To be honest that doesn't supprise me, but I agree under such situations any information is not exatly going to be reliable.
****ing hell, if I was detained for years and tortured daily I would go against the country that detained me when released, anyone and everyone would!!!
Reliability of information is irrelevant. We all remember Rodney King's unprovoced beating by L.A. police officers in 1991, because the act was caught on glorious Camcordervision. Yet despite this overwhelming evidence, the officers walked free, acquitted by an all-white jury. Fewer people will recall the case of Cameron Doomadgee, an Australian aboriginal who died in police custody in 2004: The killing blow to his abdomen had been so severe, that according to the coroner's report his liver and other organs had been cleaved by his spine. The officer responsible for his detention, Sgt. Hurley could not recall how he might have sustained these injuries in his cell. The arrest should not have happened anyway: reports indicate that Doomadgee was walking along the Street singing "Who Let the Dogs Out?" when Sgt. Hurley drove past, deciding that "dogs" was a reference to the police. There was no legal basis for his detention. Despite all this indisputable evidence Sgt. Hurley was also acquitted by an all-white jury. This was no surprise to the locals, who felt that other people "just didn't understand what it was like living with these blacks". The moral of the story? When people are afraid of those who they perceive as "The Others", they are only too happy to sacrifice a few of those others' lives, no matter how innocent they may be (and they aren't really, are they? Not people like them) on the altar of their own fears, uncertainties and doubts. Nobody is going to challenge, or even question those who are perceived to be the only ones standing between them and the alien threat --gotta back up the boys in protecting our own. In-group, out-group. It's all tribal. Again.
I have my own private version of Godwin's Law, Bauer's Law, which is the length of time it takes a debate on global affairs and politics to hit a reference to 24. I'm a little disappointed it hasn't been affirmed already, as it's wonderfully relevant. 24 is so morally ambiguous, and it knows it, I can't get through a moral debate without mentioning it anymore. edit - for example, the interrogation technique Bauer uses, excluding bodily harm: The ongoing debate (as that method is still in army manuals) is (a) whether it works and (b) whether it's acceptable or whether it counts as a form of emotional abuse/torture.
1. There's obvious practices (paid informants) that should not be used to detain people. 2. I don't belive for a minute that the goverment decided to detain someone and accuse them of terrorism based on zero evidence, except in cases where the discovery of the evidence is questionable. There were probably innocent people detained but if evidence is classified your just being alarmist if your saying it's made up, there're plenty of great reasons to keep evidence classified. 3. Torture is clearly a no-no but I would say it does work, and that's why it's used. 4. Freedom of speech and association applys to those who deserve it. Terrorists do kill people unlike anti-homosexual activists, terrorist have intent behind their hate. That's why it's ok to detain them "unjustly" and people who are assoiated with them. Yes, it's unfortunate that innocent poeple are detained and terriably unjust, but given the option I'd rather have them detaind then 3,000 people killed in another plane bombing. 5. People who deny my rights don't deserve them themselves, the US is just in gitmo by simply uprooting these people who would otherwise contribute to terrorism. This all falls under the just-war theory which apparently no one has studied. Moral of the story: Terrorists don't have rights. Innocent people who are affected by that should be well looked after and precautions should be taken to prevent further mistreatment. Don't stand next to a terrorist if you don't condone their practices.
Your belief, unfortunately, is no endorsement of truth. If you scroll back up, Prestidigitweeze illustrates the "evidence" on which many people were detained. Here is another. Again, your opinion is not proof. How may people have in the past confessed to being witches under torture? To supernatural acts that we now know they could not possibly have performed? Let's hear the opinion of experienced people in the field, who actually know: Unless it is you who is detained, of course. Your problem is that you readily identify with the people on the plane, but not with the people unjustly detained and possibly, tortured. I wonder why? Aren't both groups innocents? But the reason is simple: the innocent detainees are Arabs, Asians, Muslims, and therefore "others". The innocents on the plane are probably pictured in your mind as all corn-fed White Christians: people like yourself. Tribalism, dude. Wake up and smell it. Yeah, let's skip the "Innocent until proven guilty part". You know, that cornerstone of Western justice that we like to parade all over the world. You actually may have more in common with terrorists than you think. According to that doctrine, in order for a war to be justified : the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain; all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; there must be serious prospects of success; the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition. Damage: We are looking at 3000 deaths (9/11). Effectiveness of means: the terrorists were Saudi, the money that funded them was Saudi, the driving ideology came from Saudi soil. So the US invades Afghanistan to catch Osama Bin Laden (which has failed; he is still at large) and Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11 or its perpetrators at all. Success: The "War on Terror" has not produced any. The situation is at least as unstable as before, and according to many experts, substantially worse. Balance of evils: In return for 3000 innocent American deaths, we are looking at 300.000 innocent casualties (200.000 in Afghanistan, 100. 000 in Iraq) and 4 million unsettled regugees (2 million in Afghanistan, 2 million in Iraq); a total loss of moral and political credibility of the US on the international stage; only seven people at Gitmo prosecuted with nobody convicted after six years, more than half of the detainess released without charge, the remainder to be released also without charge, all their lives destroyed, all possible new recruits for the terrorist cause. I think you have not been studying it. Moral of the story: the price of being the Good Guy is that you have to be the Good Guy. You do not get the same options as the Bad Guy. As a result, the Good Guy does not always win. But that is the price you pay for being true to your lofty principles of freedom, justice and democracy. Else you are just another Bad Guy. Perhaps you can live with that, and that's OK by me. But be true to yourself and honest to others. Don't try and morally justify selfish interest. Terrorists do that, and you know what we think of them.
Do I really need to post this every time your opinion comes up? If it was a fact I would say it is, and I'll leave it at that. As for the link and pedigree's info, I said clearly that misguided evidence should not be used to incriminate anyone. Although casio watches are clearly Al-queda material. You simply can't generalize that all the evidnce against these people is false, and that's the evidence, and the cases, that matter. Again, I didn't say it was proof. If you want to look at isolated cases, yes of course there are problems with torture as a means of gaining intelligence. However, I find it hard to imagine that such an age old practice rarely yields real info, considering the thousands of years it's been succesfully used, it's what you call a tried and true method. If someone's making stuff up, it'll eventually conflict with real evidence, which is why you would never run off the info from one torture scource. This "experianced person" is hardly exsperianced in intelligence retrieval methods by inflicting torture, so I don't see how he is a great source. Furthermore, his statements are clearly errogant and near sighted. I do agree with him that torture is simply not ethical and should not be used, at least he means well. Bit-tech.net is the last place I exspected to be profiled, and your probably the person I would least exspect it from. Usually, your arguments are rashonal, misinformed, but generally well meant. Never did I exspect an under current of racism from youself. Reading this, I think you fit very nicely into several unsavory catagories, I atleast have the dignity to not mention them. With that out of the way, it's easy to say that I speak and act in my best interest, which of course I do much like everyone else in the world. If it came down to it, however, my unjust suffering in the case of a simmilar occurence would be acceptable if it helped a great many others, as unfair as it would be. If it could be prevented, that'd just be great. In war though, it's not very easy to filter out every innocent causualty. With that in mind, the war on terror could improve a great deal in means of efficency and I'm all for that. You missed the point. Lets take a look at fundamental western values and fundamental al-qaeda values. Consider this if you will; it is every persons right to eat apples, westerners say "Everyone enjoy your apples because you equally deserve them", Al-qaeda says "No apples for you equality-boasting westerners, if you keep eating them we'll kick you in the shinns". This is ok with the westerners who enjoy al-qaeda's freedom of speach, untill one day Al-qaeda goes around kicking everyone in the shinns. Well this pisses the wersterners off, who decide to kick al-qaeda's shins in retaliation. This is just dandy with most of the world untill one day a journalist from the region reportes that some of the equality-boasiting muslims are getting mistaken for al-qaeda and getting kicked in the shinns too. The westerner's are ashamed, but what are they to do? They want to enjoy their apples in peace, so they have to keep kicking al-qaeda's shinns untill they stop harrasing everyone. Westerners belive in equality, so if al-qaeda says "no apples for you!". Then the westerners are going to say "No apples for you!" and they are going to keep saying that untill al-qaeda gives up and lets everyone eat their apples in peace. Everyone has the right to enjoy thier apples, so if someone belives that some people have no rights to their apples, then your simply going to have to take away their apples untill they realise how great they are. And it all end's happily ever after. "Your belief, unfortunately, is no endorsement of truth." While this ignore's the main principles behind the just-war theory, I'd be happy to exspand upon your inclusions. Effectiveness of means: I can't argue that Iraq was a great location for anti-terrorist actions to be taken, and I wont, I think you should well know by now, what my opinions are upon the American invasion of Iraq. Osama Bin Laden may be at large but his organisation is crippled, please don't gloss over nessesary facts. As for Effectiveness of Means and it's contrubution to success... Success: There have been zero terrorist occurences in the US since 9/11, as for other parts of the world there has been many notable incedents since then. Sucess: even during times of elevated terorism the primary target remains unscathed. Balance of Evils: When destroying the ultimate evil, (unless you purport the goodness of terrorism) the Balance of Evil is not measured in numbers, as is not the way in which just-war theory is interpreted. There have unfortunatly been many innocent casualties, in defense I would question just how may people will be saved by abolishing terrorism. You often mention that "the price of being the Good Guy is that you have to be the Good Guy." I have sought to consider this ultra-pasivist theory, and even under shrouds of idealistic and oft irrational circumstance, this makes no sense by your means. Maybe you could clarify because it's impracticle to define something by itself. What exactly is a good guy though? Surely if Ghandi had met the same opposition as western values do in the middle east, he and his followers would be dead. He survived because he represented what aggresive people belived in. If there was no aggressive oposition he would've died. So lets consider a world where there is no oposition to terrorism, a world where our free society abandons our need to fight back against oppression. I'd be dead, you'd be dead, my fish might live, but another person reading this would most likely be dead, granted they belived in a free society. No Nexxo, the price of being a Good Guy is that you have to stand up for what you belive in, not be a "Good Guy." Else you are just another passivist. Perhaps you can live with that, and that's not OK by me. But be true to yourself and honest to others. Don't try and morally justify foregoing western values. Imbicils do that, and you know what we think of them.
You present it as self-evident. I'm pointing out that it is not. See? There you go again. Presenting assumption as fact. Hardly the expert you are, then. Please. Can the drama and tell me if I'm wrong. When we talk about innocent detainees and innocent plane passengers, who do you automatically identify with? I think I'll choose to be sceptical about that. I mean, you just read a hint of accusation in my previous that you may be a bit, well, tribalist, and you are simmering with indignation and outrage. Now imagine if you were accused of being a bona fide murdering terrorist, put in handcuffs and dragged to a detention center where you end up in a cell without explanation and possibly tortured (after all, it works), without the opportunity to defend yourself, talk to a lawyer or your family. This goes on for years. When you are finally released, it is without apology or compensation. Your career is ruined and your family broken. Everybody treats you with suspicion because hey, they must have had some reason to detain you, right? And you say that you would accept all this comforted in the knowledge that a great many others were kept safe? I so do think NOT. Except that it makes no sense whatsoever. The West believes in Apples for All. Al-Qaeda believes that people should not have the freedom to enjoy apples ("No apples for you!"). If the West retaliates by saying: "No apples for you!" it is in fact endorsing Al-Quada's beliefs --even if it disagrees on who it is that should not have the apples. If the West then also starts taking apples from innocent Muslims, that distinction becomes rather blurred. The West becomes just another Al-Qaeda denying people their freedom to eat apples. The best thing the West can do is to continue eating apples, and to encourage other people to do the same. If enough people discover the delight of eating apples in freedom, Al-Qaeda loses its support base. But if you take apples away from innocents, however unintentionally, they will inevitably take it personally, and retaliate ("Oh, yeah? Well no apples for you!"). Al-Qaeda is only too happy to sign them up to their cause. Just don't get me started on comparative justice, right intention, Jus in Bello and the lot. By all interpretations the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq fail epically. I'm not. Terrorist intelligence reports in the UK and US state that the threat is as big as ever --which is not as big as you think. Thing is: there never was a worldwide organised terrorist threat and there isn't now. The war on Afghanistan and Iraq: they do nothing. Some of those "notable incidents", i.e. the Madrid and London bombings are a result of the US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. 9/11 could have been prevented, by the way --the intelligence was all there. But Bush was to busy with planning his War on Iraq. But there is another problem with your argument. There have been no further terrorist incidents in the US over the last seven years, but nor were there any in the seven years before the 9/11 attacks, at a time when the United States was doing much less to protect itself. It would take only one or two guys with a gun or an explosive to terrorize vast numbers of people, as the sniper attacks around Washington, D.C., demonstrated in 2002. Accordingly, the government's protective measures would have to be nearly perfect to thwart all such plans; given the monumental (if understandable) imperfection of the government's response to Hurricane Katrina, and the debacle of FBI and National Security Agency programs to upgrade their computers to better coordinate intelligence information, that explanation seems far-fetched. Moreover, Israel still experiences terrorism in all its glory even with a far more extensive security apparatus. Fallacy: Good and Evil are abstract absolutes. They cannot be balanced at all. In the end it always comes down to people's lives. And you cannot balance the sarcifices of innocent lives now with the innocent lives that you think you will possibly save in the future. It's like torturing people to save their souls from eternal damnation in the afterlife. By that logic someone could shoot you now and say: "I may be wrong about him, but in my defence how many people may I be saving in the future?". Remember 9/11? Of course you do. The US in hysteria, Bush on the war path, drags the UK along. The results I tallied before: two costly, illegal wars with countries not even associated with the terrorist act, 300.000 innocent casualties; 4 million dispossessed, even more anti-Western sentiment in the Middle East acting as a recruiting campaign for the terrorist cause. Remember 7/7, the London bombings in 2005? I do. Next day the Londoners went back on the Tube as usual, wearing the slogan "We are not afraid". People were determined not to let terrorists change the way we live our lives here. The UK had already been dragged into the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but the result of 7/7 was only one innocent casualty, and that was because the police was afraid. But that's it. That was all. Any more terrorist attacks in the UK since? Um, no. We ate the apples anyway, and we encouraged others to do the same. We were being true to ourselves and our values. So was Ghandi. So was Jesus, whose values are bandied around most by those Western Christians who are the staunchest proponents of the War on Terror™. You think that dying on the cross was for dramatic effect? There was a message in there. Now, what do the Good Guys believe in again?
Yeah, the american government would never do anything like that! Well, if that's your opinion that's your opinion, but groups of world leaders and leading scientists who performed alot of research into the subject would disagree. (edit: as demonstrated by nexxo) The point is, if they are being held unjustly then they have either done nothing wrong or can't be proven to be linked to a terrorist activity, which means they aren't terrorists. I love the UK, I love what freedoms I have and the education I have recieved - but if they arrested me without charge, kept me for 7 years without any contact from friends, family or legal council and possibly tortured me then I would be absolutely raging. I can't even imagine the amount of bitterness I would feel, and when you cant get a job or girlfriend or friends because "you spent time at that place", you start to wonder about taking your own life, and you start to wonder about trying to take the people that detained you - or their officers (and their secretarys and nearby janitors at the same time) with you... Again, not all the people in gitmo are proven terrorists, they aren't denying your rights at all. If the US Government wanted to "uproot people from society" then why not do it on US soil under their law ? While I didn't read nexxos mega post (which is probably along the same lines as this but more eloquent ) yet, I don't particularly see how this falls under the just war theory. The "war on terror" isn't a war in the traditional sense - and the condition that "there must be serious prospect of success" is certainly not met, its only getting worse. No, terrorists HAVE rights, they are still protected under Geneva and they still have some Human Rights. Terrorists SHOULDN'T HAVE freedom. However this is neither here nor there in this conversation as Gauntanimo locks up terrorists and non-terrorists alike, mostly holding people for years and years without charges and no evidence. How do you think them people, them people who have done nothing wrong EXACTLY LIKE YOU but got nabbed because of their ethnicity, their job, or just because someone pointed at them and called them a terrorist (salem witch trials, anybody?), how do you think them people feel about having their freedoms denied without charges for doing nothing wrong.
QFT! Everyone has rights based upon their sole existence. If they chose to violate other people's rights and rules then they should have their freedom taken away, NOT their rights! Please refer to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights Document, which for your convience has been posted Here
Please tell me that was meant sarcastically... In the year 2008 alone, Casio sold 60 million watches. (source) I've owned more than one Casio watch. So has everyone I've been able to contact online. If ownership of a Casio is evidence of terrorist ties, Al-quaeda must have a membership larger than the population of the United States. There's a law in statistics saying something to the effect of "any test to find something must be at least as precise as the thing being looked for is rare." If you don't follow the law, you run into massive numbers of false positives. That's exactly what happened at Gitmo. What's next? Arresting everyone who has taken college-level chemistry, because they might know how to cook up explosives? How about physics majors? Engineers?
