Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 153

Thread: Terrorist scum: Cry me a river

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    §omewhere ¯§afe®©¯™
    Posts
    11,171

    Terrorist scum: Cry me a river

    You shouldn't have become a terrorist :bigcry:
    Maybe Nuu can help him :bigcry:

    [QUOTE]a known insurgent who threw grenades at iraqi police killed 3, and suspected of attacking the coalition is detained by the iraqi army, obviously distraught our translator tells us he begging to be in custody of the americans and not the iraqis."
    [/QUOTE]



    [url]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ede_1181714594[/url]

  2. #2
    [QUOTE=bill parcells]You shouldn't have become a terrorist :bigcry:
    Maybe Nuu can help him :bigcry:





    [url]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ede_1181714594[/url][/QUOTE]


    What is your point?

    That the Iraqi Army we are handing the country over to are a bunch of shiite goons every bit as brutal as the terrorists we are fighting elsewhere? (The Saddam execution video where the executioners are praying to U.S. troop killer Moqtada Al-Sadr makes that pretty clear.)

    Are you happy that the Iraqi army we have trained and installed is as barbaric as the terrorists we are fighting?

    Do you think that's good?

  3. #3
    That's because he knows the worst he'll get is some panties on his head, and even then our army would be inquisitioned.

  4. #4
    [QUOTE=pauliec]That's because he knows the worst he'll get is some panties on his head, and even then our army would be inquisitioned.[/QUOTE]

    Yes, but what is the point of this post?

    George W. Bush has argued that the Iraqi government can be a shining example of a Democratic, just government in the Middle East. Our troops are dying every day to make this vision --which I see as a fantasy, at this point-- a reality.

    What this clip proves --like the Saddam execution footage before it-- is that the Iraqi government is a bunch of brutal savages who are no different than the folks we displaced there. It is the clearest sign of our failure there imaginable.

    And BP thinks it's something to boast about.

  5. #5
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=bill parcells]You shouldn't have become a terrorist :bigcry:
    Maybe Nuu can help him :bigcry:





    [url]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ede_1181714594[/url][/QUOTE]


    wanna bet he had a map and was pointing to GITMO saying.."I vant to go der....I vant to go der....please- in the name of Allah- send me to the "torture chambers" of GITMO"

  6. #6
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]wanna bet he had a map and was pointing to GITMO saying.."I vant to go der....I vant to go der....please- in the name of Allah- send me to the "torture chambers" of GITMO"[/QUOTE]

    I do not understand your logic.

    Anyone will grant --myself included-- that Al Qaeda and its ilk are more brutal than we are. I fail to see how that justifies inhumane treatment from us, even if it is less inhumane than those we are fighting.

    We're America. We're supposed to be better than Al Qaeda. It's not an achievement.

    What's more, the Iraqi government --which we have installed-- apparently is not any better than Al Qaeda. Since our plan is to hand the country over to these people, isn't that a problem?

  7. #7
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola]I do not understand your logic.

    Anyone will grant --myself included-- that Al Qaeda and its ilk are more brutal than we are. I fail to see how that justifies inhumane treatment from us, even if it is less inhumane than those we are fighting.

    We're America. We're supposed to be better than Al Qaeda. It's not an achievement.

    What's more, the Iraqi government --which we have installed-- apparently is not any better than Al Qaeda. Since our plan is to hand the country over to these people, isn't that a problem?[/QUOTE]


    please list the evidence you have of "inhumane" treatment at GITMO.....

  8. #8
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]please list the evidence you have of "inhumane" treatment at GITMO.....[/QUOTE]

    _________
    [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14936-2004Dec20.html[/url]

    FBI Agents Allege Abuse of Detainees at Guantanamo Bay

    ________

    [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/03/AR2007010301759_2.html[/url]

    Contractors Are Cited in Abuses at Guantanamo

    ___________

    [url]http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/08/guantanamo.abuse/[/url]
    FBI reports Guantanamo 'abuse'
    Alleged incidents include physical abuse, 'intense isolation'



    That's just Gitmo, of course. Doesn't touch on the much-worse conduct at Abu Ghraib and at the so-called "black sites."

  9. #9
    [url]http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?i...ctionid=3510203[/url]

  10. #10
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola]_________
    [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14936-2004Dec20.html[/url]

    FBI Agents Allege Abuse of Detainees at Guantanamo Bay

    ________

    [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/03/AR2007010301759_2.html[/url]

    Contractors Are Cited in Abuses at Guantanamo

    ___________

    [url]http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/08/guantanamo.abuse/[/url]
    FBI reports Guantanamo 'abuse'
    Alleged incidents include physical abuse, 'intense isolation'



    That's just Gitmo, of course. Doesn't touch on the much-worse conduct at Abu Ghraib and at the so-called "black sites."[/QUOTE]

    I'll ask again.....please provide evidence of inhumane at GITTMO....

    two of the three links you offer mention "abuse".....the other talks about "questionable treatment"....

    shackling somneone to the floor in a fetal position or isolation :eek: or growling dogs may be uncomfortable but it is ridiculous to call it "inhumane" never mind torture, which I didn't even ask for.......

  11. #11
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]I'll ask again.....please provide evidence of inhumane at GITTMO....

    two of the three links you offer mention "abuse".....the other talks about "questionable treatment"....

    shackling somneone to the floor in a fetal position may be uncomfortable but it is ridiculous to call it "inhumane" never mind torture, which I didn't even ask for.......[/QUOTE]

    You may not think forcing someone to lie in their own sh!t is inhumane, but I think it's unbecoming of my country.

  12. #12
    And here's more to be proud of:

    Report: 108 Died In U.S. Custody
    Prisoners Died While Being Held In Iraq, Afghanistan

    WASHINGTON, March 16, 2005

    (AP) At least 108 people have died in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan, most of them violently, according to government data provided to The Associated Press. Roughly a quarter of those deaths have been investigated as possible abuse by U.S. personnel.

    The figure, far higher than any previously disclosed, includes cases investigated by the Army, Navy, CIA and Justice Department. Some 65,000 prisoners have been taken during the U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, although most have been freed.

    The Pentagon has never provided comprehensive information on how many prisoners taken during the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have died, and the 108 figure is based on information supplied by Army, Navy and other government officials. It includes deaths attributed to natural causes.

    To human rights groups, the deaths form a clear pattern.

    "Despite the military's own reports of deaths and abuses of detainees in U.S. custody, it is astonishing that our government can still pretend that what is happening is the work of a few rogue soldiers," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "No one at the highest levels of our government has yet been held accountable for the torture and abuse, and that is unacceptable."

    To the Pentagon, each death is a distinct case, meriting an investigation but not attributable to any single faulty military policy. Pentagon officials point to a number of military investigations which found that no policy condoned abuse.

    Defense Department spokesman Lt. Col. John Skinner said the military has taken steps to reduce the chance of violent uprisings at its prisons and the use of excessive force by soldiers, and also has improved the health care available to prisoners.

    "The military has dramatically improved detention operations, everything from increased oversight and improved facilities to expanded training and the availability of state-of-the-art medical care," he said in a statement.

  13. #13
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Long Island & Section 337
    Posts
    4,859
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]I'll ask again.....please provide evidence of inhumane at GITTMO....

    two of the three links you offer mention "abuse".....the other talks about "questionable treatment"....

    shackling somneone to the floor in a fetal position or isolation :eek: or growling dogs may be uncomfortable but it is ridiculous to call it "inhumane" never mind torture, which I didn't even ask for.......[/QUOTE]
    Come on CTBNY, being forced to listen to loud rap music is imhumane (unless it was 80's Old School).

  14. #14
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola]And here's more to be proud of:

    Report: 108 Died In U.S. Custody
    Prisoners Died While Being Held In Iraq, Afghanistan

    WASHINGTON, March 16, 2005

    (AP) At least 108 people have died in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan, most of them violently, according to government data provided to The Associated Press. Roughly a quarter of those deaths have been investigated as possible abuse by U.S. personnel.

    The figure, far higher than any previously disclosed, includes cases investigated by the Army, Navy, CIA and Justice Department. Some 65,000 prisoners have been taken during the U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, although most have been freed.

    The Pentagon has never provided comprehensive information on how many prisoners taken during the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have died, and the 108 figure is based on information supplied by Army, Navy and other government officials. It includes deaths attributed to natural causes.

    To human rights groups, the deaths form a clear pattern.

    "Despite the military's own reports of deaths and abuses of detainees in U.S. custody, it is astonishing that our government can still pretend that what is happening is the work of a few rogue soldiers," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "No one at the highest levels of our government has yet been held accountable for the torture and abuse, and that is unacceptable."

    To the Pentagon, each death is a distinct case, meriting an investigation but not attributable to any single faulty military policy. Pentagon officials point to a number of military investigations which found that no policy condoned abuse.

    Defense Department spokesman Lt. Col. John Skinner said the military has taken steps to reduce the chance of violent uprisings at its prisons and the use of excessive force by soldiers, and also has improved the health care available to prisoners.

    "The military has dramatically improved detention operations, everything from increased oversight and improved facilities to expanded training and the availability of state-of-the-art medical care," he said in a statement.[/QUOTE]

    so let's see....

    of the 65K prisoners taken into custody in violent nations such as Iraq and Afgahnistan, .0016% died....no one knows how...there's no proof they died due to abuse at the hands of the US, except for the possible outcome of investigations on about 27 of them....yet the "blame America first crowd" automatically claims America is to blame and should be ashamed...


    rrriiggghhttttt.......

  15. #15
    And, of course, here is the non-moral problem with torturing detainees: It makes everything they tell you inadmissable in court.

    _______________________


    Tainted by Torture
    How evidence obtained through coercion is undermining the legal war on terrorism.
    By Phillip Carter | Slate
    Updated Friday, May 14, 2004, at 6:47 PM ET

    There are plenty of good reasons to avoid using torture in interrogations. It's an immoral and barbaric practice condemned by most Western nations and theological traditions, for starters. International human rights law and U.S. criminal law both outlaw it. And as if that's not enough, there is serious doubt as to whether torture even produces reliable intelligence, as Mark Bowden explains in the October 2003 issue of the Atlantic Monthly.

    Add this additional reason to the list: [B]Any information gained through torture will almost certainly be excluded from court in any criminal prosecution of the tortured defendant. And, to make matters worse for federal prosecutors, the use of torture to obtain statements may make those statements (and any evidence gathered as a result of those statements) inadmissible in the trials of other defendants as well. Thus, the net effect of torture is to undermine the entire federal law enforcement effort to put terrorists behind bars. [/B] With each alleged terrorist we torture, we most likely preclude the possibility of a criminal trial for him, and for any of the confederates he may incriminate.

    Thanks to a report in Wednesday's New York Times, we now know that the United States has intentionally used (with the sanction of the highest levels of government) torture tactics to pry open the mind of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, alleged to be one of al-Qaida's top masterminds. According to the Times, "C.I.A. interrogators used graduated levels of force, including a technique known as 'water boarding,' in which a prisoner is strapped down, forcibly pushed under water and made to believe he might drown." Gen. Peter Pace, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, described such tactics as a violation of the Geneva Conventions. And the FBI has instructed its agents to steer clear of such coercive interrogation methods, for fear that their involvement might compromise testimony in future criminal cases.

    So, setting aside for a moment all the moral, political, and practical problems of such tactics (staggering though these problems may be), as a purely legal matter, the use of torture during interrogation has so many negative consequences that it may ultimately allow some accused terrorists to win acquittals merely because it will lead to suppressed evidence of their factual guilt.

    Evidence (such as a confession) gathered as a result of torturing a person like Mohammed will be excluded at his trial, if he ever sees one. This is true both in federal courts, which operate under the Federal Rules of Evidence, and military courts, which operate under the Military Rules of Evidence. Both the Fifth Amendment's right against compulsory self-incrimination and the 14th Amendment's guarantee of due process preclude the use of a defendant's coerced statement against him in criminal court. In addition, any evidence gathered because of information learned through torture (sometimes called "derivative evidence") will likely also be excluded. Furthermore, the Supreme Court suggested in its landmark Fifth Amendment case, Oregon v. Elstad, that it might exclude evidence gathered after the use of any coercion, regardless of attempts by police and prosecutors to offset the coercion with measures like a Miranda warning. If Mohammed were prosecuted, and a court followed the line of reasoning set forth in Elstad, he might well see the charges against him evaporate entirely for lack of evidence.

    Right now, the Justice Department has no plans to criminally prosecute Mohammed or other top al-Qaida leaders (like Abu Zubaida) currently being held by the United States in shadowy detention facilities overseas. But federal prosecutors have filed charges against alleged al-Qaida member Zacarias Moussaoui for being part of the 9/11 conspiracy. And the Supreme Court is now considering whether trials of some sort are constitutionally required for other alleged terrorists. Problems with the Moussaoui case reflect the problem with evidence obtained through coerced confessions. In that case, it's not the government that seeks to bring in the tortured al-Qaida leaders' out-of-court statements—it's Moussaoui, the defendant. However, the result may be the same. Such out-of-court statements will likely be challenged as hearsay by whatever side isn't trying to bring them into court. And under the applicable hearsay exception, for declarations against interest [see Rule 804 (b)(3)], such statements are only admissible if they carry certain indicia of reliability. Given the questionable ability of torture to produce reliable information, this will be a hotly contested issue. It's not clear whether this evidence will ever be admitted to court.

    This torture of top al-Qaida leaders may also cause problems for the government were there to be a trial for the alleged "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla. The tip that led to Padilla's initial detention on a material witness warrant in May 2002 came from intensive CIA interrogations of Zubaida, a close associate of Osama Bin Laden. In December 2003, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ordered that Padilla be released from military custody and either charged in federal court or released. However, any prosecution of Padilla could be very problematic for the government, because the case for his guilt rests mostly (if not entirely) on secret interrogations of al-Qaida leaders, which now appear to have involved torture. If a criminal case is ever brought against Padilla, his lawyers are sure to challenge this crucial evidence on a number of grounds, including reliability and the fact that it was procured with torture in a way that "shocks the conscience."

    Interestingly, such problems would not have arisen had these suspects been hauled before a military tribunal at the outset. The Pentagon's procedural rules for tribunals allow evidence to be admitted if it "would have probative value to a reasonable person." These rules contain no provision for the exclusion of involuntary statements, and on their face, do not allow the presiding officer of such tribunals to rely on Supreme Court precedent or federal case law to decide issues of evidence. Presumably, these tribunals were designed to allow for the admission of evidence from dubious circumstances, including the "intensive questioning" of Mohammed and Zubaida. So, if the Pentagon moves forward with its plans to try al-Qaida members before these courts, it may be able to evade this problem altogether.

    However, even that won't solve the problem for the rest of the legal system, which only allows evidence obtained through constitutional means. By using torture to question the top terrorists it has in custody, the government has effectively sabotaged any future prosecutions of al-Qaida players—major and minor—that might depend on evidence gathered through those interrogations. It's plausible that skilled interrogation by the FBI, in accordance with American law, could have produced valuable evidence of these terrorists' guilt, which could have been used in court. But now that torture has been used, that may just be wishful hindsight.

    As a nation, we still haven't clearly decided whether it's better to prosecute terrorists or pound them with artillery. But by torturing some of al-Qaida's leaders, we have completely undermined any efforts to do the former and irreversibly committed ourselves to a martial plan of justice. In the long run, this may be counterproductive, and it will show that we have compromised such liberal, democratic ideals like adherence to the rule of law to counter terrorism. Torture and tribunals do not help America show that it believes in the rule of law. But if CIA officials continue to use tactics that will get evidence thrown out of federal court, there will increasingly be no other option.

  16. #16
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]so let's see....

    of the 65K prisoners taken into custody in violent nations such as Iraq and Afgahnistan, .0016% died....no one knows how...there's no proof they died due to abuse at the hands of the US, except for the possible outcome of investigations on about 27 of them....yet the "blame America first crowd" automatically claims America is to blame and should be ashamed...


    rrriiggghhttttt.......[/QUOTE]

    I'm not blaming America for anything. You asked me for examples of torture and I provided them.

    I have said all along that we treat people better than our enemies. I do not think we treat them as well as we should, however.

    Torturing people does not give reliable intelligence, and it makes whatever the person says useless in court. It's stupid.

    Throughout history we have used mind games and more subtle tactics to get useful intelligence out of people, in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.

    I see no reason we shouldn't continue to do that.

  17. #17
    Nuu you will never convince these guys...they are:

    Sheepublicans

    [IMG]http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u17/jetdawgg/sheeple.gif[/IMG]

  18. #18
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Long Island & Section 337
    Posts
    4,859
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg]Nuu you will never convince these guys...they are:

    Sheepublicans

    [IMG]http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u17/jetdawgg/sheeple.gif[/IMG][/QUOTE]
    ...says the open-minded Jetdawgg, who never saw a dailykos or crooksandliars story he didn't believe.

  19. #19
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola]And, of course, here is the non-moral problem with torturing detainees: It makes everything they tell you inadmissable in court.

    _______________________


    Tainted by Torture
    How evidence obtained through coercion is undermining the legal war on terrorism.
    By Phillip Carter | Slate
    Updated Friday, May 14, 2004, at 6:47 PM ET

    There are plenty of good reasons to avoid using torture in interrogations. It's an immoral and barbaric practice condemned by most Western nations and theological traditions, for starters. International human rights law and U.S. criminal law both outlaw it. And as if that's not enough, there is serious doubt as to whether torture even produces reliable intelligence, as Mark Bowden explains in the October 2003 issue of the Atlantic Monthly.

    Add this additional reason to the list: [B]Any information gained through torture will almost certainly be excluded from court in any criminal prosecution of the tortured defendant. And, to make matters worse for federal prosecutors, the use of torture to obtain statements may make those statements (and any evidence gathered as a result of those statements) inadmissible in the trials of other defendants as well. Thus, the net effect of torture is to undermine the entire federal law enforcement effort to put terrorists behind bars. [/B] With each alleged terrorist we torture, we most likely preclude the possibility of a criminal trial for him, and for any of the confederates he may incriminate.

    Thanks to a report in Wednesday's New York Times, we now know that the United States has intentionally used (with the sanction of the highest levels of government) torture tactics to pry open the mind of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, alleged to be one of al-Qaida's top masterminds. According to the Times, "C.I.A. interrogators used graduated levels of force, including a technique known as 'water boarding,' in which a prisoner is strapped down, forcibly pushed under water and made to believe he might drown." Gen. Peter Pace, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, described such tactics as a violation of the Geneva Conventions. And the FBI has instructed its agents to steer clear of such coercive interrogation methods, for fear that their involvement might compromise testimony in future criminal cases.

    So, setting aside for a moment all the moral, political, and practical problems of such tactics (staggering though these problems may be), as a purely legal matter, the use of torture during interrogation has so many negative consequences that it may ultimately allow some accused terrorists to win acquittals merely because it will lead to suppressed evidence of their factual guilt.

    Evidence (such as a confession) gathered as a result of torturing a person like Mohammed will be excluded at his trial, if he ever sees one. This is true both in federal courts, which operate under the Federal Rules of Evidence, and military courts, which operate under the Military Rules of Evidence. Both the Fifth Amendment's right against compulsory self-incrimination and the 14th Amendment's guarantee of due process preclude the use of a defendant's coerced statement against him in criminal court. In addition, any evidence gathered because of information learned through torture (sometimes called "derivative evidence") will likely also be excluded. Furthermore, the Supreme Court suggested in its landmark Fifth Amendment case, Oregon v. Elstad, that it might exclude evidence gathered after the use of any coercion, regardless of attempts by police and prosecutors to offset the coercion with measures like a Miranda warning. If Mohammed were prosecuted, and a court followed the line of reasoning set forth in Elstad, he might well see the charges against him evaporate entirely for lack of evidence.

    Right now, the Justice Department has no plans to criminally prosecute Mohammed or other top al-Qaida leaders (like Abu Zubaida) currently being held by the United States in shadowy detention facilities overseas. But federal prosecutors have filed charges against alleged al-Qaida member Zacarias Moussaoui for being part of the 9/11 conspiracy. And the Supreme Court is now considering whether trials of some sort are constitutionally required for other alleged terrorists. Problems with the Moussaoui case reflect the problem with evidence obtained through coerced confessions. In that case, it's not the government that seeks to bring in the tortured al-Qaida leaders' out-of-court statements—it's Moussaoui, the defendant. However, the result may be the same. Such out-of-court statements will likely be challenged as hearsay by whatever side isn't trying to bring them into court. And under the applicable hearsay exception, for declarations against interest [see Rule 804 (b)(3)], such statements are only admissible if they carry certain indicia of reliability. Given the questionable ability of torture to produce reliable information, this will be a hotly contested issue. It's not clear whether this evidence will ever be admitted to court.

    This torture of top al-Qaida leaders may also cause problems for the government were there to be a trial for the alleged "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla. The tip that led to Padilla's initial detention on a material witness warrant in May 2002 came from intensive CIA interrogations of Zubaida, a close associate of Osama Bin Laden. In December 2003, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ordered that Padilla be released from military custody and either charged in federal court or released. However, any prosecution of Padilla could be very problematic for the government, because the case for his guilt rests mostly (if not entirely) on secret interrogations of al-Qaida leaders, which now appear to have involved torture. If a criminal case is ever brought against Padilla, his lawyers are sure to challenge this crucial evidence on a number of grounds, including reliability and the fact that it was procured with torture in a way that "shocks the conscience."

    Interestingly, such problems would not have arisen had these suspects been hauled before a military tribunal at the outset. The Pentagon's procedural rules for tribunals allow evidence to be admitted if it "would have probative value to a reasonable person." These rules contain no provision for the exclusion of involuntary statements, and on their face, do not allow the presiding officer of such tribunals to rely on Supreme Court precedent or federal case law to decide issues of evidence. Presumably, these tribunals were designed to allow for the admission of evidence from dubious circumstances, including the "intensive questioning" of Mohammed and Zubaida. So, if the Pentagon moves forward with its plans to try al-Qaida members before these courts, it may be able to evade this problem altogether.

    However, even that won't solve the problem for the rest of the legal system, which only allows evidence obtained through constitutional means. By using torture to question the top terrorists it has in custody, the government has effectively sabotaged any future prosecutions of al-Qaida players—major and minor—that might depend on evidence gathered through those interrogations. It's plausible that skilled interrogation by the FBI, in accordance with American law, could have produced valuable evidence of these terrorists' guilt, which could have been used in court. But now that torture has been used, that may just be wishful hindsight.

    As a nation, we still haven't clearly decided whether it's better to prosecute terrorists or pound them with artillery. But by torturing some of al-Qaida's leaders, we have completely undermined any efforts to do the former and irreversibly committed ourselves to a martial plan of justice. In the long run, this may be counterproductive, and it will show that we have compromised such liberal, democratic ideals like adherence to the rule of law to counter terrorism. Torture and tribunals do not help America show that it believes in the rule of law. But if CIA officials continue to use tactics that will get evidence thrown out of federal court, there will increasingly be no other option.[/QUOTE]


    hence the pathetic thinking the likes of liberals and the brain dead like dumbdawg and why they are a great danger to this nation....

    be kind to people like Khalid Sheik Mohammed so you can prosecute him....never mind the fact you may be able to extract information from him which could save American lives....the "legal" war on terror is MUCH more important than defeating the enemy at all costs...

    FDR proved that... :zzz:

  20. #20
    Setting up a system without due process and without a trained staff to deal with enemy combatants properly will be a long black mark on this country. That is still not an excuse for letting our enemies go simply because the administration didn't adequately prepare for the system they set up. This has been the real failure of the Bush administration, it isn't policy, it's competency.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us