alab32 Posted November 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 ESPECIALLY given the fact that WE have committed war crimes (waterboarding, remember that?)Waterboarding is CERTAINLY not torture. If you want to see some torture, check out what they do to people. Am i saying that we should do what they do, NO. I am saying that sometimes fire needs to be fought with fire. But that doesnt mean we will use napalm, just a couple lighters. There is no way that I would consider it torture. Even if it was me being waterboarded, would it suck? Heck ya it would. Would I give my buddy up if they did it to me, more than likely, yes. When he was waterboarded it was one of the LEGAL ways to suppress information. Now with our wonderful (put that there since some people need them to notice sarcasm) Commander in Chief that we have, it is illegal. And now NY is the kangaroo court since it it trying someone who isnt entitled to the Constitutional rights we are... awesome! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alab32 Posted November 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 We extend prisoners a whole lot more humane treatment than they do for us. We don't drag them through the streets. We don't publicly parade around abusing POW's. Those soldier's that took pictures if the Abu Graib detainee's being abused were wrong and I do not advocate what they did and were punished accordingly. We don't put out propaganda saying "All middle eastern people are the devil, they are infidels and must die. God is great." If a enemy combatant stand before us with a weapon, we shoot to kill. If he drops that weapon he is no longer a threat and we cannot shoot. We are one of only a handful of nations that follow (for the most part, yeah yeah) the Geneva Convention, ROE.I don't think the trial should be take place in NYC because this isn't just about NYC. What about Flight 77 or Flight 93? What about all the people evacuated in DC? Los Angeles International Airport being evacuated? Or all the terrorized poeple in those areas? This wasn't a crime against the WTC, or NYC, or NY. This was a crime against the USA and should be treated as such. They came into our country's front door, the WTC. This was a crime against our way of life. You want to talk about being fair then it should be held in D.C. since D.C. is kind of no where, it's own entity. Or in D.C, NYC and PA, best out of three sorta way. Military tribunal's don't take years to sort out. How long was Saddam on trial? I don't think it was very long. We put him in D.C, how far are we going to let him drag it out. How many more rights are we willing to afford him. He isn't an American citizen and should not be treated as such. /EndYou are my hero! You say things that in my fits of rage I cant seem to find the words for. People who have NO idea what is going on on either side of the war trying to tell people how things are and should be done. Sweet... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheech Posted November 15, 2009 Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 Waterboarding is CERTAINLY not torture. If you want to see some torture, check out what they do to people. Am i saying that we should do what they do, NO. I am saying that sometimes fire needs to be fought with fire. But that doesnt mean we will use napalm, just a couple lighters. There is no way that I would consider it torture. Even if it was me being waterboarded, would it suck? Heck ya it would. Would I give my buddy up if they did it to me, more than likely, yes. When he was waterboarded it was one of the LEGAL ways to suppress information. Now with our wonderful (put that there since some people need them to notice sarcasm) Commander in Chief that we have, it is illegal. And now NY is the kangaroo court since it it trying someone who isnt entitled to the Constitutional rights we are... awesome!How would you define torture then? Let's go to a third party, Merriam Webster:torture, noun: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasureTrue, the act of waterboarding in and of itself does not wound, crush, or burn, however the infliction of intense pain (vis a vis the fear of imminent death via asphyxiation) IS certainly there, as are the motives behind it to coerce information or to punish for crimes already committed.However, if you wanted to get back to the classics, I'm sure I can borrow a Spanish Boot from the numerous torture museums here in Prague. You can have a few go-rounds with that whilst being waterboarded and we'll see if that changes your view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevysoldier Posted November 15, 2009 Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 How would you define torture then? Let's go to a third party, Merriam Webster:torture, noun: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasureTrue, the act of waterboarding in and of itself does not wound, crush, or burn, however the infliction of intense pain (vis a vis the fear of imminent death via asphyxiation) IS certainly there, as are the motives behind it to coerce information or to punish for crimes already committed.However, if you wanted to get back to the classics, I'm sure I can borrow a Spanish Boot from the numerous torture museums here in Prague. You can have a few go-rounds with that whilst being waterboarded and we'll see if that changes your view. Okay, you say it is torture. Thats fine. How would you get sensitive information out of a terroist then? What would you recommend? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted November 15, 2009 Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 How many times does it need to be posted on why torture doesn't work? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevysoldier Posted November 15, 2009 Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 How many times does it need to be posted on why torture doesn't work? So then what would YOU recommend to get sensitive information from a terrorist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted November 15, 2009 Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 (edited) I'm not an expert on the subject, but from what I've read from the people that are... the best way to extract information is to illustrate to them that we aren't the enemy, and basically 'befriend' them. Once they realize we aren't 'the bad guys' they'll open up. The downside: It takes time. But, it's better to get ACCURATE information than 10 leads on bad information to waste your resources chasing those. I.e. I'd rather spend 30 days on getting it right, than getting a wrong answer every 5 days.Think about it. Is it easier to get information from someone you hate, or someone you like? Edited November 15, 2009 by JRMMiii Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheech Posted November 15, 2009 Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 Okay, you say it is torture. Thats fine. How would you get sensitive information out of a terroist then? What would you recommend?The same methods police use everyday. If that doesn't work, then you can use drugs as a LAST resort, something like sodium pentothal in conjunction with the earlier methods. Using drugs that are well-tested and have no major side effects isn't torturous, and since they are plainly not US citizens and enemy combatants being interrogated by the military in a war setting, that should satisfy Geneva as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFM Posted November 15, 2009 Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 We are only as good as how we apply the standards that we expect for ourselves.Got a little into the thread, and found wisdom. Cheers- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerik Posted November 15, 2009 Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 People who have NO idea what is going on on either side of the war trying to tell people how things are and should be done. Sweet...You mean American citizens carrying out their civic duty to try and stay informed, to learn and debate the matters that effect our country, and try to work together to figure out the best way to move forward? Welcome to democracy.If you were arguing that I'm not qualified to argue the finer points of room-clearing in Fallujah, that'd be one thing. But this particular discussion is about policy, not ground-level tactics. We all have a vested interest in seeing this country succeed, and policy effects all of us; therefore, my opinion is just as valid as yours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alab32 Posted November 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 I'm not an expert on the subject, but from what I've read Im going to pull a card from your book...This is where i stopped reading your post... YOU ARE NOT AN EXPERT... let the experts do what they have to to get the information. I have PERSONALLY interrogated MULTIPLE people, both foreign (Iraqis and Afghanis) and domestic, and let me tell you, sitting there making friends with them DOES NOT WORK! Buying them a drink does not work. You speak from what you read from people who are against "torture." Read some of the info that was received after using "torture," as you guys call it, and see the amounts of GOOD, USABLE, intel that is received from it.I am not saying I am an expert because I am not, but I do have some experience in the matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alab32 Posted November 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 The same methods police use everyday. If that doesn't work, then you can use drugs as a LAST resort, something like sodium pentothal in conjunction with the earlier methods. Using drugs that are well-tested and have no major side effects isn't torturous, and since they are plainly not US citizens and enemy combatants being interrogated by the military in a war setting, that should satisfy Geneva as well.Well the end of this thread bring me back to the ORIGINAL point of this whole thing... Since he isnt a US citizen, IS and enemy combatant and we are in a war SETTING... he shouldnt be tried in NYC...Im going to leave the rest of the statement alone... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alab32 Posted November 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 You mean American citizens carrying out their civic duty to try and stay informed, to learn and debate the matters that effect our country, and try to work together to figure out the best way to move forward? Welcome to democracy.If you were arguing that I'm not qualified to argue the finer points of room-clearing in Fallujah, that'd be one thing. But this particular discussion is about policy, not ground-level tactics. We all have a vested interest in seeing this country succeed, and policy effects all of us; therefore, my opinion is just as valid as yours.Are you trained on how to interrogate people? Do you know which methods, from your own experience, work best? Are you trained in military law? These are the things I am referring to.No, I am not advocating dragging bodies through the streets, no I am not advocating knee capping someone to get information. What I am saying is there are tactics that work, there are tactics that dont, there is a time for a civilian court, there are times for a military court. This person should be in a military tribunal, not a civilian court. I am no expert in military law, but i did happen to do a bit of law enforcement, apprehensions, court martials blah blah blah... refer to my other posts on the rest... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerik Posted November 16, 2009 Report Share Posted November 16, 2009 there is a time for a civilian court, there are times for a military court. This person should be in a military tribunal, not a civilian court. I am no expert in military law, but i did happen to do a bit of law enforcement, apprehensions, court martials blah blah blah... refer to my other posts on the rest...The main reason there is a debate on this topic at all is that we don't really have a firm precedent for how to handle this kind of situation: this guy's not a US citizen, not a member of a foreign government or military. Technically, he's a foreign civilian, but obviously he doesn't fall into the same category as, say, a German tourist who gets into a fistfight while here. Since none of our laws/ policies have a clear, constitutionally-valid, objectively established category for 'Terrorist Dirtbag, Prosecution of', we're setting precedent as we go. What kind of category we slot this guy into will have a long-term effect on every other similar (and possibly not-so-similar) case in the future. Therefore, it is necessary to think both near-term and long-term, and to carefully weigh the implications and possible consequences of our actions. The military tribunal system has been used for different reasons in differing circumstances throughout our history, but has always been primarily a mechanism for dealing with members of opposing militaries. FDR, for example, used military tribunals to handle some Nazi prisoners. Using it in this context, to prosecute a foreign civilian (no matter how vile that person is, in this case) sets a precedent: Effectively, it's us saying, "In situations we deem to be fitting, we can take a person from some other country and subject them to an expedited, secretive (often) trial whose rules and practices are not nearly so clear-cut and transparent as those of a traditional court system."We would go (justifiably) ape-shit if another country did the same thing to one of our citizens. It shouldn't be surprising that even our staunch allies are creeped-out and generally uncomfortable with us trying to handle things that way. It'd be far too easy to stretch it and apply it to currently un-thought-of situations.The civilian court system, on the other hand, has as its primary virtues a clear set of rules, a transparency (necessary for international legitimacy) that is essentially unparalleled, and (despite all its flaws) a relatively well-acknowledged fairness. It could certainly do with plenty of improvement, but it's currently one of the better things out there. I'm well aware that this guy is not an American citizen, but the truth is that handling the case in this way makes the (probable) conviction much more legitimate to all reasonable eyes because it lacks the fuzziness or secrecy of the tribunal system.Given that, no matter what we do, we'll be adapting one of these two systems to a task for which it was not designed, I believe our long-term ends are better served by this option over the tribunal system. Neither is perfect, but sometimes policy is trying to pick the crappy option most likely to produce a good outcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alab32 Posted November 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 16, 2009 Given that, no matter what we do, we'll be adapting one of these two systems to a task for which it was not designed, I believe our long-term ends are better served by this option over the tribunal system. Neither is perfect, but sometimes policy is trying to pick the crappy option most likely to produce a good outcome.Well, we will have to agree to disagree on this. Because I believe this will not be the best option and it will show. More than just Muhammad will be on trial and some stuff wont even make it to trial... I guess we will have to see how it works out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted November 16, 2009 Report Share Posted November 16, 2009 YOU ARE NOT AN EXPERT... let the experts do what they have to to get the information.....I am not saying I am an expert because I am not, but I do have some experience in the matter.Your argument goes, like Nascar drives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alab32 Posted November 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 16, 2009 Your argument goes, like Nascar drives.But, i have some of MY OWN life experience. I am NOT an expert, but I assure you I have more experience in the matter than you do.FYI... i am not trying to get into a measuring contest here... just putting it out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted November 16, 2009 Report Share Posted November 16, 2009 And I'm not even doubting your experience... but look at it in context.You are taught to do, what you do, per the policies that the 'management' wants you to follow, not necessarily what's been recommended to them by the leading researchers on human psychology. So, you may be very good at doing what you're taught/trained/told, but who says what you were taught was the best way to do things?I can use the same argument for this Khalid guy - he was taught to be a terrorist as it's the most effective way to spread Islam. He's good at what he does, but I don't think most will argue that it was the best way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alab32 Posted November 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 16, 2009 And I'm not even doubting your experience... but look at it in context.You are taught to do, what you do, per the policies that the 'management' wants you to follow, not necessarily what's been recommended to them by the leading researchers on human psychology. So, you may be very good at doing what you're taught/trained/told, but who says what you were taught was the best way to do things?I can use the same argument for this Khalid guy - he was taught to be a terrorist as it's the most effective way to spread Islam. He's good at what he does, but I don't think most will argue that it was the best way.I think his way worked pretty well actually. He succeeded VERY well in his task at hand. He was taught, he did what he was taught, passed it on and everything worked out, other than flt 93.I think its the same for our guys... People just seem to think they need to pick everything, our guys do, apart and criticize it. But again, this is just my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted November 16, 2009 Report Share Posted November 16, 2009 I think his way worked pretty well actually. He succeeded VERY well in his task at hand. He was taught, he did what he was taught, passed it on and everything worked out, other than flt 93.I think its the same for our guys... People just seem to think they need to pick everything, our guys do, apart and criticize it. But again, this is just my opinion.You'll need to explain how it 'worked'? Because if you want to spread Islam and kill infidels, I can see how he may've accomplished part of the objective, but what he did completely ruined any positivity toward the Muslims in this predominantly NON-Muslim country.I don't know why people can't imagine if the situation were flipped? What if a bunch of Christians went over to the MidEast and did the same thing?We can completely derail this thread into a religious debate if you want, because organized religion is the root cause of this entire mess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
that dude Posted November 16, 2009 Report Share Posted November 16, 2009 hang the fucker. dont waste my money trying him in court,=. fucking call the firing squad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alab32 Posted November 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 16, 2009 You'll need to explain how it 'worked'? Because if you want to spread Islam and kill infidels, I can see how he may've accomplished part of the objective, but what he did completely ruined any positivity toward the Muslims in this predominantly NON-Muslim country.I don't know why people can't imagine if the situation were flipped? What if a bunch of Christians went over to the MidEast and did the same thing?We can completely derail this thread into a religious debate if you want, because organized religion is the root cause of this entire mess.It worked, in their intended way, by killing the infidels (or non believer). In the sick twisted way they interpret their religion, they did exactly what they intended to do. Kill us, help recruit more of them (in their home countries, and obviously some of our own people) and provide instability in our country. That part didnt work as well as I am sure they had planned but hey... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevysoldier Posted November 16, 2009 Report Share Posted November 16, 2009 I'm not an expert on the subject, but from what I've read from the people that are... the best way to extract information is to illustrate to them that we aren't the enemy, and basically 'befriend' them. Once they realize we aren't 'the bad guys' they'll open up. The downside: It takes time. But, it's better to get ACCURATE information than 10 leads on bad information to waste your resources chasing those. I.e. I'd rather spend 30 days on getting it right, than getting a wrong answer every 5 days.Think about it. Is it easier to get information from someone you hate, or someone you like?In case you don't know this, they, as in the extremists of the muslim faith, hate our guts. They don't want to be your friend. Even the ones in country that we have befriended have turned on us or used our friendship, if you can call it that, against us. Maybe if you befriend a serial killer here in the US that may work, but in this theater it doesn't work. Let me repeat that, they hate your guts with a passion and will do anything they can to see you dead. Whats your next option to get useful information? The same methods police use everyday. If that doesn't work, then you can use drugs as a LAST resort, something like sodium pentothal in conjunction with the earlier methods. Using drugs that are well-tested and have no major side effects isn't torturous, and since they are plainly not US citizens and enemy combatants being interrogated by the military in a war setting, that should satisfy Geneva as well. So torture is wrong but using drugs to influence a person against their will isn't wrong? Wouldn't that fall under something like mental abuse? What about these side effects?"Adverse reactions include respiratory depression, myocardial depression, cardiac arrhythmias, prolonged somnolence and recovery, sneezing, coughing, bronchospasm, laryngospasm and shivering. Anaphylactic and anaphylactoid reactions to Pentothal (Thiopental Sodium for Injection, USP) have been reported. Symptoms, e.g., urticaria, bronchospasm, vasodilation and edema should be managed by conventional means. Rarely, immune hemolytic anemia with renal failure and radial nerve palsy have been reported."So hijacking someone's mind is okay?The main reason there is a debate on this topic at all is that we don't really have a firm precedent for how to handle this kind of situation: this guy's not a US citizen, not a member of a foreign government or military. Technically, he's a foreign civilian, but obviously he doesn't fall into the same category as, say, a German tourist who gets into a fistfight while here. Since none of our laws/ policies have a clear, constitutionally-valid, objectively established category for 'Terrorist Dirtbag, Prosecution of', we're setting precedent as we go. What kind of category we slot this guy into will have a long-term effect on every other similar (and possibly not-so-similar) case in the future. Therefore, it is necessary to think both near-term and long-term, and to carefully weigh the implications and possible consequences of our actions. The military tribunal system has been used for different reasons in differing circumstances throughout our history, but has always been primarily a mechanism for dealing with members of opposing militaries. FDR, for example, used military tribunals to handle some Nazi prisoners. Using it in this context, to prosecute a foreign civilian (no matter how vile that person is, in this case) sets a precedent: Effectively, it's us saying, "In situations we deem to be fitting, we can take a person from some other country and subject them to an expedited, secretive (often) trial whose rules and practices are not nearly so clear-cut and transparent as those of a traditional court system."We would go (justifiably) ape-shit if another country did the same thing to one of our citizens. It shouldn't be surprising that even our staunch allies are creeped-out and generally uncomfortable with us trying to handle things that way. It'd be far too easy to stretch it and apply it to currently un-thought-of situations.The civilian court system, on the other hand, has as its primary virtues a clear set of rules, a transparency (necessary for international legitimacy) that is essentially unparalleled, and (despite all its flaws) a relatively well-acknowledged fairness. It could certainly do with plenty of improvement, but it's currently one of the better things out there. I'm well aware that this guy is not an American citizen, but the truth is that handling the case in this way makes the (probable) conviction much more legitimate to all reasonable eyes because it lacks the fuzziness or secrecy of the tribunal system.Given that, no matter what we do, we'll be adapting one of these two systems to a task for which it was not designed, I believe our long-term ends are better served by this option over the tribunal system. Neither is perfect, but sometimes policy is trying to pick the crappy option most likely to produce a good outcome.He is not a US citizen. He is a member of a organized militant group, our enemy. Sure he does not wear a certain uniform and is not really backed by a certain state or nation but he is an enemy of foreign nationality in a group that has set out to to kill us at any cost. That doesn't fall under a military tribunal? Handling this case this way sets a precident that no matter what sort of crime another country or militant group commits against us, he will be REWARDED with the rights of a US citizen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevysoldier Posted November 16, 2009 Report Share Posted November 16, 2009 hang the fucker. dont waste my money trying him in court,=. fucking call the firing squadI agree with you here but using what you said.You guys that didn't vote for Issue one to give money to veterans because we don't have money for that and will put us into more debt, but it's okay to waste money by trying him in a US court that will go on longer than a military tribunal?Nascar? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted November 16, 2009 Report Share Posted November 16, 2009 $1000 bonus != Capital PunishmentBesides, I bet his trials costs less than the $200M Ohio wants to borrow for Issue 1.That's really the only point I wanted to address at this time... continue on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.