CIA holds terror suspects in secret prisons

[blackguns]

You have a very valid point. I see the danger in the slippery slope of deteriorating human rights.

I guess my question is what should we do?

Certianly revealing the progress being made to us as citizens could tip off these groups and cause them to change future plans. But we should have the ability to know and approve the things that are done in our name.

How does our government maintain the principals that we all hold dear and still get the job of protecting out nation done as effectively as possible?

I have NO interest in seeing American values thrown away. But we have historically had this problem in times of war or great national peril (cold war).

I also can't get behind the idea that evil people who single mindedly seek the destruction of entire societies should be afforded the same rights and protections as a guy who is accused of shoplifting......it just doesn't seem right.

Is there ever a situation where our choice as a nation is to decide which option is LESS wrong and go with that? i.e. violating due process or possibly letting 30, 300 or 3000 people die in a terrorist bombing?

This is a tough one.....I think if you try and take the principals that we hold dear off the paper and apply them to a real world situation with real lives at stake it gets very tough very fast.

Also personal feeling influence this debate, I did know people who died on 9/11, no one that was very close to me but people I knew. 4 years later they still come up in conversation and that keeps the feelings fresh and the motivation to stop these people very high.

I can't imagine what it must be like for people who lost loved ones.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

You have a very valid point. I see the danger in the slippery slope of deteriorating human rights.

I guess my question is what should we do?

Follow the sage advice of George Washington: Malice towards none, defend what's ours, no foreign entanglements, open to foreign trade on fair terms, otherwise, leave other people's homelands alone and focus on preserving peace and liberty at home. Hard to make enemies that way.

Certianly revealing the progress being made to us as citizens could tip off these groups and cause them to change future plans. But we should have the ability to know and approve the things that are done in our name.

How does our government maintain the principals that we all hold dear and still get the job of protecting out nation done as effectively as possible?

I have NO interest in seeing American values thrown away. But we have historically had this problem in times of war or great national peril (cold war).

See above. I would much rather accept the small risk of terrorism that would result than to sacrifice an ounce of liberty. I am with Ben Frankliin on this point: "Anyone who would sacrifice liberty for security deserves neither," and I would add, "will get neither."

I also can't get behind the idea that evil people who single mindedly seek the destruction of entire societies should be afforded the same rights and protections as a guy who is accused of shoplifting......it just doesn't seem right.

No one is advocating that. You seem not to grasp that people accused of something by the government are not guilty of the thing they are accused of until proven so in a court of law. Now, if you see someone committing a terrorist act, shoot him dead and then stick his head on a pole in the public square. Hell, put it on a pig's body and broadcast images of it on international news. That's a different story, and violates no one's rights.

Is there ever a situation where our choice as a nation is to decide which option is LESS wrong and go with that? i.e. violating due process or possibly letting 30, 300 or 3000 people die in a terrorist bombing?

I am much more afraid of what my government will do once it is unchecked by the Constitution than I am afraid of what terrorists might do. You should be too.

This is a tough one.....I think if you try and take the principals that we hold dear off the paper and apply them to a real world situation with real lives at stake it gets very tough very fast.

Not at all, when you consider the alternative.

Also personal feeling influence this debate, I did know people who died on 9/11, no one that was very close to me but people I knew. 4 years later they still come up in conversation and that keeps the feelings fresh and the motivation to stop these people very high.

I can't imagine what it must be like for people who lost loved ones.

Direct your anger at terrorists, not those the government has accused of being terrorists, which one day, for all you know, may include you.

 

[Fletchette]

In point of fact, the Constitution doesn't apply to American citizens at all. It only applies to the United States Federal Government, while it pertains to both American citizens and to all of humanity. The Constitution says that "No person shall be deprived of life or liberty without due process of law." It doesn't say no American citizen. This was intentional. The Founders didn't believe that only those lucky enough to be born in America had inalienable rights. No, they believed that "All men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life and liberty." In my day, you couldn't graduate the sixth grade if you didn't know this stuff, but it seems as if this is all new to you. What a shame what has happened to our education system.

Exactly! The government does not grant rights, it can recognize them or repress them. All people have certain inalienable rights but only a few countries respect them (apparently not ours... )

 

[goosegunner]

The only thing worse than a terrorist is a terrorist state, and secret prisons looks like a step in that direction.

 

[Spiphel Rike]

The only thing worse than a terrorist is a terrorist state, and secret prisons looks like a step in that direction.

^^^

good posting

 

[silliman89]

More afraid of government than terrorists

"I am much more afraid of what my government will do once it is unchecked by the Constitution than I am afraid of what terrorists might do. You should be too."

WOW.

I think we have been focusing on details here when there's some fundamental big picture issues we could be discussing. First, let's look for some common ground we can agree on.

TRH, you seem focused on the idea that government is bad. There are a lot of details to its badness, but that's the basic idea. The Constitution was the founding fathers' way to protect the country from government. I think most of us here agree with that to varying extents. I imagine you don't hear that enough and I encourage everyone who is able to express their agreement with you.

This begs the question, "Why have government at all?" Unless you would like to debate the idea that anarchy (i.e. total lack of government) is preferable, then I think it's obvious that there are some necessary things only government can do. Again, I think we'd all agree that defending the country from foreign aggression is a necessary role of government.

So the disagreement seems to be about whether the methods the government is using to protect us are better or worse than what we are being protected from. Leaving aside the fact that this thread began with a news account of how the government itself hasn't really decided what to do about these prisons. The government is in reactive mode, and operating without a plan. Leaving all that aside, I think we'd all agree that none of us would like the government to treat us that way.

So why are we debating at all if we all agree? It seems to me the real debate here is about the "terrorists" and whether or not they are worse. I'd like to focus on that a little. Some people seem to think that "terrorists" are criminals who should be dealt with by law enforcement, while others see it as some new kind of war. Luckily this has been going on long enough now that there is plenty of information available. We are no longer operating in the dark and relying on what our government is telling us. We can go directly to what al queda is saying.

They want to create a global caliphate which will enforce islamic law or sharia. They attacked the World Trade Center only to incite us to invade somewhere in the islamic world. They planned for the war in Iraq to swell their ranks.

It doesn't seem to me that TRH has even considered the possibility that they might win. I don't think anyone would be more afraid of the US government than a Baghdad based totalitarian theocracy. I expect you've just dismissed the possibility of an islamic inquisition free to do anything they wanted across North America, where the former US used to be.

I don't consider that very likely, but it is possible and it is their stated goal. The only way that I can envision them winning is if we fail to resist because we are too conflicted and too busy fighting amongst ourselves over what is right and what is wrong.

 

[Tokugawa]

IMHO- the gov today and the military and the Cia are no more oppressive today than in the 40's. Certainly you were a LOT less likely to get in trouble for killing prisoners in WW2. In a lot of the personal accounts I have read it was commonplace.
The essential fact here is simple- The nature of "war" has gone thru a paradigm shift. We are at a point ,due to the force multipliers of technology,where a very small group of people can lay waste to an entire city or more. You think 9/11 was bad? You ain't seen nothin" yet.
Those bad boys in the CIA are tring to extract info to prevent our country from being used as ground zero. Do I like it? NO. Is it nessessary? Yes. Remember, we are not going to get the info we need from these people with out coercing it. I would do anything to them to keep this country from losing a city to a nuke. Remember, these are the folks who enjoy slicing off the heads of journalists and truck drivers.

 

[blackguns]

I think TRH an I are in agreement on a lot of points of this discussion. In fact I have agreed with most of what has been said.

But how do we apply these principals to the current situation?

How does government fullfill it's stated duty to protect it's citizens while maintaining the principals that it's founded on IN THIS SITUATION

I agree with all those who are espousing the principals of the founding fathers.

What would they do if they were around? In this point in history I don't see Washingtons "stick your head in the sand" theory to be viable.

If we stick our head in the sand someone will shoot us in the butt.

Should we betray our national principals? NO! But how should we proceed?

Should a panel of elected officials be put in place to evaluate the intelligence against a suspected terrorist and determine if it is strong enough to justify treatment as a terrorist? Treatment as a POW? Treatment as a "suspect"

TRH has no problem shooting terrorists in the street and spiking their head to a pigs body....as long as your sure its a terrorist...well how do we get to the point where we are sure?

Does TRH need to see a person "terrorizing" before he will be convinced?

Can elected officials be trusted for this? How do you provide due process while not compromising operational intelligence. Maybe we don't want anyone to know that we have Ali Bin Whoever in custody.

How do we get it done?

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

"I am much more afraid of what my government will do once it is unchecked by the Constitution than I am afraid of what terrorists might do. You should be too."

WOW.

I think we have been focusing on details here when there's some fundamental big picture issues we could be discussing. First, let's look for some common ground we can agree on.

TRH, you seem focused on the idea that government is bad. There are a lot of details to its badness, but that's the basic idea. The Constitution was the founding fathers' way to protect the country from government. I think most of us here agree with that to varying extents. I imagine you don't hear that enough and I encourage everyone who is able to express their agreement with you.

This begs the question, "Why have government at all?" Unless you would like to debate the idea that anarchy (i.e. total lack of government) is preferable, then I think it's obvious that there are some necessary things only government can do. Again, I think we'd all agree that defending the country from foreign aggression is a necessary role of government.

Government is a necessary evil, and no more. We should have as little of it as necessary, and no more. That government which governs least, governs best, as some dead white dude once said.

So the disagreement seems to be about whether the methods the government is using to protect us are better or worse than what we are being protected from. Leaving aside the fact that this thread began with a news account of how the government itself hasn't really decided what to do about these prisons. The government is in reactive mode, and operating without a plan. Leaving all that aside, I think we'd all agree that none of us would like the government to treat us that way.

So why are we debating at all if we all agree? It seems to me the real debate here is about the "terrorists" and whether or not they are worse. I'd like to focus on that a little. Some people seem to think that "terrorists" are criminals who should be dealt with by law enforcement, while others see it as some new kind of war. Luckily this has been going on long enough now that there is plenty of information available. We are no longer operating in the dark and relying on what our government is telling us. We can go directly to what al queda is saying.

They want to create a global caliphate which will enforce islamic law or sharia. They attacked the World Trade Center only to incite us to invade somewhere in the islamic world. They planned for the war in Iraq to swell their ranks.

It doesn't seem to me that TRH has even considered the possibility that they might win. I don't think anyone would be more afraid of the US government than a Baghdad based totalitarian theocracy. I expect you've just dismissed the possibility of an islamic inquisition free to do anything they wanted across North America, where the former US used to be.

The only way we could lose is if we continue to allow Muslims to enter our country. We can choose to commit suicide by continuing this insane policy, or we could come to the realization that Islam is way too dangerous to encourage within our own boarders, and change our imigration policies to match this reality. There is no law that says we have to ignore what religion someone is when deciding on issuing visas and citizenship documents. If we adopted a sane immigration policy, there is no way we could ultimately lose, since only a tiny minority of Americans would be happy surrendering to Islamic totalitarianism. We much prefer liberty, and we all have guns and an army and a navy and an air force. We can only be defeated from within, and that would be our own fault entirely.

I don't consider that very likely, but it is possible and it is their stated goal. The only way that I can envision them winning is if we fail to resist because we are too conflicted and too busy fighting amongst ourselves over what is right and what is wrong.

See above.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

I think TRH an I are in agreement on a lot of points of this discussion. In fact I have agreed with most of what has been said.

But how do we apply these principals to the current situation?

How does government fullfill it's stated duty to protect it's citizens while maintaining the principals that it's founded on IN THIS SITUATION

I agree with all those who are espousing the principals of the founding fathers.

What would they do if they were around? In this point in history I don't see Washingtons "stick your head in the sand" theory to be viable.

This is a gross mischaracterization of Washington's position, and is very insulting to his memory, if you ask me.

If we stick our head in the sand someone will shoot us in the butt.

Should we betray our national principals? NO! But how should we proceed?

I've given you my answer to this question in a previous post.

Should a panel of elected officials be put in place to evaluate the intelligence against a suspected terrorist and determine if it is strong enough to justify treatment as a terrorist? Treatment as a POW? Treatment as a "suspect"

TRH has no problem shooting terrorists in the street and spiking their head to a pigs body....as long as your sure its a terrorist...well how do we get to the point where we are sure?

Uh, the guy is spraying the crowd with machine gun fire, or tossing grenades, or doing some kind of violent and deadly act, or running away from same. Otherwise, he is at most a suspect, and to shoot him would be murder. All the current laws regarding self defense and defense of others will apply.

Does TRH need to see a person "terrorizing" before he will be convinced?

Doesn't matter what will convince me. What matters is whether the shooting is justifiable in a court of law. Short of that, what matters is whether a jury can be persuaded that the man who was arrested for suspicion of terrorism is in fact a terrorist. If you were arrested for suspicion of terrorism, you'd soon come to appreciate our system of justice, that is unless you've already been shipped off to Syria for "questioning."

Can elected officials be trusted for this? How do you provide due process while not compromising operational intelligence. Maybe we don't want anyone to know that we have Ali Bin Whoever in custody.

Sorry, but liberty comes with certain risks. If you don't want those risks, say goodbye to liberty and get used to midnight arrests and disappearing neighbors.

How do we get it done?

We do it the hard way, i.e., the way that preserves liberty and prevents tyranny. Life is risky. Live with it. Liberty is not an easy path. Who told you it was?

 

[mercedesrules]

*takes bait*

This begs the question, "Why have government at all?" Unless you would like to debate the idea that anarchy (i.e. total lack of government) is preferable,

I would...

then I think it's obvious that there are some necessary things only government can do. Again, I think we'd all agree that defending the country from foreign aggression is a necessary role of government.

This begs the question, "If North America was an anarchy, who, how, where and why would anyone attack it?" The US couldn't even occupy Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq or Somalia.

IOW, whatever the purpose of so-called terrorist attacks is, it would likely not be present in an anarchy. There would be no capital city, no military headquarters, no meddling in foreign affairs, no imperialism, no "lifestyle" to hate, no favorite religions, no official to surrender, etc. Neither "terrorists" nor invaders would know how to initiate an attack (not that any country now has the ability to do so).

 

[Shalako]

Since our enemies are not wearing a regular uniform and aren't found openly on the field of battle, it is an espionage war. If you tried to take any prisoner into court, it would unravel all of our espionage nets used to track and capture the enemy in question. Once we get Osama, I could see that happening but not for all the little guys leading up to him.

Oh well.

It seems there are two camps in this discussion. The guys with the white hats, and the guys with the greyish-black hats.

Ask me who I'd rather have in charge of our national security and I'd prefer the ones willing to play hardball with the scum that have vowed to kill us.

 

[mercedesrules]

...Precendent with Barbary pirates? Ever wonder how that phrase ". . . to the shores of Tripoli. . ." got in the Marine Corps hymn.

Bad precedent, because they shouldn't have been illegally traipsing around the globe causing trouble...with the same people as now!

Do some here still think that it is the job of the US military to traverse the earth protecting private US travelers?

 

[antarti]

The only way that I can envision them winning is if we fail to resist because we are too conflicted and too busy fighting amongst ourselves over what is right and what is wrong.

Frankly, I don't see them being able to "win" anything... How much ground can they hold inside the USA? How many deathcamps can they build here and how many can they lead into them?

Now they can (and have) committed quite a bit of violence. They are, after all, death worshippers... so that is kind of what comes to them 'normally'.

I fully understand their stated goals are the deaths or mutilation of some 4 million American children, etc. There is hardly a better cause I can imagine for wiping these scum out completely than their own stated goals and past actions.

So how does all of the above give CIA the power to be detainer, judge, jury, and executioner?

I have no problem with CIA "questioning" people and identifying suspect.
I have no problem with CIA then "questioning" those people.
I have no problem with public military tribunals or court cases for those people.

I do have a problem with CIA operating a (call it what you will) concentration camp, without any oversight. Basically, there is no promise that anybody wrongly or illegally put in there (that would be me and you) won't stay there, permanently... because there would be no record of our having been there at all.

Everybody who is asking about "well what do you propose then" must have their hands over their eyes as they read these posts.

What part of bringing those responsible (directly or not) for 9/11 to trial, in the jurisdiction in which those acts took place, is not doable?

Anybody here that would turn down the jury duty? Bueler? Bueler?

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Well said, antarti. I agree completely.

 

[silliman89]

The only way we could lose

TRH,

I'm glad we agree government is necessary. I certainly want it to be as small as possible. And our immigration policy, or lack there of, is our greatest weakness and needs to be addressed.

While the number of Americans who would be happy surrendering to an islamic totalitarianism may be a tiny minority, I think it may be larger than you imagine and growing. To many Americans it would not be surrendering at all, but retribution against the evil Judeo/Christians and their centuries of oppression. Our record is not above reproach. Let's face it, it's easy to claim that this country was built on murdering the Indians, enslaving the Africans, and exploiting the Hispanics. There are a lot of old hatreds to be fanned by our enemies. As I understand it, Islam first invaded this country by way of the prison system, which they now largely control, and from there spread to the inner cities. I hear Islam is a powerful political force in Chicago.

Still, I acknowledge your basic premise that if we were isolated from the rest of the world, we would not be in any danger of being overthrown by internal islamic "terrorists". I just don't consider it a viable solution to seal the border and ignore the rest of the world. It's not just the oil. The loss of overseas markets, and suppliers, would cripple our economy. While I think we would eventually recover, it would be at a lower level of economic prosperity. The social unrest from that kind of economic depression might lead to anything. If we don't seal the border though, but only limit the immigration of undesirables (and I'm sure you realize what a political can of worms that is) then we have a vested interest in keeping the rest of the world peaceful, free, and able to benefit us as trading partners.

What I'm taking a long time getting around to is that I think you are minimizing the danger we're facing. It sounds like you're saying that there's no way we can loose so long as we remain true to our ideals and don't betray the magical talisman of liberty.

Let me ask you a moral value question. Would you rather remain true to our ideals and see liberty unsullied right up until it is extinguished with the last of our deaths? Or would you rather see our country continue even if it means change for the worse? And please don't just come up with a third alternative. Answer the either/or question first, then tell me all about your third alternative where everything is rosy.

 

[silliman89]

Anarchy

This begs the question, "If North America was an anarchy, who, how, where and why would anyone attack it?"

Ah, finally someone who isn't taking themselves so seriously!

I agree. Our enemies would not only leave us alone, they would cheer us on. I was going to ask if you'd rather live in a governed society under attack by it's surrounding enemies, or an anarchy perpetuated by it's surrounding enemies, but then I read your signature block. So I guess I already know your answer.

 

[Iain]

Let me ask you a moral value question. Would you rather remain true to our ideals and see liberty unsullied right up until it is extinguished with the last of our deaths? Or would you rather see our country continue even if it means change for the worse? And please don't just come up with a third alternative. Answer the either/or question first, then tell me all about your third alternative where everything is rosy.

He can't answer that question can he? You've defined only two possible answers, I'm sure that someone more versed in rhetoric than I can tell you which particular fallacy you've engaged in.

Without expounding at pointless length about this issue, and many others like it, I'll say that I'd rather that some basic and fundamental principles were never violated. Regardless of cost.

That's not a out and out 'fundamentalist' argument, I'm sure I'm thought of as being a 'grey thinker' around here. What I'm saying is that we are claiming to be on the side of fairness, freedom and justice. That applies to everyone, regardless of nationality or crime. There is no justifiable 'get out clause'.

I'd hope that I still feel that way regardless of what I saw and who I lost. These are basic and important principles to me.

 

[mercedesrules]

Ah, finally someone who isn't taking themselves so seriously!

I agree. Our enemies would not only leave us alone, they would cheer us on. I was going to ask if you'd rather live in a governed society under attack by it's surrounding enemies, or an anarchy perpetuated by it's surrounding enemies, but then I read your signature block. So I guess I already know your answer.

Well, you are a very good-natured attacker.

I'll just cheerily ask you, "What enemies?".

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

TRH,

I'm glad we agree government is necessary. I certainly want it to be as small as possible. And our immigration policy, or lack there of, is our greatest weakness and needs to be addressed.

While the number of Americans who would be happy surrendering to an Islamic totalitarianism may be a tiny minority, I think it may be larger than you imagine and growing. To many Americans it would not be surrendering at all, but retribution against the evil Judeo/Christians and their centuries of oppression.

You are mistaken. The people who criticize our history would be far less happy living under Islamic law, and they are not deluded on this point. They may hate America, but they would hate Islam worse, no matter what they say when they are criticizing our history.

Our record is not above reproach. Let's face it, it's easy to claim that this country was built on murdering the Indians, enslaving the Africans, and exploiting the Hispanics. There are a lot of old hatreds to be fanned by our enemies. As I understand it, Islam first invaded this country by way of the prison system, which they now largely control, and from there spread to the inner cities. I hear Islam is a powerful political force in Chicago.

Still, I acknowledge your basic premise that if we were isolated from the rest of the world, we would not be in any danger of being overthrown by internal Islamic "terrorists".

You must be reading someone else's posts. I've said nothing about isolating ourselves from the rest of the world. Oh, I get it. You are a product of our internationalist education system, and therefore anyone who favors looking out for America's interests first is an isolationist who wants to build a wall around our boarders and forget about the rest of the world. No. One day you might learn to think independently and then you will realize that non-internationalists are not isolationists. That term was applied to those who wished to avoid entangling the United States in foreign wars during the very early and middle 20th Century. Today, it is a term used by demagogue one worlders. Or, is that what you are?

I just don't consider it a viable solution to seal the border and ignore the rest of the world. It's not just the oil. The loss of overseas markets, and suppliers, would cripple our economy.

Once again, your internationalist brainwashing is coming through. It was not the goal of America firsters to close off relations with the world. That is propaganda, and it looks like you've swallowed it hook line and sinker. Learn to develop your own ideas, instead of just chugging down what your professors taught you in college.

While I think we would eventually recover, it would be at a lower level of economic prosperity. The social unrest from that kind of economic depression might lead to anything. If we don't seal the border though, but only limit the immigration of undesirables (and I'm sure you realize what a political can of worms that is)

Some people need to grow a spine.

then we have a vested interest in keeping the rest of the world peaceful, free, and able to benefit us as trading partners.

No, we have no such vested interest. Those interested in having access to our markets will trade with us because it is in their economic interest to do so.

What I'm taking a long time getting around to is that I think you are minimizing the danger we're facing. It sounds like you're saying that there's no way we can loose so long as we remain true to our ideals and don't betray the magical talisman of liberty.

So now we come to it. Liberty to you is a "magical talisman." Well, friend, it is more than that to me. I am sorry for you if you think otherwise.

Let me ask you a moral value question. Would you rather remain true to our ideals and see liberty unsullied right up until it is extinguished with the last of our deaths? Or would you rather see our country continue even if it means change for the worse? And please don't just come up with a third alternative. Answer the either/or question first, then tell me all about your third alternative where everything is rosy.

This is a false dichotomy. I have much more confidence in the strength of liberty than you do, sir. You speak as if we have only two options, fight our enemies by abandoning liberty or retain our liberty and succomb to our enemies. I believe, on the contrary, that we can fight our enemies without adopting the values of our enemies.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

He can't answer that question can he? You've defined only two possible answers, I'm sure that someone more versed in rhetoric than I can tell you which particular fallacy you've engaged in.

I believe it is called a false dichotomy.

 

[silliman89]

Criminal Justice

antarti

What part of bringing those responsible (directly or not) for 9/11 to trial, in the jurisdiction in which those acts took place, is not doable?

The whole part of bringing those responsible to trial is not doable.

Let's take Osama Bin Laden as an example. Let's suppose we put him on trial for 9/11. What evidence is there? His own admission that he was responsible on his video tapes? He can say that was simply propaganda he was fabricating for recruitment purposes. All other evidence is the result of illegal search and seizure. The case would be thrown out of court for insufficient evidence.

It's even possible that he wasn't behind 9/11. We seem to have been wrong about the WMD in Iraq. We may be wrong about him too. I'm just saying that he deserves to be interrogated and then killed whether he did it or not. But there is not way to get a conviction for him in a US court.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

The whole part of bringing those responsible to trial is not doable.

Let's take Osama Bin Laden as an example. Let's suppose we put him on trial for 9/11. What evidence is there?

If there is no evidence, what makes you think he had anything to do with it? But, of course, you know that there is plenty of evidence. Certainly more than enough to convict him in a NY City trial.

His own admission that he was responsible on his video tapes? He can say that was simply propaganda he was fabricating for recruitment purposes.

How absurd. If you make an admission of a crime on vidio tape, no matter what you say before a jury, it will come down to credibility. How credible do you think that excuse will sound to a NY City jury? We are legally held responsible for the things we say, and that includes admissions to crimes. Come on now, you can do better than that.

All other evidence is the result of illegal search and seizure. The case would be thrown out of court for insufficient evidence.

Read above.

It's even possible that he wasn't behind 9/11. We seem to have been wrong about the WMD in Iraq. We may be wrong about him too. I'm just saying that he deserves to be interrogated and then killed whether he did it or not. But there is not way to get a conviction for him in a US court.

Well, so long as you think so, then.

 

[silliman89]

TRH,

I don't think we're getting anywhere. I'll try to clear up a couple of points of confusion, then I'll just let you have the last word if you like.

You must be reading someone else's posts. I've said nothing about isolating ourselves from the rest of the world.

You combined George Washington's foreign policy with a strict anti-immigration policy. Washington's foreign policy was predicated on the fact the we were too small and weak to become involved in foreign entanglements in his time. That's clearly not the case today. You and I agree that Muslim fundamentalists are a threat to our country. I was discussing rules of engagement for fighting our enemy overseas. You responded by saying all we had to do is keep our enemy out of this country. To me that sounds isolationist.

it is a term used by demagogue one worlders. Or, is that what you are?

I would never call myself a "one-worlder", but I suppose opinions vary. I reserve terms like that for people who think the US should subjugate itself to the UN, or only operate with international permission. I think the US needs to take whatever action it deems best to protect its national interests. Having served 5 years in the military (yes, the US military), and 10 years in the intelligence community, I have more faith in the people our government is comprised of than you seem to.

This is a false dichotomy

You can call it that if you like. I called it a moral value question. Perhaps I should have been clearer that I wasn't asking you about real world current events at that time. I was asking what your values were. I was genuinely surprised that several people reacted as if I were trying to trap you in some way. I don't see what the big deal is. Iain answered, although I'm not sure he meant to, when he said:

I'll say that I'd rather that some basic and fundamental principles were never violated. Regardless of cost.

I was actually just trying to understand where you were coming from.

 

[silliman89]

Well, you are a very good-natured attacker.

I'll just cheerily ask you, "What enemies?".

Well, I certainly meant to be good natured. None of us has to be on this forum, it's supposed to be enjoyable. I hadn't meant to be an attacker at all, but I may have a problem with that. My wife sometimes says the same thing.

I was referring to the islamic fundamentalist "terrorists" as enemies. It may have been an exageration to say they surrounded us. But they are to the east and west of us. I think they would be very happy to see our society collapse into anarchy, and would try to perpetuate it.