an actual reason.

---

They shouldn't get POW status. POWs actually have a lot of really nice privileges that are given to them in exchange for their ethical conduct in warfare.

However, in cases where there is doubt as to whether a person is really an unlawful combatant (i.e. in cases where a person is seized outside of actual combat) they are supposed to be treated as POWs until it has been determined otherwise by a competent tribunal. The same holds true if there is doubt as to whether the combatant is classified as a POW (e.g. Taliban forces may qualify as POWs due to being the official armed forces of Afghanistan)

However, certain international treaties, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN Convention Against Torture, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, etc. guarantee everyone a certain minimum standard of rights which cannot be removed regardless of their legal status.

The Geneva Convention is not the be-all end-all of international law.

---

At 12/10/07 05:25 PM, JerkClock wrote:

At 12/10/07 04:03 PM, Sajberhippien wrote: But they should always get the HUMAN RIGHTS.
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/udhr.html
These rights should be NON-NEGOTIABLE. Everyone have them automatically by being a Homo Sapiens. They shouldn't be denied anybody, yet they are.

That's a non-sequitur. I could define the right to be shot in the head as a "human right" and use that to say that every "homo-sapien" should be shot in the head, it won't make it so.

That is what you are doing here, playing semantics with the word "human" and arguing anything defined as "human" rights should be applied to all "humans" without an actual reason.

The UDHR is not an arbitrary game of semantics. Sure you could define the right to be shot in the head as a "human right" but that wouldn't make it a ratified international law of a body to which the US is a party.

What he's doing is citing an international treaty on human rights that is a part of international law, not playing semantics and applying things without actual reasons. And tell me, if "human rights" don't apply to "humans," then who do they apply to? The UDHR is very unambiguous, and uses terms like "All human beings," "Everyone," and "No one" at the beginning of every article, with the exception of Article 30, which states:

"Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

I'm not sure how else you can interpret this.

---

At 12/10/07 05:44 PM, Elfer wrote:

The UDHR is not an arbitrary game of semantics. Sure you could define the right to be shot in the head as a "human right" but that wouldn't make it a ratified international law of a body to which the US is a party.

Right, I didn't say it was, just saying that his argument, as presented, was him playing semantics, which it was.

What he's doing is citing an international treaty on human rights that is a part of international law, not playing semantics and applying things without actual reasons. And tell me, if "human rights" don't apply to "humans," then who do they apply to? The UDHR is very unambiguous, and uses terms like "All human beings," "Everyone," and "No one" at the beginning of every article, with the exception of Article 30, which states:

Right, but at the same time why should we obey international treaties and apply them to people who don't follow them. Sure it clearly defines it's terminology, but what's our incentive. Is Mr.International nation going to come down on us if we don't? It's not like other countries are goint to declare war on us either, especially considering that no country obeys international law perfectly.

I'm not sure how else you can interpret this.

Maybe as something we should just ignore and form our own policies on.

---

At 12/9/07 06:27 PM, Imperator wrote: We're fighting a moral war...

We don't have to respect the rights of the enemy if they do not respect the rights of us. In fact, we don't do that because it is utterly asinine. Back in WWII we would kill virtually any member of the SS that we caught, because the SS was the German entity most notorious for not following the generally respected tradition of not killing prisoners of war. I believe the US is still considered "morally superior" to the Nazis.

If we keep these camps open, the world will still think we are more civilized than the terrorists, because we are.

---

At 12/10/07 06:17 PM, Christopherr wrote: stuff

Exactly, that shit is asinine, not to mention illogical hogwash.

---

So what you're saying is, there's no reason for anybody to follow any regulations governing human rights, so long as they think they can get away with it? You should only do the right thing when it's convenient for you, and fuck everyone else?

That's a pretty bad stance to take on international relations, especially in a case like this where there are still cases where it's doubtful as to whether or not the person is actually an enemy combatant.

---

At 12/10/07 06:19 PM, JerkClock wrote: Exactly, that shit is asinine, not to mention illogical hogwash.

I cannot ascertain whether you are agreeing or disagreeing.

---

At 12/10/07 06:40 PM, Christopherr wrote:

At 12/10/07 06:19 PM, JerkClock wrote: Exactly, that shit is asinine, not to mention illogical hogwash.

I cannot ascertain whether you are agreeing or disagreeing.

Oh, never mind. I read your posts and know the answer to that question now.

---

At 12/10/07 06:38 PM, Elfer wrote: So what you're saying is, there's no reason for anybody to follow any regulations governing human rights,

No I'm saying there's no reason to obey international law, especially the kind that stupidly says we shouldn't torture sadistc fucks who torture the innocent.

---

At 12/10/07 07:09 PM, JerkClock wrote:

At 12/10/07 06:38 PM, Elfer wrote: So what you're saying is, there's no reason for anybody to follow any regulations governing human rights,

No I'm saying there's no reason to obey international law, especially the kind that stupidly says we shouldn't torture sadistc fucks who torture the innocent.

So you're saying that anyone who has been captured by US forces is definitely guilty of torture, and that torture is somehow a justifiable form of punishment?

---

At 12/10/07 08:14 PM, Elfer wrote: So you're saying that anyone who has been captured by US forces is definitely guilty of torture, and that torture is somehow a justifiable form of punishment?

He means that it's a risk we have to take. It would be better than having a few hundred extra terrorists frolicking around. And what kind of torture do you mean? Last I checked, water boarding wasn't on the list of "cruel and unusual punishment."

Maybe we could put the suspected terrorists in time-out until they fess up.

---

At 12/10/07 08:37 PM, Christopherr wrote: And what kind of torture do you mean? Last I checked, water boarding wasn't on the list of "cruel and unusual punishment."

Yeah, the list that's made by the people using it.

But that's not the point. He unambiguously stated that we should be using torture as a punishment.

---

At 12/10/07 05:09 PM, JerkClock wrote: I'm not advocating the war in Iraq nor am I saying Clinton shouldn't have seized on those opportunities, so I don'tsee your point.

My point was I'm not totally against action, payback, or whatever else you're talking about. My point is I'm not a pacifist, which seemed to be what was gradually being insinuated.

No it's the presence of American non-muslims in Saudi Arabia and was only a peice of it, not the whole thing.

Yeah, and the second (of three) was our support of Israel. This Bin Laden "just hates freedom" position is bull. Because of all the democratic nations in the world, very few have been hit. In fact, Al-Qaeda has only hit specific countries, like the US and UK.

If you really want me to buy the "hates freedom" line, Canada, Germany and France need to be bombed tomorrow.

The taliban were the right targets, as were Al Qeada, I dunno what more you want.

How bout.....we FINISH THE JOB!? Everything I've heard says he's probably in Pakistan. How bout we go into Pakistan and GET the motherfucker? Instead of bullshitting around with Iraq, Iran, and other countries?

We did go after him in Afgahnastahn, didn't we?

Did we just give up after that? Looks like it, cause he's still at large.

No they weren't. Those sick fucks deserve to be tortured.

Well that's your opinion.

So? Why not do it just to punish them?

Because it's TORTURE. This isn't 1157. It's 2007, I thought we were supposed to be more civilized?

Playing semantics with the word justice does not change the fact that torture is just another way to punish someone. And let's face it, the definition of "punishment for one's crimes" does not outrule torture as said punishment.

Torture is not a means of punishment. It's a means of inhumane treatment. The fact that you can't grasp that torture=bad is mind boggling.

So why not change that?

Sure why not? Let's allow electric shock to the balls, the Rack, and all the other little nasties of yore while we're at it.

We have lost zero allies over this, you fail. No doing such a thing can lead to enemy combatants being released and attacking our soldiers again, sorry but that's not going to work.

I'm talking more towards our actions since Afghanistan.

We've lost more world credibility with these problems. Canada, Germany, and France did not follow us into Iraq. The region distrusts Americans because of things like Abu Ghraib and Gitmo.

Then stop claiming moral superiority and just say that we don't like being attacked unprovoked.

I'm not the one making speeches about Axis of Evil, how vile Saddam was, how Iran don't have civil liberties, and how Osama hates freedom.

If I was in charge, believe me, I wouldn't be making this a moral war.

---

At 12/10/07 09:57 PM, Imperator wrote:

If you really want me to buy the "hates freedom" line, Canada, Germany and France need to be bombed tomorrow.

America is "The Great Satan" all the rest are just our little minions, they are inconsequential as long as the U.S. is around.

How bout.....we FINISH THE JOB!? Everything I've heard says he's probably in Pakistan. How bout we go into Pakistan and GET the motherfucker? Instead of bullshitting around with Iraq, Iran, and other countries?

Give me a break, if we invaded Pakistan you and every other Lib would be screaming bloody murder.

Did we just give up after that? Looks like it, cause he's still at large.

You don't think the U.S. isn't currently looking for him high and low?

.

Torture is not a means of punishment. It's a means of inhumane treatment. The fact that you can't grasp that torture=bad is mind boggling.

OK, but is someone is a known terrorist affiliate, torturing him could very well save many innocent lives, don't you see were that argument is coming from?

---

At 12/10/07 08:42 PM, Elfer wrote: Yeah, the list that's made by the people using it.

I can't think of better ways to obtain information, so we have to torture them somehow. At least we aren't breaking knuckles to do it.

But that's not the point. He unambiguously stated that we should be using torture as a punishment.

Oh, sorry for getting on your case then, haha. Jail is our method of punishment here. We torture to get information.

---

At 12/10/07 10:05 PM, therealsylvos wrote: You don't think the U.S. isn't currently looking for him high and low?

No.

OK, but is someone is a known terrorist affiliate, torturing him could very well save many innocent lives, don't you see were that argument is coming from?

I see exactly where the argument comes from, and I don't agree with it. I do not believe the ends justify the means.

---

At 12/10/07 10:44 PM, Imperator wrote:

I see exactly where the argument comes from, and I don't agree with it. I do not believe the ends justify the means.

o.k. Hypothetical example.
Lets say we have OBL. We know he's got an atom bomb somewhere NYC and it will go off in 3 hours if we don't find it and disable it. Are you really going to tell me, that you would be opposed to torturing him for the location of the Bomb?