First of all the way of dealing against the Suspects of terrorism is truly against the bible and that is one of George´s (also called G) main reason.
Secondly it stands against every law which was made also for the US.
It is indeed a very thin line which seperates the risk of single persons for the cause and the kidnapping and torturing act.
This question is really hard to answer for anybody.
As a German i am really thankfull that besides the russian murdering and raping after they concurred the US and the English acted in a very humanlike manner after defeating our grand-grand-daddies.
In my opinion the only possibility to deal with this terror is to withstand the possibilities to change your democratic behaviour too much but instead to always present the terrorists the mirror. Show them that their terror has not affected your level of respect against the unremovable right of every human beeing.
I am not against interrogations, i am not against putting them down in cells. As long as INTERNATIONAL courts have found them guilty. Non guilty as long as prooved to be guilty is my concept here.
These acts of cruel revenge and rage will only breed more and more hate.
Originally posted by RedmikeSure they are able to vote which way they want. The elections was a lot closer prior to the bombings. Don't worry we have a few of those fair weather warriors over here also.
I think other people have answered that for me.
Can you answer the point about the Spanish elections?
Should Spain not be able to make a democratic choice to withdraw their troops?
Or does democracy only apply if you do what the US wants?
Originally posted by sasquatch672I agree. I don't have a problem with people joining the National Guard to avoid the Vietnam War if they didn't believe in it, but I do have a problem with the hypocrisy of Bush doing that when he said he was strongly in favor of the war, and then later sending soldiers out to kill and die on his behalf as president.
I have no issue with people who choose or chose not to serve. I understand it. I'm not sorry I did not participate in this go-round in Iraq.
I think a good test of whether you approve of a military action is whether or not you're in uniform and fighting in it if you're of age. Until somebody like newdad puts his money where his mouth is, his words are hollow.
I know people who joined or re-joined the military after 9/11, which is noble, but then they were taken advantage of and sucked into this Iraq war. It leads one to question whether soldiers should have the right to non-participation in a war that they disagree with, if it doesn't involve any clear and present threat to the country's actual physical borders or the like. Perhaps if a certain percentage of citizens disagree with the war, that should be grounds for a soldier to be able to choose not to fight in it, at least? Or if there is international resistance to the war from among other Western countries and others?
I'd give my life to defend my loved ones, or other innocents in my own country or anywhere else in the world -- but I don't fancy the idea of pissing my life away cheaply for the interests of a small clique of oil businessmen and neo-con hawks. That's not in any nation's real interests.
As for the torturing of prisoners, firstly there needs to be due process to determine if they're actually guilty of anything; and secondly we should still treat them humanely. If someone was tortured for critical information, that might be an exception; but what we're talking about here is routine torture, often for some of the soldiers to relieve stress and have some amusement.
Ultimately, we need to protect the rights of even the worst of humanity in order to protect the rights of all of us.
"Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my
own safety’s sake." -- St. Thomas More