Terrorist and Constitutional Rights.

Migitating factors or no, it's just humans making war with other humans.

I'm tired of people criticising me for wearing a uniform, for stuff beyond my control.

Click to expand...

I'm not going to blame you. Unless your a five star general. Then I might do that.

StarCannon said:

Migitating factors or no, it's just humans making war with other humans.
I'm not going to blame you. Unless your a five star general. Then I might do that.

Click to expand...

I agree with the first part. I wouldn't blame a 5 star general, because even he has a boss.

Well, you've got a point there. Hmm...

InigoMontoja said:

Why do you want that?

Click to expand...

Because if they are guilty of terrorist acts it should show up in the trial, no problem. If they are just being held for suspicion of terrorism with little or no evidence that should come out in the trial. Honestly, not giving them a trial shows the government has something to hide.

Not giving them a trial is one more blow to our republic. If we don't give them a trial how long before they start doing the same to our citizens?

The fact that we are holding them on little evidence and toucher them lessens us enough and sickens me.

Paulos23 said:

If we don't give them a trial how long before they start doing the same to our citizens?

Click to expand...

Here's the thing: if they capture our troops, they kill us and it's not because of Guantanamo Bay. They kill us to show that they are not afraid to kill us and they don't believe in a fair trial. So, go ahead and stick that feel good mentatlity somewhere else.

Now, back to the topic.

Eazy E said:

Here's the thing: if they capture our troops, they kill us and it's not because of Guantanamo Bay. They kill us to show that they are not afraid to kill us and they don't believe in a fair trial. So, go ahead and stick that feel good mentatlity somewhere else.

Click to expand...

So we should prove ourselves to be just as bad as they are?

WatersMoon110 said:

So we should prove ourselves to be just as bad as they are?

Click to expand...

This is exactly the dilemna being faced. No matter what you do, you lose. If we treat them better than they would ever treat this, it's never good enough. We get it from both sides of the aisle, and it gets annoying. We support the troops, but let's criticize or make things deployments longer and more frequent. Can't win or lose, just got to live day to day.

Saying that if we do it, then they are going to do it to us is just the equivalent of saying that if we don't fight them there, than we're going to have to fight them at home. It's a bunch of BS propoganda with no factual basis.

Here is what Bob Barr has to say.

http://www.bobbarr2008.com/press/pr...ms-fundamental-civil-liberties-says-bob-barr/


eudaimonia,

Mark

I keep wondering what it is with this "them". It could as well be you or me, and one day you or me could be in the situation to be accused of being one of "them". The right to have a fair trial and "innocent until proven guilty" is in everybody´s best own interests.

quatona said:

I keep wondering what it is with this "them". It could as well be you or me, and one day you or me could be in the situation to be accused of being one of "them". The right to have a fair trial and "innocent until proven guilty" is in everybody´s best own interests.

Click to expand...

Don't be silly, only 'they' are accused of terrorism because only 'they' are terrorists. Creating a scapegoat always goes well and never leads to problems...just look at Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia.

Eazy E said:

Here's the thing: if they capture our troops, they kill us and it's not because of Guantanamo Bay. They kill us to show that they are not afraid to kill us and they don't believe in a fair trial. So, go ahead and stick that feel good mentatlity somewhere else.

Now, back to the topic.

Click to expand...

Sorry, the they I am referring to is our own government. The same government that is currently led by a man that the constitution is just a piece of paper. Treating the enemy better then they treat us would improve our international relations. And fair trials will go along way towards that.

When someone takes up arrms against you they are either a lawful combatent or a criminal. If they are a lawful combatent, then they are a POW and can be held so long as the war is ongoing. If they are not a lawful combatent, they are a criminal and should be treated the same as any other criminal. This third catagory of "accused terrorist' is completly bogus and is an attempt to bypass inalienable human rights. We betrey the very principles this nation was founded upon.

I just wish the politicians would just get that through their thick heads.

People talk of the length of the war, but the war in Iraq is over, and the war against terrorism is so vague it may never end. When dealing with a classic POW, you generally ran across the guy in a war-zone with a gun in his hand, no gray area. This is completely different. I believe by not giving these people justice, we are compromising the very freedoms we should be protecting.

Paulos23 said:

Sorry, the they I am referring to is our own government. The same government that is currently led by a man that the constitution is just a piece of paper. Treating the enemy better then they treat us would improve our international relations. And fair trials will go along way towards that.

Click to expand...

We already treat them better than they treat us, but it goes back to the whole "it could be better" line. The only way the internation community, plus those at home who feel that the accused rights are being violated, is if their treatment is much better than the treat the US Soldiers currently receive from the government. Sorry, but all they need are three things: shelter, food and water. If they are a suspected terrorist, send them back to their home country. Enemy combatent or POW, keep them till we are done with Iraq, then send them to their country of origin.

stan1980 said:

Spot on.

A few years back, I thought we (United Kingdom) had made a lot of mistakes with how we dealt with terrorism with regards to the provisional IRA, but I thought fair enough, we might have learnt something from it all. I'm not so sure we have. Thatcher stood firm against the IRA, it didn't work, and almost got her killed. A lot of shady stuff went on, from both sides I might add, but in the end we compromised, and after various cease fires, and negotiating, we seem to heading into more peaceful times, something I never thought I'd see in my lifetime.

Click to expand...

That is the weird thing about the IRA, or more precisely the British legal view of them. Under Thatcher terrorists were considered criminals and tried as criminals, under Major and Blair they became POW's. So members of the IRA which under Thatcher were tried and afforded the rights (save for some slight differences) of criminal defendants, under the later governments they became POW's and were released at the end of hostilities just like any POW would be. Despite the fact that alot of them had alot of time left to serve from their criminal sentences from their terrorist activities.

The Bush administration though seems to be taken a different stance. They are POWs not criminals. But very very special POW's that can be tried and sentenced to death. So they are also criminals but not POWs. I think the phrase is "enemy combatant" which is not a made up phrase at all.

As a military organisation, I don't think Al-Qaeda are a patch on what the IRA were, at least not yet,

Click to expand...

Al Qaeda never will be.

The IRA was a organized force with a definitive goals and well trained members. Al Qaeda is a unorganized force with no real goals with completely incompetent members (well especially after the Afghan invasion).

If you look at the attempted attacks against the UK b Al Qaeda that were not stopped by the police or security services you have 7/7 being the only successful one.

Others such as the planned 14/7 were foiled by these apparent master terrorists not storing their explosives right, the shoebomber was stop by civilians restraining him, the last one I heard was foiled by the guy's inability to make a bomb that works and then driving a burning car into an airport almost causing the death of themselves and noone else. These are only the ones I remember but that is a hit rate of at most 25% when you are not counting those caught beforehand.

I don't know what Martin McGuinness' opinion of Al Qaeda in the UK is however I would guess it would go along the lines of "Ha, amateurs". The Afghan war killed any threat from them that would more significant than some lone mad man (like the Unabomber).

but we seem to be doing are damn best to give them more sympathisers and we're practically doing their recruiting for them. If we want it stop, it's quite simple, get out of the middle east, and stop supporting Israel. It wont happen though while the oil is still there unfortunately.

Click to expand...

I disagree with the stop supporting Israel. Stop supporting Israel unconditionally would be a better idea.

Eazy E said:

We already treat them better than they treat us, but it goes back to the whole "it could be better" line. The only way the internation community, plus those at home who feel that the accused rights are being violated, is if their treatment is much better than the treat the US Soldiers currently receive from the government. Sorry, but all they need are three things: shelter, food and water. If they are a suspected terrorist, send them back to their home country. Enemy combatent or POW, keep them till we are done with Iraq, then send them to their country of origin.

Click to expand...

The US could be treating everyone at Gitmo or other detention centres like the Queen of England and the international community would be concerned because the problem is that how the detainees are being treated and interrogated is being kept secret.

Also it allows those that you are fighting against minds to "fill in the blanks", they will come up with mad stuff, and if they hold you captive they will say things like "we treat you better than you treat us". In Brain Keenan's autobiography he says this is exactly what his captors in Lebanon said to him, he was lucky because despite the torture they where inflicting on him apparently the Israeli's cut off testicles.

It is not about whether or not injustices are occurring it is whether or not they are perceived to be. Secrecy does carry with it a perception that injustices are occurring, whether they are or not.

Maxwell511 said:

The US could be treating everyone at Gitmo or other detention centres like the Queen of England and the international community would be concerned because the problem is that how the detainees are being treated and interrogated is being kept secret.

Click to expand...

Reps for this.

Eazy E said:

Here's the thing: if they capture our troops, they kill us and it's not because of Guantanamo Bay. They kill us to show that they are not afraid to kill us and they don't believe in a fair trial. So, go ahead and stick that feel good mentatlity somewhere else.

Click to expand...

Did you expect them to roll out the red carpet for you?

Sarcasm aside, it is hardly a surprise. As already said, we can be and should be better than that, particularly as we have been the aggressors in this war. Now if Iraqi troops were in my country, occupying my land, I would have much less sympathy for their fate.

Maxwell511 said:

That is the weird thing about the IRA, or more precisely the British legal view of them. Under Thatcher terrorists were considered criminals and tried as criminals, under Major and Blair they became POW's. So members of the IRA which under Thatcher were tried and afforded the rights (save for some slight differences) of criminal defendants, under the later governments they became POW's and were released at the end of hostilities just like any POW would be. Despite the fact that alot of them had alot of time left to serve from their criminal sentences from their terrorist activities.

Click to expand...

I was under the impression they were released as part of the negotiations to bring an end to the violence. Whether someone who has killed civilians should be released early is debatable, and could probably do with a thread of its own, but I suppose it was for the greater good, and there isn't too much reason to believe they are still a risk to the public, unless of course they sign up to one of the break away groups like the Real IRA.

Maxwell511 said:

Al Qaeda never will be.

The IRA was a organized force with a definitive goals and well trained members. Al Qaeda is a unorganized force with no real goals with completely incompetent members (well especially after the Afghan invasion).

If you look at the attempted attacks against the UK b Al Qaeda that were not stopped by the police or security services you have 7/7 being the only successful one.

Others such as the planned 14/7 were foiled by these apparent master terrorists not storing their explosives right, the shoebomber was stop by civilians restraining him, the last one I heard was foiled by the guy's inability to make a bomb that works and then driving a burning car into an airport almost causing the death of themselves and noone else. These are only the ones I remember but that is a hit rate of at most 25% when you are not counting those caught beforehand.

I don't know what Martin McGuinness' opinion of Al Qaeda in the UK is however I would guess it would go along the lines of "Ha, amateurs". The Afghan war killed any threat from them that would more significant than some lone mad man (like the Unabomber).

Click to expand...

Never say never.

Being Irish, you'll know this, but one of the reasons the IRA had sympathisers and willing members was because of the poor treatment of Catholics in Northern Ireland. I'm not really entirely sure all of what went on (my own ignorance, I admit. My family in NI are protestants so I only hear one side of the story), but I would guess the army opening fire and killing protesters didn't help matters. Now if some of the Muslim community feel they are being targeted (like the Catholics used to feel) then there is every chance they could get stronger, and pick up more support. I for one would like to do everything possible to avoid history repeating itself. If you can't learn from the past what can you learn from?