"actually, the Bush administration is making it worse"
- - That's your opinion, and one you can't support with anything other than conjecture."


To say the Bush administrations current policies are halting the spread of terrorism is pure conjecture as well.

- - Actually, what would cause the founding fathers to roll in their graves would be the idea of extending the rights of US Citizens to terrorists.


Could be. But the founding fathers were considered terrorists by the British Empire.And their gripes were pretty weak compared to some so-called terrorists' gripes now.

Wow, that's a pretty far stretch. So you think we're just rounding up anyone we find? We're just classifying every Tom, Dick and Mohammad as a terrorist because we love having prisoners to interrogate?

You think everyone that the gov't rounds up as a "terrorist" is actually one?

You mean like when we had Bin Laden and let him go?

I guess we should have had Rumsfeld just slap the cuffs on Saddam, would've saved us all a lot of trouble in ensuing years.That's a Constitutional right for all American citizens, and only applies within the borders of our country (as we noticed when terrorists were beheading innocent civilians recently).


So anyone who isn't American doesn't matter?

Actually, it should.

Who made you judge jury executioner and god?

You seem to put a lot of faith in the abilities of the CIA and the fact that they won't make any mistakes in their determination of who is and who isn't a terrorist. It's also pretty sad that you seem to think basic rights (ie right to a trial or even to not be tortured) only applies to Americans. We'll make a lot of friends in the world with your attitude.

"We'll make a lot of friends in the world with your attitude. "


Yep.

Some idiot will respond: Who cares?

I respond: Without a lot of friends, we have not a chance in hell of halting terrorism.

Which is why this stuff (CIA's secret facilities, rendering, not giving suspected terrorists any "rights") is just shooting us in the foot. We need more countries on board, not fewer.

"That doesn't mean some CIA goon should be able to torture them without fear for retribution in some secret prison in Estonia, which was the gist of the bill McCain sponsored."
- - Actually, as long as we're talking about POWs, terrorists are not included in whatever protections might be codified.

And we have a rumor about secret prisons. You're jumping to the conclusion that random innocents are being tortured.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

"I'm not sure how you got that. What I am amazed at is that, in two sentences, you suggested that what we did was the wrong thing to do and a bad precedent to set, and that the solution to that was not to correct the offending behaviour, but to punish the person who squealed and let out the secret."
- - The post to which you are responding doesn't say anything like that. All I said in that post was Gee, why are you suddenly not upset about CIA leakage when you wanted to hang Scooter from the yardarm for what cannot possibly be compared to this leak.

"As was the case with the Plame discussion, if classified information was leaked to those who weren't supposed to have it, then I think that action should be punished."
- - Thank you, I know that it hurts you to even partially agree with me.

"But to suggest that the solution to poor policy is to just keep it secret is pretty lame."
- - How do you know it's poor policy?

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

"To say the Bush administrations current policies are halting the spread of terrorism is pure conjecture as well."
- - I didn't say they were, although I support what they're doing.

- - Actually, what would cause the founding fathers to roll in their graves would be the idea of extending the rights of US Citizens to terrorists.
"Could be. But the founding fathers were considered terrorists by the British Empire.And their gripes were pretty weak compared to some so-called terrorists' gripes now."
- - Is there a point in there somewhere? Are you likening the terrorists to our founding fathers?

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

"You think everyone that the gov't rounds up as a 'terrorist' is actually one?"
- - I have no reason to doubt that they have legitimate suspicions to support what they're doing.

You mean like when we had Bin Laden and let him go?
"I guess we should have had Rumsfeld just slap the cuffs on Saddam, would've saved us all a lot of trouble in ensuing years."
- - Actually, I think Bush 41 was a nitwit for allowing Saddam to stay in power in 1991. And can you argue that it wouldn't have saved us a lot of trouble, and saved a lot of Iraqi lives?

"So anyone who isn't American doesn't matter?"
- - Wow, how did you stretch to that? What I said was that the protections of our Constitution do not apply to non-citizens. You can't legitimately complain about the violation of US Constitutional rights when it comes to foreigners, and especially terrorists.

"Who made you judge jury executioner and god?"
- - No one. I'm just informing you of the laws as they exist. You want to play judge by extending rights to those not entitled to have them. The rights appertaining to the US Consitution are for US Citizens. Why would you want those rights extended to those who would slit your throat in a New York minute?

"You seem to put a lot of faith in the abilities of the CIA and the fact that they won't make any mistakes in their determination of who is and who isn't a terrorist."
- - Nope. They're as fallible as the next guy, but they have their job to do and I can't think of a reason to interfere with it, especially in today's international climate.

"It's also pretty sad that you seem to think basic rights (ie right to a trial or even to not be tortured) only applies to Americans."
- - Well, the prisoners in those secret prisons, if they're from Arab nations, probably don't have those rights in their own countries, so why should they have them granted by those whom they would kill?

"We'll make a lot of friends in the world with your attitude."
- - Well, considering that we're talking about people who would detonate a nuclear device in Washington DC if they could, I'll not be losing a minutes sleep over the additional contempt they may feel towards us because we're trying to prevent them from doing so.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

"I respond: Without a lot of friends, we have not a chance in hell of halting terrorism."

Perhaps we should choose who we want as our friends. I believe there are a lot of Brits who would love to see the transit bombers found and punished, and a lot of people in a lot of other countries who have been victimized by terrorists just might not agree with you that we should show them such compassion.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

Are you likening the terrorists to our founding fathers?


Depends on who you consider terrorists. Bali bombers, 911 hijackers, Chechens who blow up grade schools, Arabs 2,000 miles from home running around in Afghanistan, they are terrorists, and pretty different from our founding fathers ... But some of the quarter million so-called "insurgents" in Iraq honestly believe they are defending their lives and families. Same with some of the kids in Palestine, even. Nelson Mandela was once a terrorist, remember ... I might do the same if I were them, I don't know.

I'll be really ridiculous and say even Arabs 2,000 miles from home running around with machine guns in Afghanistan or Arabs 10,000 miles from home doing suspcious shit right here in the U.S. still have some rights. If our country can't set an example, who can?

"But some of the quarter million so-called 'insurgents' in Iraq honestly believe they are defending their lives and families."
- - It would seem that very few of the "insurgents" are actually Iraqis.

"Same with some of the kids in Palestine, even. Nelson Mandela was once a terrorist, remember ... I might do the same if I were them, I don't know."
- - Do the same? By that do you mean blowing up restaurants and shopping malls? Sending children into grocery stores to blow themselves to pieces? Somehow I don't think you would.

"I'll be really ridiculous and say even Arabs 2,000 miles from home running around with machine guns in Afghanistan or Arabs 10,000 miles from home doing suspcious shit right here in the U.S. still have some rights."
- - I don't see why they should. I don't see them respecting our rights. We didn't attack them; they attacked us.

If our country can't set an example, who can?"
- - Example of what? How to let terrorists f*** with you? I think I'd rather demonstrate how well we can survive, despite the sub-human scum that would kill us. I agreed with President Bush when he said he didn't plan to wait until the mushroom cloud appears to herald the success of the terrorists. But sometimes I think that's what it's going to take to wake up most of America.

These people aren't playing.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

"The post to which you are responding doesn't say anything like that"

You dodge better than anyone. No, the post to which I replied this time did not say that, the previous post did. You said that we shouldn't be setting this precedent, therefore whoever told on us should be punished. That's what I replied to.



"All I said in that post was Gee, why are you suddenly not upset about CIA leakage when you wanted to hang Scooter from the yardarm for what cannot possibly be compared to this leak. "

Yes, and I pointed out that what you said, as usual, was not based on anything.



"How do you know it's poor policy? "

Because you said so. You said it was a bad precedent to set. Really, you should try to keep up with the discussion.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Hey Slowman, Could you add a Cousin Elwood filter?

That's an interesting position to claim, in this context. I guess torture is morally good and right?

I have said on numerous occasions that I do not condone torture so please don't try and trip me up here. I have also said that what may be considered torture by some may not be viewed as such by others.

Why? Seriously.


I hate to use him as a source but elwood actually answered how I feel in another post. "When the soviets did it, they were arresting their own citizens. When we do it, we're arresting people who would like to fly more airplanes into US office buildings."

Bob, you keep avoiding one of the main points: How do we know we're arresting people who would like to fly more airplanes into US office buildings? Faith is one thing, but blind faith is another.

Isn't Padilla a US citizen?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Hey Armytriguy,

To be quite frank, I am more than happy for the CIA or the army to do whatever they need to do to win this war against terror. Electrocute therapy to their their nuts if necessary. At least they won't get their bodyparts chopped off or their heads lobbed off, if their own kind happen to feel they were undesirable for some reason.

Tell me If I don't make sense, but it's really ironical how folks here are so willing to make waves and so much adamant noise about them poor Muslim terrorists and suspected terrorists and terrorist supporters not getting their justice and fair play treatment at the hands of the people who are trying to protect us. About how bringing the offence to terrorism is just so wrong one way or another. I really haven't seen a lot of adamance about all the victims of terrorism at all and that's a fact a cursory glance through these post topics will show. The word ingrate comes to mind.

I'm glad the seven British soldiers who were charged with killing some Iraqi were found not guilty. Imagine going over there, putting your ass on the line in those conditions, then being charged and convicted of murder. The USA and the UK and the UN are trying to be the good guys to help Iraq get on it's feet. Now it's become the battleground between the forces of democracy and those that vie for a religious fanatic backward institution that is a threat to others. All we need is for Iraq to become another Iran. That is exactly what those insurgence now bombing their own brother Muslims almost daily want.

Thanks for your this thread and bringing up this current topic to discuss.

Bob, you keep avoiding one of the main points: How do we know we're arresting people who would like to fly more airplanes into US office buildings? Faith is one thing, but blind faith is another.

Isn't Padilla a US citizen?

Ken we don't know if they would like to fly airplanes into buildings. Thats what an interrogation is for. What I do know is many, if not most, of these detainees were captured on the battlefield trying to kill US servicemen. Other prisoners have been captured or detained as the result of intelligence indicating they are a suspect. As I continue to say torture is NOT what should be happening. Having said that, there is going to be a difference of opinion on what exactly constitutes torture. For some people depriving the prisoners of sleep or playing loud music is torture.



Let me ask you this. If there should be some oversight or as you said "who watches the watchers" then who should that be? A US agency? An international body?

"Hey Slowman, Could you add a Cousin Elwood filter?"

If you don't like my thread, you're welcome to go bother someone else.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

"Tell me If I don't make sense,"

That's too easy.

The reason you don't hear wailing and tears for the victims of terrorism on here is because it's understood that the terrorists do bad things, that we all feel sorry for their victims, and that we want terrorism to stop and terrorists to be brought to justice. It is possible for people to dislike terrorists and terrorism, but still want for them to be captured, prosecuted, and punished in accordance with the law. It's not a matter of sympathizing with the terrorists, but of wanting to preserve the system they are trying to tear down.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

"You dodge better than anyone. No, the post to which I replied this time did not say that, the previous post did."
- - Me dodging? I'm responding to a post that made no sense. Non sequitor. How is that dodging.

"You said that we shouldn't be setting this precedent, therefore whoever told on us should be punished. That's what I replied to."
- - I'm saying that if we have secret prisons, that's the sort of thing that should be investigated behind closed doors, not in the international media. Do you disagree?

CE: "All I said in that post was Gee, why are you suddenly not upset about CIA leakage when you wanted to hang Scooter from the yardarm for what cannot possibly be compared to this leak. "
SG: "Yes, and I pointed out that what you said, as usual, was not based on anything."
- - It's based on my opinion. Isn't that what you're profering? Your opinion. I mean I know you like to slip in something about how you used to deal with classified info, so you're an expert, but get real. You're just a name on a post on some Internet forum. No one hired you to be the legal authority.

"Really, you should try to keep up with the discussion."
- - This from an guy who doesn't even know what post he's responding to?

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

"Me dodging? I'm responding to a post that made no sense. Non sequitor. How is that dodging"

Ok, since you're having trouble fending off all the attacks, I'll refresh your memory. Your post said this:

Posert: "So with that in mind, are secret prisons and prsioner abuse scandals really the kinds of global precedents we want to be setting forth for other countries with less refined moral distinctions?"
You: "No, which is why the person who leaked this should be in serious trouble."

I'm telling you that that is a piss poor position to take. Let's say a parent does drugs. He doesn't want his kids to do drugs by following his example. Is the solution to just lie to his kids, or to stop doing the drugs? The answer's pretty obvious.



"CE: "All I said in that post was Gee, why are you suddenly not upset about CIA leakage when you wanted to hang Scooter from the yardarm for what cannot possibly be compared to this leak. "
SG: "Yes, and I pointed out that what you said, as usual, was not based on anything."
- - It's based on my opinion. Isn't that what you're profering? Your opinion. I mean I know you like to slip in something about how you used to deal with classified info, so you're an expert, but get real. You're just a name on a post on some Internet forum. No one hired you to be the legal authority."


What are you talking about? I never claimed to be a legal authority. And what does it have to do with your completely bullshit claim that I want to "hang Scooter from the yardarm?"



"This from an guy who doesn't even know what post he's responding to?"

The fact that you can't follow the posts back is your problem, not mine. I assume that since you spew so much crap, you have a hard time keeping track of which poster is refuting which bullshit claim you made last.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Posert: "So with that in mind, are secret prisons and prsioner abuse scandals really the kinds of global precedents we want to be setting forth for other countries with less refined moral distinctions?"
You: "No, which is why the person who leaked this should be in serious trouble."
- - And what you're missing here is that no one (at this time and certainly none of us) knows whether these prisons actually exist and it is certainly speculation to say that any abuses are happening there. So playing this in the media before the facts are known is just plain wrong.

"I'm telling you that that is a piss poor position to take. Let's say a parent does drugs. He doesn't want his kids to do drugs by following his example. Is the solution to just lie to his kids, or to stop doing the drugs? The answer's pretty obvious."
- - Yes it is. How it connect to the issue is impossible for me to see, unless you're ass-u-ming that all sorts of nasty and illegal things are happening, which is a long way from what we have. What we have is an unsubstantiated rumor that there are secret prisons. Let's not get the cart hooked up in front of the horse here.

"I never claimed to be a legal authority. And what does it have to do with your completely bullshit claim that I want to "hang Scooter from the yardarm?"
- - Actually, you HAVE claimed to be an authority, as someone who handled classified information. Until you descended to calling me a liar, I was giving you propers for that. So do you want to hang Scooter or not? Let's quit dancing and just put your opinion out there, because you seem to want to have it both ways.

"The fact that you can't follow the posts back is your problem, not mine."
- - I've made dozens of posts on this thread. I don't claim to be psychic, and since what you're saying makes little sense to me, figuring out which of my statements you're attempting to counter is difficult. Try to reference your responses, it's a minimal courtesy. Besides, others are reading these posts and it just makes you sound like a hack when you berate me without linking the response.

"I assume that since you spew so much crap, you have a hard time keeping track of which poster is refuting which bullshit claim you made last."
- - Make that attempting - weakly attempting - to refute claims that he seems to think are incorrect and yet can't stay on point long enough to demonstrate any problem.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

the existence of the secret prisons was NOT CLASSIFIED INFORMATION...to be classified they had to be legal....they were and are ILLEGAL.

Whoever set them up was breaking the law, whoever operated them was breaking the law, whoever blew the whistle was doing his/her country a service.

We cannot let rogue CIA operatives bypass the rule of law and bypass the will of Congress. Congress did not approve these prisons, Congress did not approve an appropriation for these prisons, whoever decided to mislead Congress about a budget line item and spend money intended for say body armor on secret prisons instead belongs in a prison himself.

---

----------------------------------------------------------
"A society is defined not only by what it creates, but by what it refuses to destroy."
John Sawhill

 
I hate to use him as a source but elwood

Heh heh. And here I've been able to skip over everything he's said so far. Dang.

"When the soviets did it, they were arresting their own citizens. When we do it, we're arresting people who would like to fly more airplanes into US office buildings."

Assuming that there aren't any of our own citizens in these secret prisons, I guess, or won't be. But more importantly, I don't see the big moral distinction between secretly imprisoning one's own citizens and the citizens of another nation. It isn't as if the Soviet Union didn't claim that everyone they sent to the Gulag was a threat to their nation. Maybe you can explain the difference to me. So far, it seems to boil down to the fact that the Soviets were bad, and the people they sent to the Gulag were good, while we're good, and the people we send to the Gulag are bad. I don't find that a very compelling argument, frankly.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

"The reason you don't hear wailing and tears for the victims of terrorism on here is because it's understood that the terrorists do bad things, that we all feel sorry for their victims, and that we want terrorism to stop and terrorists to be brought to justice."

UNDERSTOOD!!! How easily the word flows. If you had a loved one gone forever, due the senseless act of some of these mother f...ers, something tells me it wouldn't be so easily understood by you anymore. Somehow your kind of understood and trying to understand the rights of these assholes borders on dangerous apathy and a twisted sense of democractic principles.

You want to apply the letter of the law to these guys? Excuse me, Mr Abdul Fundamentalist Isam Bin Terrorist, "Excuse me before you plant some bombs in the most crowded civillian everyday place you can think of, can we please discuss the principles of law?"

As armytriguy quite rightly pointed out. Our guys really didn't capture these guys radomly off the street. They are either from the battlefield or from intelligence information. And interogation not polite conversation has to be one of our strongest assetts in preventing more 9/11 replicas. And I'll tell you upfront, if I had to make a hard choice of being a prisoner in Guantana Bay or a captive of some Islamic cell or prisoner in Iran ... please let me go to Guantana Bay Holiday Resort!!!