Lets close Gitmo Hooray!Follow

Oh, I do! Terrorism is not neccessarily considered to be criminal - Truman was one of the greatest terrorists of all time and no one arrested him - whereas someone who steals a loaf of a bread is a criminal, but not a terrorist.

Edited, Feb 5th 2009 3:52pm by Kavekk

Kavek,

Now why don't you look up the definitions instead of creating ones you think sound good.

They have been proven to lead to false information time and time again. They are also illegal.

I guess you could say they lead to convictions (since beating confessions out of people does have some history of working) but having the *wrong* person in jail may make us feel safer (one more crime solved for the win?!) but in reality makes us less safe since not only is the guilty person free, but we have the added risk of being the next person to be falsely imprisoned.

In short, torture is full of lose.

Edited, Feb 5th 2009 1:36pm by yossarian

I do I do I do! A criminal is someone that has been convicted of a crime and found guilty. A terrorist is someone inherently guilty because they hate freedom!

Not enough

Can someone bring the board and a bucket of water?

That is too fUckin' hawt for words

All activities that terrorists do fall under criminal behaviour, and can and should be investigated forensically and dealt with by existing legal systems. It is merely the motive that differs from most other criminals.

If you conspire to, or participate in blowing up people you can be caught and done for completely adequately under Murder or conspiracy to Murder charges. The more people you kill at once doesn't change it from murder. It just compounds the sentence.

Maximum security prisons are deeply unpleasant and totally secure places to hold dangerous people for life, without going so morally ruinously far as to actively torture the inmates. Death penalties in places with death penalties surely account for the rest.

The Bali Bombing a while back that killed 200 people, 90 of whom were Australian? Australia offered a contingent of forensic police to assist the Balinese authorities, which were accepted. Within 3 weeks the Balinese police had arrested about 15 people. They were tried, jailed and some of them executed.

If Soldiers have gone in to a situation, the people they capture are all covered by the Geneva conventions unless they hand them over to the police for a more permanent solution. If you've got a legal problem that is too much for your system to handle, then you bump up your police and justice funding.

Making people disappear without trial, and torturing them, only creates more enemies. Putting people on trial, and convicting them of crimes, and punishing them in a graded way for graded offenses, is MUCH more hard to argue with.

America doesn't have to process every criminal itself. It can rely on other nations. Where it can't rely on other nations, it can rely on the World Court, which specializes in nasty chaotic war zones. If it wants to or needs to, it can pull in through extraditionary type measures overseas criminals to prosecute in America, if those criminals have harmed or provably have taken steps to plan to harm American citizens or their property.

Edited, Feb 5th 2009 8:38pm by Aripyanfar

My Magic 8-Ball says Yes.

Put him to Guru and we'll see how long it takes for him to hit sub-default again. :-D

I missed these threads. Keep around until he says something blatantly racist again.

He's an addict. I doubt it'll do much good, but it's your call.

I vote no. In fact, we should encourage him to recruit more rabid righties. Maybe this place will gather some steam again.