|
|
Post by franko on Jan 24, 2009 21:03:34 GMT -5
or . . .  |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jan 24, 2009 21:07:34 GMT -5
I have always said try them, convict them, and put them away for life. But to hold them in this illegal fashion has done more harm than good. You cannot argue for freedom from tyranny if you yourself ignore everything that goes into that freedom... The biggest issue is that you can not try them in American courts because the prosecution will not meet the standards set by criminal court. Evidence "beyond reasonable doubt" is simply not possible on a battlefield. So now what? If they touch American soil, MANY of those terrorist WILL be released and they know that and counting on it. Will they kill again? To believe anything less is to be simply naive. That is the reason I linked the article. Should the people who released them be held responsible? ONLY if they can prove that a hyena is not a hyena just because it looks like a human. I've read most of this page to the thread and I keep coming to the same conclusion; you're both right. There are ethics issues at work here. Detaining people in a way that contradicts what you're trying to promote as values worldwide is simply wrong. On the other hand, is it wrong fighting fire with fire? I'm willing to bet the detainees almost to a man, live by "an eye for an eye" and come from a society where that value takes precedence over "a man is innocent until proven guilty." Honestly, what miffs me the most is that a lot of these former detainees understand our values and sense of fair play to the point where they can exploit us just by using those qualities. Once they're freed, they reenter the war machine knowing that they can possibly do it again. The other side of the coin is that we want to be fair. We want to ensure everyone's rights are upheld even when the other side laughs at us for doing it. I guess we're supposed to be bigger than that. Though, being bigger about things doesn't always equate to winning. And I hate to lose. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jan 25, 2009 3:46:18 GMT -5
I guess we're supposed to be bigger than that. Though, being bigger about things doesn't always equate to winning. And I hate to lose. Cheers. Sadly, it's not just about winning and losing Dis. It's about life and death. These prisoners - prisoners of war, I suppose, save that they come nowhere near to the classical definition of a POW - will return to the field of battle with their comrades. And they will fight for our 'enemies' (I use that term in only the broadest general sense. We are not involved in Iraq and perhaps we should or should not be - it's immaterial here - so we do not have a classical enemy there. I therefore define enemy as someone who seeks to upset the current, west-favouring government that more or less rules the land) and kill American servicemen. And that's a shame - but that's America's problem. They will also return to Afghanistan and fight for our (real this time) enemies there. And that's a niggling detail that bothers me. Because it's a shame if American servicemen die needlessly. It angers me if Canadian servicemen die needlessly. You respond "we shouldn't be in Afghanistan anyways" (well, maybe not you - but someone might, and I need to shore up my argument against that possible attack, so bear with me). I respond by saying "wake up". NATO in general and Canadians in specific have done great good in Afghanistan. And have much left to do. Yes, there are still battles to be fought. Yes, there are unfortunate consequences for some people - sometimes you have to choose the lesser of two evil. But a couple months ago girls in Kabul had acid thrown in their face for trying to attend school. That should tell you what kind of difference we've made there - in that they were even permitted to attend school in the first place - and how far we need to go. So what're our options? I understand very well the dangers of having unregulated military prison camps. My grandfather was a WW2 POW who survived a Japanese Hellship and prison camp. I don't think Gitmo comes close to those atrocities. I don't think, even under the worst leadership you could imagine in America, that Gitmo could come to that. But that is the spectre that lay on that side of the fence. The old saying goes "Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely." By having these prison camps that exist outside the scope of existing law we essentially are handing the wardens, the overseers of these camp absolute power. The other side of the fence is a revolving door for a battlefield - where the solider is faced daily with a choice: to accept the surrender of an enemy, knowing he may well face him again in a few months; or to take no prisoners. That's not a choice I'd want to have to make. I suppose the solution, in the end, is to resolve the legal status of these people. It is because they are not soldiers that they can be denied these rights. If the international community were to intervene perhaps the situation could be resolved. As long as they remain in limbo, however, I feel perhaps Gitmo (or a Gitmo-like facility) may well be the best solution - I am willing, if necessary, to strip people of their rights to save lives. But that's a tough choice not all - not many even - would be willing to take. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Jan 25, 2009 4:16:44 GMT -5
My grandfather was a WW2 POW who survived a Japanese Hellship and prison camp. I don't think Gitmo comes close to those atrocities. I don't think, even under the worst leadership you could imagine in America, that Gitmo could come to that. Why on Earth not? Is America somehow uniquely blessed with some magic power to ward off evil? That's the classic "it couldn't happen here" attitude which actually makes it much more likely that it will. Anything that can happen in one place can happen anyplace, given enough time. I think it's quite unlikely that the morass which currently has a hold on America can continue indefinitely - American society seems to be on the cusp of either sinking to new depths which will be even harder to recover from or experiencing a cultural revitalization. I'd like to think Obama's election is a positive sign of the latter, but if it's the former, I would place no limits on how bad things could get, and rather quickly. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Jan 25, 2009 4:24:40 GMT -5
I'm willing to bet the detainees almost to a man, live by "an eye for an eye" and come from a society where that value takes precedence over "a man is innocent until proven guilty." Many of them probably do. But I wonder how many of them are completely innocent - after all, the US government still claims that Maher Arar is dangerous; why should I (or why would anyone) believe their accusations against anybody else? |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jan 25, 2009 9:11:19 GMT -5
I guess we're supposed to be bigger than that. Though, being bigger about things doesn't always equate to winning. And I hate to lose. Cheers. Sadly, it's not just about winning and losing Dis. It's about life and death. TNG, to me it's all about perceptions. Winning or losing when it's about life and death means without a doubt that second place is for losers. And it goes further than that IMO. These detainees fear they may one day lose their way of life because of what NATO is doing in Afghanistan. Yet, our perception is that our way of life has been challenged by those who perceive our freedoms and liberties as a threat to them. We don't want to lose those freedoms and liberties just because other people perceive them as undesirable. It's a great post TNG and I'd like to respond to more. But I'm off to Quebec City in about an hour. I'll try to respond later, but no guarantees mate. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 25, 2009 9:36:53 GMT -5
Why on Earth not? Is America somehow uniquely blessed with some magic power to ward off evil? That's the classic "it couldn't happen here" attitude which actually makes it much more likely that it will. I agree that we shouldn't be surprised how low the Americans we go to win this "war on terror" - they were the country afterall that invented the H-bomb and dropped it in a war that they were winning..... ....but TNG has a very valid point. Gitmo serves a purpose. In the battle of good versus evil (and I'll let everyone decide who is good and who is evil - because both sides have both) it is the American way to restore a semblance of "balance". We hear reports of torture at Gitmo, and acts which we abhor in our democratic society. That is unfortunate. But then I look at the other side. Their "Gitmo" is to capture innocent journalists, tourists, etc and parade them in front of the webcam and then chop their heads off for the world to see .... is Gitmo worse than that? Our military is faced with a difficult task over there. I am not going to get into the argument of "should we be there", because to me that is now a moot point. We are there, and the Canadian public has to reach out to its allies (ie the Americans) and have our support whenever they do what is necessary to stay alive.... they use citizens as shields and jump out of crowds with bombs attached to them, and I say the only defense to that is "when in doubt, shoot first ask questions later". Cruel, archaic, undemocratic ... agreed ... but necessary. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 25, 2009 9:57:09 GMT -5
I'm willing to bet the detainees almost to a man, live by "an eye for an eye" and come from a society where that value takes precedence over "a man is innocent until proven guilty." Many of them probably do. But I wonder how many of them are completely innocent - after all, the US government still claims that Maher Arar is dangerous; why should I (or why would anyone) believe their accusations against anybody else? Well McH ... We have tried hundreds if not thousands of people in this country, found them guilty, only to realize years later (sometimes decades) that they were innocent. Do we scrap our entire judicial system? Because why should I or anyone believe their accusations of someone's guilt against anyone else after that ..... We have one instance where the US government is probably wrong. So now you have to ask yourself, what is the lesser of the two evils? Free suspected terrorists, or keep them for as long as you possibly can? Now if your relative dies at the hands of one - will you cry "why did you free them"? A little off the topic (but hopefully not much). I have a very personal relationalship to the two points above .... everyone remembers Donald Marshall. Tried and convicted of killing Sandy Seale in a Nova Scotia park. What many do not know, is that the man Marshall and Seale tried to rob, and the guy who actually killed Seale, was Roy Ebsary - my great uncle. The second point about the lesser of two evils stems from a case here in Newfoundland. Shirley Turner murdered Andrew Bagby in Pennsylvania, and then trying to escape the American death penalty fleed to her home, Newfoundland. While extradition proceedings were ongoing (this took a long time) she was free to walk among us. The "extenuating" circumstance in all this, was that she was pregnant with Bagby's child and gave birth to the child while the extradtion proceedings were ongoing. Fearing she would harm the child, since the Canadian justice system refused to take the child away from its mother, a suspected murderer, the Bagby's tried to develop a relationship with Turner. Well to make a long story short, after over a year of being free, when it finally looked like Turner was going to face the murder charge she took her baby into her arms and walked out into the cold Atlantic Ocean killing herself and the baby (which she drugged). The Canadian justice system is now actually, using the case, to look at changing laws to use a "lesser of two evils" (not called that mind you) clause to take rights away from people when accused of crimes ..... |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jan 25, 2009 10:58:54 GMT -5
My grandfather was a WW2 POW who survived a Japanese Hellship and prison camp. I don't think Gitmo comes close to those atrocities. I don't think, even under the worst leadership you could imagine in America, that Gitmo could come to that. Why on Earth not? Is America somehow uniquely blessed with some magic power to ward off evil? That's the classic "it couldn't happen here" attitude which actually makes it much more likely that it will. Anything that can happen in one place can happen anyplace, given enough time. I think it's quite unlikely that the morass which currently has a hold on America can continue indefinitely - American society seems to be on the cusp of either sinking to new depths which will be even harder to recover from or experiencing a cultural revitalization. I'd like to think Obama's election is a positive sign of the latter, but if it's the former, I would place no limits on how bad things could get, and rather quickly. Not magically protected, and yes it could possibly happen (and the Leafs could possibly win the cup this year and the moon could possibly crash into the earth) but certain factors make it unlikely. Namely the culture. From what I have read, from what I've been told, much of the horrors that happened there happened because of a very wide cultural gap between the West and Japan. You're right - a cultural shift might happen. But there is such a long way to fall and so many voices that would have to all at once be silenced. Think about it - even now, with the relatively good treatment of prisoners at Gitmo (relative to WW2 era Japanese Prison Camps) there is a large segment of the American population who scream bloody murder about it. How far would you have to go to silence those voices? How far would you have to silence those that would speak up if the treatment fell further? Is it possible. Technically, sure. Will it happen? I'd bet my life savings on it not even coming close. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 25, 2009 13:13:54 GMT -5
We have one instance where the US government is probably wrong. So now you have to ask yourself, what is the lesser of the two evils? Free suspected terrorists, or keep them for as long as you possibly can? Now if your relative dies at the hands of one - will you cry "why did you free them"? The "lesser of two evils" can always be discussed over a cup of java at the local Starbucks. Where it's NEVER discussed is in the morgues and the homes of those who have become the victims. We have one instance where the US government is probably wrong. So now you have to ask yourself, what is the lesser of the two evils? Free suspected terrorists, or keep them for as long as you possibly can? Now if your relative dies at the hands of one - will you cry "why did you free them"? A little off the topic (but hopefully not much). I have a very personal relationalship to the two points above .... everyone remembers Donald Marshall. Tried and convicted of killing Sandy Seale in a Nova Scotia park. What many do not know, is that the man Marshall and Seale tried to rob, and the guy who actually killed Seale, was Roy Ebsary - my great uncle. You don't have to go far to see evil...and when it touches you, you don't forget it. I think I already told you guy about getting a gun pointed at us when I was involved the the Greek riots of the 70's and then AGAIN, ONE foot away from my head when I was standing right in the middle of bank robbery. In the riots, I made a conscious decision to walk into the fray and to be honest, I really didn't think they would shoot. On the other hand, the bank robbery scared, scarred and harden me. Same thing for my wife who was right besides me. It's nice to have naive idealism but until you are hungry for a week, you don't know what hunger is and until your life hangs by a twitch of a finger, you don't know what evil is. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 25, 2009 13:33:37 GMT -5
Most of America got exactly what it asked for by electing(?) an underachieving, lazy, unintelligent, rigid and intolerant individual, with a history of drug and alcohol abuse, and running companies into the ground. Was there really any alternative to the current situation this nation finds itself in? You are waaaaaayyy overdosing on spittle..... Obama is not a messiah. No living human will be able to fix the disaster in one term. Take a trip to the US lately? Things are incredibly ugly. It will take a long, long time for things to repair themselves. I have. Several times. Have you taken a drive in Windsor lately? Or Hamilton? You know what they say about people who live in glass houses and boarded store fronts..... |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Jan 25, 2009 15:11:59 GMT -5
they use citizens as shields This is off topic, but so does the Israeli military. A few years ago, they actually went to the Israeli supreme court to appeal a ban on using human shields. Now maybe you could argue that their use of human shields isn't quite as bad as what Hamas does, but it's the same basic idea. But for some reason, the West mostly looks the other way. Where is Obama's condemnation of the needless slaughter of civilians in Gaza? The best I can hope is that he has come out in support of Israel's right to "self defense" for political reasons and not because he actually believes it.... |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Jan 25, 2009 15:19:09 GMT -5
Why on Earth not? Is America somehow uniquely blessed with some magic power to ward off evil? That's the classic "it couldn't happen here" attitude which actually makes it much more likely that it will. Anything that can happen in one place can happen anyplace, given enough time. I think it's quite unlikely that the morass which currently has a hold on America can continue indefinitely - American society seems to be on the cusp of either sinking to new depths which will be even harder to recover from or experiencing a cultural revitalization. I'd like to think Obama's election is a positive sign of the latter, but if it's the former, I would place no limits on how bad things could get, and rather quickly. Not magically protected, and yes it could possibly happen (and the Leafs could possibly win the cup this year and the moon could possibly crash into the earth) but certain factors make it unlikely. Namely the culture. From what I have read, from what I've been told, much of the horrors that happened there happened because of a very wide cultural gap between the West and Japan. You're right - a cultural shift might happen. But there is such a long way to fall and so many voices that would have to all at once be silenced. Think about it - even now, with the relatively good treatment of prisoners at Gitmo (relative to WW2 era Japanese Prison Camps) there is a large segment of the American population who scream bloody murder about it. How far would you have to go to silence those voices? How far would you have to silence those that would speak up if the treatment fell further? Is it possible. Technically, sure. Will it happen? I'd bet my life savings on it not even coming close. Why do you assume the public will know about it? Until recently, the Bush administration denied the existence of the secret prisons which Obama has ordered closed. Who knows what went on there? As for silencing voices of dissent, Bush has put the mechanism in place. Now that the new president has such massive popular support, he might have enough leeway to start using it, and once it becomes expected, a lot of those voices will get quiet on their own. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Jan 25, 2009 15:37:15 GMT -5
Many of them probably do. But I wonder how many of them are completely innocent - after all, the US government still claims that Maher Arar is dangerous; why should I (or why would anyone) believe their accusations against anybody else? Well McH ... We have tried hundreds if not thousands of people in this country, found them guilty, only to realize years later (sometimes decades) that they were innocent. Do we scrap our entire judicial system? Because why should I or anyone believe their accusations of someone's guilt against anyone else after that ..... At least we found out eventually. At least there is public oversight. What chance would prisoners in Gitmo have if it were to remain open? If Arar had been sent there, would he be there still? Have you ever listened to what Arar has to say? Of course there's a small chance, as with anything, that he's got everyone fooled. But I can't help wondering if people would be less willing to play that card if he were white. His case demonstrates problems that reach up to high levels. Combining that with secret trials/no trials/kangaroo trials, and secret evidence is just asking for trouble. I thought that was the risk that we take by living in a free society. Maybe we should ban cars - they kill a lot more people than terrorists. Or hey, how about banning guns? It's so weird that people think their right to own a gun is more important than habeas corpus and other fundamental principles of our society. Locking up and torturing potentially innocent people is fine if it might save lives, but taking away my right to shoot wild animals for the same reason? No way. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 25, 2009 16:32:32 GMT -5
At least we found out eventually. At least there is public oversight. What chance would prisoners in Gitmo have if it were to remain open? If Arar had been sent there, would he be there still? I'm not sure I understand the point. We have found out about Gitmo .... so there was some oversight. Again, I am not understanding your point. Are you saying it is a risk to live here ... would you rather live over there? Yes, cars probably kill more than terrorists, but it has nothing to do with this debate. The question is "would you rather claim a high and noble society or let suspected terrorists walk free amongst your family and children"? The only equivalent question, using your car anaolgy, is "would you drive a known faulty car?" and I believe all the car manufacturers would recall those cars if they knew they were faulty ... and thats what Gitmo does, it recalls all the faulty "cars".  |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jan 25, 2009 17:08:11 GMT -5
The question is "would you rather claim a high and noble society or let suspected terrorists walk free amongst your family and children"? Or you can ask the same question, but from the other side; would you lock up your family and children in case they are suspected terrorists? Its easy to say "well, sucks to be them, but what are you gonna do, we need to be safe" when you're not "one of them." Would you accept your wife and children being in Gitmo in the name of "public safety?" |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 25, 2009 17:18:06 GMT -5
The question is "would you rather claim a high and noble society or let suspected terrorists walk free amongst your family and children"? Or you can ask the same question, but from the other side; would you lock up your family and children in case they are suspected terrorists? Its easy to say "well, sucks to be them, but what are you gonna do, we need to be safe" when you're not "one of them." Would you accept your wife and children being in Gitmo in the name of "public safety?" I've accepted my family fighting for "public safety" - I have family in both the Canadian and American militaries. Their safety is paramount to me. IF (and thats a BIG, HUGE, if) my family were suspected terrorists, then yes, I'd rather them locked up. In today's society they may actually be safer locked up than walking around with the "suspected" terrorist tag on them.... ... and it is all fine and dandy to turn a question on its heels by asking another question, but how about an answer? (and I dont mean that to be saucy ...) |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jan 25, 2009 17:35:00 GMT -5
Or you can ask the same question, but from the other side; would you lock up your family and children in case they are suspected terrorists? Its easy to say "well, sucks to be them, but what are you gonna do, we need to be safe" when you're not "one of them." Would you accept your wife and children being in Gitmo in the name of "public safety?" I've accepted my family fighting for "public safety" - I have family in both the Canadian and American militaries. Their safety is paramount to me. IF (and thats a BIG, HUGE, if) my family were suspected terrorists, then yes, I'd rather them locked up. In today's society they may actually be safer locked up than walking around with the "suspected" terrorist tag on them.... ... and it is all fine and dandy to turn a question on its heels by asking another question, but how about an answer? (and I dont mean that to be saucy ...) Fighting for public safety and being a victim of public safety are two completely different things. And frankly speaking, I HIGHLY doubt you would say "its much safer for my wife to be in Gitmo where I can never see or speak to her and where she is waterboarded, harshly interrogated and unable to even see the evidence against her, because you know, she is safer that way." HIGHLY doubt it. In fact, I know it. NOBODY would ever accept having their loved ones locked up, perhaps indefinitely, semi-tortured, isolated and deprived of the basic tenets of what we call due process and justice. You would fight against that until your dying breath, and if you had to sacrifice your life so that your family could be free you would do it. You say its a BIG, HUGE if, and that's the point. You're not "one of them." But the "them" have loved ones to, and like you and me they too will fight until their loved ones are free. As to your question; you're damn right you let them go free. If you can't convict them, then by every definition of what we call freedom they HAVE to go free. Do you run the risk that they will simply return to the battlefield. Again, you're damn right you do. And you know what? That's just too bad. Freedom is neither easy, nor free. There are prices to pay for freedom, many have paid it, many more will continue to pay it. It sucks, but that's just the way it is. The alternative is a police state, where everyone is safe, but no one is free, and that is NOT what our culture, our way of life, is based on. Give me liberty, or give me death. For sure, its easy for me to type that sitting in my heated house, with my two cars, wi-fi and PVR-ed Habs games, and I won't deny that, but that heated house, two cars, wi-fi and PVR-ed Habs game came because others were willing to pay that price. I will not sit here and say its okay to sacrifice the personal freedom that they fought and died for because it's a scary world otherwise, because that's not what I believe. I believe that we owe it to THEM to act otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 25, 2009 17:39:44 GMT -5
The question is "would you rather claim a high and noble society or let suspected terrorists walk free amongst your family and children"? Or you can ask the same question, but from the other side; would you lock up your family and children in case they are suspected terrorists? Its easy to say "well, sucks to be them, but what are you gonna do, we need to be safe" when you're not "one of them." Would you accept your wife and children being in Gitmo in the name of "public safety?" If mom and dad gave litle Johnny this for his tenth birthday, I would....  Would you let a convicted pedophile babysit your children? Would you live besides someone who was freed because they did not have enough evidence to be convicted of terrorism? |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 25, 2009 17:56:59 GMT -5
As to your question; you're damn right you let them go free. If you can't convict them, then by every definition of what we call freedom they HAVE to go free. Do you run the risk that they will simply return to the battlefield. Again, you're damn right you do. And you know what? That's just too bad. Freedom is neither easy, nor free. There are prices to pay for freedom, many have paid it, many more will continue to pay it. It sucks, but that's just the way it is. The alternative is a police state, where everyone is safe, but no one is free, and that is NOT what our culture, our way of life, is based on. Give me liberty, or give me death. For sure, its easy for me to type that sitting in my heated house, with my two cars, wi-fi and PVR-ed Habs games, and I won't deny that, but that heated house, two cars, wi-fi and PVR-ed Habs game came because others were willing to pay that price. I will not sit here and say its okay to sacrifice the personal freedom that they fought and died for because it's a scary world otherwise, because that's not what I believe. I believe that we owe it to THEM to act otherwise. Don't buy it...and neither does the Canadian justice system. There are many decision based on "the greater good" and this is one of them. Gun laws. Hate laws. Simply put, one has to balance the needs and safety of society over the freedom of the VERY FEW who CHOSE to threaten that society. It's a conscious decision made every day by every judge and parole officer in Canada. As an aside....(not dircted at you BC) There is one pile of hypocrisy by many who at the same time they cry out for individual freedom also cry out to restrict those freedoms when it comes to gun ownership, pornography, prostitution, hate literature, etc. There seems to be no end to the contortioning of what "freedom" means. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jan 25, 2009 18:37:54 GMT -5
Not magically protected, and yes it could possibly happen (and the Leafs could possibly win the cup this year and the moon could possibly crash into the earth) but certain factors make it unlikely. Namely the culture. From what I have read, from what I've been told, much of the horrors that happened there happened because of a very wide cultural gap between the West and Japan. You're right - a cultural shift might happen. But there is such a long way to fall and so many voices that would have to all at once be silenced. Think about it - even now, with the relatively good treatment of prisoners at Gitmo (relative to WW2 era Japanese Prison Camps) there is a large segment of the American population who scream bloody murder about it. How far would you have to go to silence those voices? How far would you have to silence those that would speak up if the treatment fell further? Is it possible. Technically, sure. Will it happen? I'd bet my life savings on it not even coming close. Why do you assume the public will know about it? Until recently, the Bush administration denied the existence of the secret prisons which Obama has ordered closed. Who knows what went on there? As for silencing voices of dissent, Bush has put the mechanism in place. Now that the new president has such massive popular support, he might have enough leeway to start using it, and once it becomes expected, a lot of those voices will get quiet on their own. I presume you are referring to the CIA "black sites" since, although you don't come out an say it, it's the only thing I can think of as fitting the bill here. Which is funny, because it just proves how wrong you are. Despite the efforts of the US Administrations attempts to smother information about these sites on an ethical basis (leaving the legal discussions aside - I am not a lawyer and I do not wish to delve in the vagaries of the Geneva Conventions at this time) they were known to exist almost as soon as they were opened, and their existence was reported by a major news source (the Washington Post) by late 2002, less than a year after they were started (they were started in the closing days of 2001 following the 9/11 attacks). Our society, our culture, is built so that we are intolerant to secrets and those who keep them - for better or for worse. It is impossible to keep secrets in this day and age, and no matter what rules a government might put in place it will remain impossible to keep secrets. Ask the Chinese - who are past masters at keeping secrets - how long things can be kept under wraps. Of course, all of this really ignores the true question - do you have a better solution? Is your ethical peace of mind worth the lives of men, women and children? |
|
|
|
Post by Yossarian on Jan 25, 2009 18:54:19 GMT -5
Most of America got exactly what it asked for by electing(?) an underachieving, lazy, unintelligent, rigid and intolerant individual, with a history of drug and alcohol abuse, and running companies into the ground. Was there really any alternative to the current situation this nation finds itself in? You are waaaaaayyy overdosing on spittle..... I am? Which part of what of what I wrote is not true? |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jan 25, 2009 19:11:18 GMT -5
If mom and dad gave litle Johnny this for his tenth birthday, I would.... And if mommy and daddy gave Johnny that for his tenth birthday then obviously we'd have the beginnings of a pretty good case to lock them up, wouldn't we? Trust your - our - legal system. Its a good one. People have fought and died for it. It makes mistake, but the alternatives... Would you let a convicted pedophile babysit your children? Of course not. Why would I? I live in a free society, I can choose whoever I want to be my babysitter. And since I happen to know that he was a pedophile I can make my informed and free decision. I don't have to rely on inneundo, stereotypes and somebody telling me that "we know what's best for you." He was tried and convicted in an open court, with evidence for all to see. Would you live besides someone who was freed because they did not have enough evidence to be convicted of terrorism? Don't know. Would have to depend on the person who lives beside me I guess. Again, our culture, our entire way of life is based on individual freedoms. Every person, every single person is judged on their merits and behaviours, and their merits and behaviors only. If my neighbor was a raving lunatic who keeps screaming "death to the west!" and who makes throat slashing gestures every time I pass by, then no. If he just happens to have the same last name as a known terrorist and seems to be a good guy otherwise, then yes. If I am that concerned about it, I go to his trial - he's entitled to a trial after all - and as his peer I listen to the evidence against him, presented in a public and open trial. I then make my informed decision. If its not possible for me to listen to all the evidence for national security reasons, then I trust that those peers selected to hear that evidence are capable of making the proper informed decision. Again, its a good legal system. A very good one. The best one the world has ever seen. Its not a perfect one, it makes mistakes, sometimes very bad mistakes, but its still a very good system. We should trust it. Watch it, work on it, improve it, by all means. Eternal vigilance and all that. But don't circumvent it because its too hard to do otherwise... |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jan 25, 2009 19:17:28 GMT -5
Don't buy it...and neither does the Canadian justice system. There are many decision based on "the greater good" and this is one of them. Gun laws. Hate laws. Simply put, one has to balance the needs and safety of society over the freedom of the VERY FEW who CHOSE to threaten that society. It's a conscious decision made every day by every judge and parole officer in Canada. The difference there is that you are taking away the freedom of an individual to commit certain actions, as opposed to the freedom of the individual himself. The individual is not free to carry a gun into a bank, to spew hatred, to yell fire in a crowded theatre. Those actions can cause serious harm. But if you want to take the freedom of an individual, his entire freedom, then you had better have a good reason for doing so. You say the "very few who chose to threaten society" should be locked away. I agree; try them, convict them, lock them away. Trust the Canadian justice system to do its job. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Jan 25, 2009 19:31:59 GMT -5
Why do you assume the public will know about it? Until recently, the Bush administration denied the existence of the secret prisons which Obama has ordered closed. Who knows what went on there? As for silencing voices of dissent, Bush has put the mechanism in place. Now that the new president has such massive popular support, he might have enough leeway to start using it, and once it becomes expected, a lot of those voices will get quiet on their own. I presume you are referring to the CIA "black sites" since, although you don't come out an say it, it's the only thing I can think of as fitting the bill here. Which is funny, because it just proves how wrong you are. Despite the efforts of the US Administrations attempts to smother information about these sites on an ethical basis (leaving the legal discussions aside - I am not a lawyer and I do not wish to delve in the vagaries of the Geneva Conventions at this time) they were known to exist almost as soon as they were opened, and their existence was reported by a major news source (the Washington Post) by late 2002, less than a year after they were started (they were started in the closing days of 2001 following the 9/11 attacks). And a lot of people refused to believe it. It doesn't much matter what gets "reported" as long as people dismiss it as propaganda or conspiracy theories. Again, that's the "it couldn't happen here" mentality at work. Is yours? |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Jan 25, 2009 19:44:32 GMT -5
If mom and dad gave litle Johnny this for his tenth birthday, I would.... And if mommy and daddy gave Johnny that for his tenth birthday then obviously we'd have the beginnings of a pretty good case to lock them up, wouldn't we? I wonder what people in, for example, Iraq, think when they see American children playing at being soldiers. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Jan 25, 2009 19:47:04 GMT -5
At least we found out eventually. At least there is public oversight. What chance would prisoners in Gitmo have if it were to remain open? If Arar had been sent there, would he be there still? I'm not sure I understand the point. We have found out about Gitmo .... so there was some oversight. Not of the cases of the individual prisoners. Yes, it is. BC made the point well: you don't get freedom without risk. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 25, 2009 21:55:12 GMT -5
If mom and dad gave litle Johnny this for his tenth birthday, I would.... And if mommy and daddy gave Johnny that for his tenth birthday then obviously we'd have the beginnings of a pretty good case to lock them up, wouldn't we? Trust your - our - legal system. Its a good one. People have fought and died for it. It makes mistake, but the alternatives... Not really. If those were just boxes of chocolates, I think it would be impossible to get a conviction. The intent may be there and the desire may be there but without evidence under OUR legal system. Are you going to convit them on "thinking about it"? That's not going to happen. Or should it happen? For the greater good? Would you live besides someone who was freed because they did not have enough evidence to be convicted of terrorism? Don't know. Would have to depend on the person who lives beside me I guess. Again, our culture, our entire way of life is based on individual freedoms. Every person, every single person is judged on their merits and behaviours, and their merits and behaviors only. If my neighbor was a raving lunatic who keeps screaming "death to the west!" and who makes throat slashing gestures every time I pass by, then no. If he just happens to have the same last name as a known terrorist and seems to be a good guy otherwise, then yes. If I am that concerned about it, I go to his trial - he's entitled to a trial after all - and as his peer I listen to the evidence against him, presented in a public and open trial. I then make my informed decision. If its not possible for me to listen to all the evidence for national security reasons, then I trust that those peers selected to hear that evidence are capable of making the proper informed decision. Again, its a good legal system. A very good one. The best one the world has ever seen. Its not a perfect one, it makes mistakes, sometimes very bad mistakes, but its still a very good system. We should trust it. Watch it, work on it, improve it, by all means. Eternal vigilance and all that. But don't circumvent it because its too hard to do otherwise... Last name? Don't endrun this into "if his name is Mohammed". The question was clearer then that. By saying that you would make an "informed opinion", while it sounds "reasonable", the fact remains that one simply can not trust our legal system to work with enough certainty and worse then that, the legal system can not peer into a persons intent. If you are comfortable with "there was not enough evidence" and it was good enough, then you are indeed free to take the risk. I'm not. I am not advocating a totalitarian state but I am advocating a "greater good" state that is willing to be that much more vigilant and that much more aggressive pursuing people who intent great direct harm. Even more so then people who toss their "hate" on a piece of toilet paper and call it literature. Of course not. Why would I? I live in a free society, I can choose whoever I want to be my babysitter. And since I happen to know that he was a pedophile I can make my informed and free decision. I don't have to rely on inneundo, stereotypes and somebody telling me that "we know what's best for you." He was tried and convicted in an open court, with evidence for all to see. Innuendo and stereotypes have nothing to do with this (nice stickhandling though. I had to rethink that one). Let's move away from babysitting for you and "your" rights to the pedophile teaching in a public school. The issue boils down to this, does society take preventive action on the few for the greater good. If it's yes for the pedophile then it has to be yes for the terrorist wannabe. I'm trying to boil it down to a debate of greater good and making the case that the greater good should include convicting terrorist wannabe, hate mongers and pedophiles equally. Now to be truthful, from what I'm reading, we may not be that far apart in our views and really arguing about the "degree" of actions which we are willing to take or accept. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 25, 2009 22:17:17 GMT -5
Don't buy it...and neither does the Canadian justice system. There are many decision based on "the greater good" and this is one of them. Gun laws. Hate laws. Simply put, one has to balance the needs and safety of society over the freedom of the VERY FEW who CHOSE to threaten that society. It's a conscious decision made every day by every judge and parole officer in Canada. The difference there is that you are taking away the freedom of an individual to commit certain actions, as opposed to the freedom of the individual himself. The individual is not free to carry a gun into a bank, to spew hatred, to yell fire in a crowded theatre. Those actions can cause serious harm. But if you want to take the freedom of an individual, his entire freedom, then you had better have a good reason for doing so. You say the "very few who chose to threaten society" should be locked away. I agree; try them, convict them, lock them away. Trust the Canadian justice system to do its job. What certain actions? Owning a gun does not make one guilty of "certain actions", no more then if one owns a knife, or a chainsaw, or a really sharp dildo. That's grossly presumptions. Further....a wider conversation..... Are you distinguishing between "freedoms"? Does religion have a different set of rules of freedom then ownership of a gun? Are those religious freedoms different for different people? What about the polygamist? Or is it about intent? Does a pedophile who reads porn guilty? Or does society say that he should NOT read that porn and then proceed to throw him in jail even though he has not commited any crime greater then reading a book? Or reading hate literture. Shouldn't there be a constant in society so it does not make us hypocrits? We are either for a "greater good" which would include convicting terrorist as having the "equal intent" as a pedophile/hate reader or we dole out equal freedoms. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 26, 2009 8:18:52 GMT -5
Of course not. Why would I? I live in a free society, I can choose whoever I want to be my babysitter. And since I happen to know that he was a pedophile I can make my informed and free decision. I don't have to rely on inneundo, stereotypes and somebody telling me that "we know what's best for you." He was tried and convicted in an open court, with evidence for all to see. Sure it is easy when it is cut and dry .... no one wants to live next to a pedophile, and no one wants a pedophile babysitting their kids. But thats not a proper analogy. What do you do when your best friend tells you that he saw your babysitter sitting down at the park "watching the kids", or he heard rumours that your babysitter/kids teacher is suspected of being a pedophile? Do you leave those kids in that person's care? He is afterall only "suspected" , he isn't convicted ... and it is only rumours. So you leave those kids with him/her until you have undeniable proof? If so man, you are WAY better than me .... and I'll actually go out on a limb and say you may be the only man (if you say yes) on earth who wouldn't be looking for a new babysitter pronto.... |
|
