Interesting Article

[Jaylen Brit 0]

I dont think the dislike of torture (or the refusal to use it) precludes the desire to fight for what you believe in, or to defend yourself.

Also with torture - just as in life - people LIE - they may tell you what you want to hear - or they may deliberately mislead you so you 'defend' the wrong target. This is what a fanatic is most likely to do.

Tell you they are going to attack, say, Hollywood cos it will bring maximum publicity - to wrong foot the secret service and try to ensure other targets, perhaps ones as unlikely as the Twin Towers were, to remain undefended or to divert attention and possibly relax security.

Fanatics also do not care if they die - be it from torture or a bomb - they WILL give up their lives for their cause without pause and in defiance; even if you torture them to death.

Edited May 3, 2006 by Jaylen Brit

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Then you can go to your death knowing you had the moral high ground. If that is the way you want to go then that is your right. I intend to fight to the bitter end with whatever means given to me.

Why should my refusal to condone torture lead me to my death?

In any case, precisely how do you intend to fight to the bitter end?

Sorry man, I just don't think you understand what we are up against. This isn't about a few IED's in Iraq. This isn't about another 9/11. These people intend to destroy our way of life. They will use any immoral way they can to get us. They will use nukes, chemicals and biological weapons on us in our own country. There is enough of that stuff floating around it is only a matter of time before they get their hands on it. I promise you they will use it on the biggest target they can when they get it. If making some terrorist have a bad day to prevent that then I am willing to live with that.

As I said before, it seems to me you are basing a lot of this simply on blind fear. I fully understand that there are many dispareate terrorist groups out there who have grievances against developed western nations, and wish to inflict significant harm upon them and their citizens.

This is not new. 9/11 didn't suddenly bring all this into existence - it's always been there, as has the danger.

Why is it we now need to change our values? Many countries dealt with the threat of terrorism without having to resort to that.

[GaryC 7]

[Why is it we now need to change our values? Many countries dealt with the threat of terrorism without having to resort to that.

Name one that has successfully dealt with it without getting tough on suspects.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

[Why is it we now need to change our values? Many countries dealt with the threat of terrorism without having to resort to that.

Name one that has successfully dealt with it without getting tough on suspects.

What about the Northern Ireland troubles? A peace-deal (albeit tentative) has been brokered there and there has not been a major IRA bombing or terrorist incident in England or N. Ireland since 2000. Noone was tortured there...

What brought that about? Diplomacy.

In any case, you don't eliminate terrorism, you manage it. You can't remove the ideological reasoning from someone's head that will make them want to kill you - that's like trying to fight the sea. Something we are beginning to learn in Iraq.

Edited May 3, 2006 by Fishdude

[GaryC 7]

[Why is it we now need to change our values? Many countries dealt with the threat of terrorism without having to resort to that.

Name one that has successfully dealt with it without getting tough on suspects.

What about the Northern Ireland troubles? A peace-deal (albeit tentative) has been brokered there and there has not been a major IRA bombing or terrorist incident in England or N. Ireland since 2000. Noone was tortured there...

What brought that about? Diplomacy.

In any case, you don't eliminate terrorism, you manage it. You can't remove the ideological reasoning from someone's head that will make them want to kill you - that's like trying to fight the sea. Something we are beginning to learn in Iraq.

Hmmm.... If you think that there was no tough stuff by either side there then I have some swamp land for sale. Besides, the IRA and England are both people that can be reasoned with. You cannot negotiate or "manage" the islamic extremists. They cannot be dealt with other than killing them.

[Ban Hammer 13,332]

[Why is it we now need to change our values? Many countries dealt with the threat of terrorism without having to resort to that.

Name one that has successfully dealt with it without getting tough on suspects.

only thing these nutcases understand is harsh brutality. to mollycoddle them and surround them with laws and protections when they are captured, the same laws and respect for life that these terrorists ignore while killing not just men but women and children, is naive.

for those who don't understand the difference:

a terrorist targets and kills without discrimination. they wear no uniforms, are not identifiable from the general populace and are not employed by the state.

those in the uniform of our country are required to follow the law of land warfare or face prosecution. in short, they are accountable for their actions.

now you can call me and my ideas "ghengis khan" for all i care. the harsh reality of terrorism won't be solved by being kinder and gentler. they want you dead.

now let's get the hell out of iraq and watch how quick the iraqi's squash these bombers. and no, they won't give a hoot about the terrorist's so called "rights" other than the right to a bullet to the skull.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

[Why is it we now need to change our values? Many countries dealt with the threat of terrorism without having to resort to that.

Name one that has successfully dealt with it without getting tough on suspects.

What about the Northern Ireland troubles? A peace-deal (albeit tentative) has been brokered there and there has not been a major IRA bombing or terrorist incident in England or N. Ireland since 2000. Noone was tortured there...

What brought that about? Diplomacy.

In any case, you don't eliminate terrorism, you manage it. You can't remove the ideological reasoning from someone's head that will make them want to kill you - that's like trying to fight the sea. Something we are beginning to learn in Iraq.

Hmmm.... If you think that there was no tough stuff by either side there then I have some swamp land for sale. Besides, the IRA and England are both people that can be reasoned with. You cannot negotiate or "manage" the islamic extremists. They cannot be dealt with other than killing them.

With due respect, that's a big assumption. Do you think the IRA and other groups involved in the troubles were any less committed to their cause than the current wave of islamic militants. This was a conflict that went on for over 30 years.

only thing these nutcases understand is harsh brutality. to mollycoddle them and surround them with laws and protections when they are captured, the same laws and respect for life that these terrorists ignore while killing not just men but women and children, is naive.

for those who don't understand the difference:

a terrorist targets and kills without discrimination. they wear no uniforms, are not identifiable from the general populace and are not employed by the state.

those in the uniform of our country are required to follow the law of land warfare or face prosecution. in short, they are accountable for their actions.

now you can call me and my ideas "ghengis khan" for all i care. the harsh reality of terrorism won't be solved by being kinder and gentler. they want you dead.

now let's get the hell out of iraq and watch how quick the iraqi's squash these bombers. and no, they won't give a hoot about the terrorist's so called "rights" other than the right to a bullet to the skull.

Indeed. I haven't disputed any of that - The fact is however that while terrorists kill indiscriminately, wear no uniforms and are not employed by (a) state is beside the point. The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights does not require them to. Its a general philosophy that pretty much every western country has enshrined into law.

Aside from the moral aspects of it, as it stands right here, right now - the practice of torture is ILLEGAL.

[Ban Hammer 13,332]

[Why is it we now need to change our values? Many countries dealt with the threat of terrorism without having to resort to that.

Name one that has successfully dealt with it without getting tough on suspects.

What about the Northern Ireland troubles? A peace-deal (albeit tentative) has been brokered there and there has not been a major IRA bombing or terrorist incident in England or N. Ireland since 2000. Noone was tortured there...

What brought that about? Diplomacy.

In any case, you don't eliminate terrorism, you manage it. You can't remove the ideological reasoning from someone's head that will make them want to kill you - that's like trying to fight the sea. Something we are beginning to learn in Iraq.

Hmmm.... If you think that there was no tough stuff by either side there then I have some swamp land for sale. Besides, the IRA and England are both people that can be reasoned with. You cannot negotiate or "manage" the islamic extremists. They cannot be dealt with other than killing them.

With due respect, that's a big assumption. Do you think the IRA and other groups involved in the troubles were any less committed to their cause than the current wave of islamic militants. This was a conflict that went on for over 30 years.

only thing these nutcases understand is harsh brutality. to mollycoddle them and surround them with laws and protections when they are captured, the same laws and respect for life that these terrorists ignore while killing not just men but women and children, is naive.

for those who don't understand the difference:

a terrorist targets and kills without discrimination. they wear no uniforms, are not identifiable from the general populace and are not employed by the state.

those in the uniform of our country are required to follow the law of land warfare or face prosecution. in short, they are accountable for their actions.

now you can call me and my ideas "ghengis khan" for all i care. the harsh reality of terrorism won't be solved by being kinder and gentler. they want you dead.

now let's get the hell out of iraq and watch how quick the iraqi's squash these bombers. and no, they won't give a hoot about the terrorist's so called "rights" other than the right to a bullet to the skull.

Indeed. I haven't disputed any of that - The fact is however that while terrorists kill indiscriminately, wear no uniforms and are not employed by (a) state is beside the point. The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights does not require them to. Its a general philosophy that pretty much every western country has enshrined into law.

Aside from the moral aspects of it, as it stands right here, right now - the practice of torture is ILLEGAL.

wrong again. check out who is covered under the geneva convention. you'll find that terrorists have no legal standing.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

[Why is it we now need to change our values? Many countries dealt with the threat of terrorism without having to resort to that.

Name one that has successfully dealt with it without getting tough on suspects.

What about the Northern Ireland troubles? A peace-deal (albeit tentative) has been brokered there and there has not been a major IRA bombing or terrorist incident in England or N. Ireland since 2000. Noone was tortured there...

What brought that about? Diplomacy.

In any case, you don't eliminate terrorism, you manage it. You can't remove the ideological reasoning from someone's head that will make them want to kill you - that's like trying to fight the sea. Something we are beginning to learn in Iraq.

Hmmm.... If you think that there was no tough stuff by either side there then I have some swamp land for sale. Besides, the IRA and England are both people that can be reasoned with. You cannot negotiate or "manage" the islamic extremists. They cannot be dealt with other than killing them.

With due respect, that's a big assumption. Do you think the IRA and other groups involved in the troubles were any less committed to their cause than the current wave of islamic militants. This was a conflict that went on for over 30 years.

only thing these nutcases understand is harsh brutality. to mollycoddle them and surround them with laws and protections when they are captured, the same laws and respect for life that these terrorists ignore while killing not just men but women and children, is naive.

for those who don't understand the difference:

a terrorist targets and kills without discrimination. they wear no uniforms, are not identifiable from the general populace and are not employed by the state.

those in the uniform of our country are required to follow the law of land warfare or face prosecution. in short, they are accountable for their actions.

now you can call me and my ideas "ghengis khan" for all i care. the harsh reality of terrorism won't be solved by being kinder and gentler. they want you dead.

now let's get the hell out of iraq and watch how quick the iraqi's squash these bombers. and no, they won't give a hoot about the terrorist's so called "rights" other than the right to a bullet to the skull.

Indeed. I haven't disputed any of that - The fact is however that while terrorists kill indiscriminately, wear no uniforms and are not employed by (a) state is beside the point. The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights does not require them to. Its a general philosophy that pretty much every western country has enshrined into law.

Aside from the moral aspects of it, as it stands right here, right now - the practice of torture is ILLEGAL.

wrong again. check out who is covered under the geneva convention. you'll find that terrorists have no legal standing.

Using the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law...

Because the same people who want to put an end to trial lawyers twisting legalities to ensure a positive outcome in consumer law suits, are not above doing the same thing with international law.

Show me the article of law that explicitly states that torture is legal. Not looking for loopholes, or gaps in the law here - specific legislation.

Edited May 3, 2006 by Fishdude

[Ban Hammer 13,332]

Using the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law...

Because the same people who want to put an end to trial lawyers twisting legalities to ensure a positive outcome in consumer law suits, are not above doing the same thing with international law.

when it comes down to:

1 - the terrorist killing his victims with indiscriminate shooting and bombing.

2 - the potential to save lives in the usa

3 - someone screaming about the terrorists so called rights.

i have no qualms about some terrorist being squashed like a bug. if you're not man enough to do such, then step aside and let your betters handle the task.

[iceyspots 0]

Hmm... Terrorist blows up building = Kills Thousands....... We torture terrorist = Kills one......

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Hmm... Terrorist blows up building = Kills Thousands....... We torture terrorist = Kills one......

Hence we should repeal the rights rights that previous generations fought for.

As I said before the Universal Declaration of human rights is an ideal that has been enshrined into law in almost every western country. As such the use of torture is almost always illegal.

[iceyspots 0]

BTW - Anyone who engages in acts of terrorism are, IMHO, not human!! So.. no human rights applies to them!

[tom&tata 2]

[Why is it we now need to change our values? Many countries dealt with the threat of terrorism without having to resort to that.

Name one that has successfully dealt with it without getting tough on suspects.

What about the Northern Ireland troubles? A peace-deal (albeit tentative) has been brokered there and there has not been a major IRA bombing or terrorist incident in England or N. Ireland since 2000. Noone was tortured there...

What brought that about? Diplomacy.

In any case, you don't eliminate terrorism, you manage it. You can't remove the ideological reasoning from someone's head that will make them want to kill you - that's like trying to fight the sea. Something we are beginning to learn in Iraq.

Hmmm.... If you think that there was no tough stuff by either side there then I have some swamp land for sale. Besides, the IRA and England are both people that can be reasoned with. You cannot negotiate or "manage" the islamic extremists. They cannot be dealt with other than killing them.

With due respect, that's a big assumption. Do you think the IRA and other groups involved in the troubles were any less committed to their cause than the current wave of islamic militants. This was a conflict that went on for over 30 years.

only thing these nutcases understand is harsh brutality. to mollycoddle them and surround them with laws and protections when they are captured, the same laws and respect for life that these terrorists ignore while killing not just men but women and children, is naive.

for those who don't understand the difference:

a terrorist targets and kills without discrimination. they wear no uniforms, are not identifiable from the general populace and are not employed by the state.

those in the uniform of our country are required to follow the law of land warfare or face prosecution. in short, they are accountable for their actions.

now you can call me and my ideas "ghengis khan" for all i care. the harsh reality of terrorism won't be solved by being kinder and gentler. they want you dead.

now let's get the hell out of iraq and watch how quick the iraqi's squash these bombers. and no, they won't give a hoot about the terrorist's so called "rights" other than the right to a bullet to the skull.

Indeed. I haven't disputed any of that - The fact is however that while terrorists kill indiscriminately, wear no uniforms and are not employed by (a) state is beside the point. The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights does not require them to. Its a general philosophy that pretty much every western country has enshrined into law.

Aside from the moral aspects of it, as it stands right here, right now - the practice of torture is ILLEGAL.

wrong again. check out who is covered under the geneva convention. you'll find that terrorists have no legal standing.

Unlawful combatants ? Are they no human ? Because if they are, they share the same basic rights:

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

[Ban Hammer 13,332]

Hmm... Terrorist blows up building = Kills Thousands....... We torture terrorist = Kills one......

yes, bad us. you can't reason with a terrorist. best to put the mad dog down when one has the chance.