Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    31 Dec '09 06:49
    From The Guardian (U.K.):

    In the aftermath of the failed Christmas day plane bombing, in which the alleged bomber set himself on fire before being subdued by unarmed passengers, every Republican politician in sight has become Dick Cheney.

    Appearing on MSNBC's Morning Joe breakfast show yesterday, former Republican presidential contender Pat Buchanan argued that the alleged bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, should be denied pain medication for his burns as a part of "hostile interrogation." "I'm not arguing for torture," Buchanan said with a straight face.

    As Spencer Ackerman, a senior reporter with the Washington Independent who was appearing opposite Buchanan, pointed out: "You're arguing for torture but with a different euphemism for it." Denying someone treatment isn't merely a matter of comfort - it can also affect survival rates. Furthermore, Buchanan's recommendation, that American authorities deliberately cause Abdulmutallab pain in order to extract information, is a textbook definition of torture.

    In some ways, the GOP's reaction is transparently partisan. Despite all the shrieking over treating the alleged bomber as a criminal, Republicans didn't believe that it was a threat to democracy when the Bush administration tried Abdulmutallab's predecessor, the shoe bomber Richard Reid, in a civilian court. Nevertheless, Buchanan hasn't been the only Republican arguing for a return to inhumane lawlessness in the aftermath of the failed attack. Appearing on CNN, supposedly moderate Republican Tom Ridge said of Abdulmutallab: "He's a terrorist, and I don't think he deserves the full range of protections of our criminal justice system embodied in the constitution of the United States." Over at the National Review, former Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen - who once argued that torturing suspected terrorists who haven't been convicted of anything was necessary because of their religion - declared that the US "no longer" interrogates terror suspects.


    Whole article here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/dec/30/torture-bomb-flight-253
  2. Standard member spruce112358
    Democracy Advocate
    31 Dec '09 07:07
    Originally posted by FMF
    From The Guardian (U.K.):

    [quote]In the aftermath of the failed Christmas day plane bombing, in which the alleged bomber set himself on fire before being subdued by unarmed passengers, every Republican politician in sight has become Dick Cheney.

    Appearing on MSNBC's Morning Joe breakfast show yesterday, former Republican presidential contender Pat Buchanan ...[text shortened]... uardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/dec/30/torture-bomb-flight-253
    The notion that anyone accused of "terrorism" is in a NEW category with NO civil liberties or protections is a McCarthy-esque departure into fascism.

    - Prisoners of war are already well-defined.
    - Criminals are already well defined (including gang members/mafia, etc.)

    There is simply no need for a third category. And even if there were, given that we don't torture POWs or criminals, on what possible grounds could we torture "terrorists" that would not apply to the other two categories?
  3. 31 Dec '09 16:05
    Originally posted by spruce112358
    The notion that anyone accused of "terrorism" is in a NEW category with NO civil liberties or protections is a McCarthy-esque departure into fascism.

    - Prisoners of war are already well-defined.
    - Criminals are already well defined (including gang members/mafia, etc.)

    There is simply no need for a third category. And even if there were, given t ...[text shortened]... ble grounds could we torture "terrorists" that would not apply to the other two categories?
    Will he be put in a male or female prison ?
    Not a wise choice to place explosives in your underpants !!
    What about all those "virgins "awaiting him on the other side . Not much use if you have blown your wedding tackle off.
  4. 31 Dec '09 16:06
    Originally posted by phil3000
    Will he be put in a male or female prison ?
    Not a wise choice to place explosives in your underpants !!
    What about all those "virgins "awaiting him on the other side . Not much use if you have blown your wedding tackle off.
    I don't know what was wrong with him, but he didn't do it for the "virgins." Interesting how only Christians think that we got virgins in Heaven.
  5. 31 Dec '09 16:14 / 2 edits
    Whenever people argue that "terrorists shouldn't have the same legal rights as normal criminals", they forget that we're not talking about people who are terrorists - we're talking about people who are SUSPECTED of being terrorists.

    If an innocent person is imprisoned or punished, does it matter whether they were originally charged with terrorism or shoplifting? They're innocent. It's wrong. Every effort should be made to prevent it.

    In cases like this Nigerian suspect, if they can't convict this guy, what with having 300 witnesses and the actual weapon, then there is a serious problem with our criminal justice system that is a much more serious threat to American security than any given terrorist.

    As for torture. If I was in some other country's prison, and they were torturing me, I would eagerly give them all the info they requested -- not that any of it would be TRUE -- but they would definitely get LOTS of info, and it would be designed to foul up their plans as much as possible.
  6. 01 Jan '10 03:06
    Just let him go, but give notice before he steps out the door.
    The Bad American
  7. 01 Jan '10 11:49
    Originally posted by FMF
    From The Guardian (U.K.):

    [quote]In the aftermath of the failed Christmas day plane bombing, in which the alleged bomber set himself on fire before being subdued by unarmed passengers, every Republican politician in sight has become Dick Cheney.

    Appearing on MSNBC's Morning Joe breakfast show yesterday, former Republican presidential contender Pat Buchanan ...[text shortened]... uardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/dec/30/torture-bomb-flight-253
    Well it all depends. Are there any provisions under Obamacare giving terrorists health care benefits?
  8. 01 Jan '10 18:50
    Originally posted by FMF
    From The Guardian (U.K.):

    [quote]In the aftermath of the failed Christmas day plane bombing, in which the alleged bomber set himself on fire before being subdued by unarmed passengers, every Republican politician in sight has become Dick Cheney.

    Appearing on MSNBC's Morning Joe breakfast show yesterday, former Republican presidential contender Pat Buchanan ...[text shortened]... uardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/dec/30/torture-bomb-flight-253
    Well this is no surprise, the guardian is known for this sort of left-wing propaganda, it is amusing how these people are more concerned about the rights of terrorists than they are about the lives of innocent people.

    This individual isn't a suspect, he is a terrorist who attempted to blow himself up, so why give him the benefit of the doubt? Isn't there enough evidence to conclude this guy is a terrorist and therefore should be treated as such?
  9. 01 Jan '10 18:56
    Originally posted by whodey
    Well it all depends. Are there any provisions under Obamacare giving terrorists health care benefits?
    well, you don't want to discriminate only because of their extremist views, its not PC.
  10. Standard member InlandRevenueUK
    Cause I'm the taxman
    01 Jan '10 20:51
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    Well this is no surprise, the guardian is known for this sort of left-wing propaganda, it is amusing how these people are more concerned about the rights of terrorists than they are about the lives of innocent people.

    This individual isn't a suspect, he is a terrorist who attempted to blow himself up, so why give him the benefit of the doubt? Isn't ...[text shortened]... e enough evidence to conclude this guy is a terrorist and therefore should be treated as such?
    I agree completely.

    Frankly, until we bring in show-trials, summary justice, public executions infront of a baying crowd, life imprisonment without formal charge (Let alone trial and conviction) and coloseum style fights where criminals fight each other to the death, we are never going to maintain freedom and liberty.

    Infact, why we are at it, why don't we establish an international version of "The Running Man" where anti-government, criminal and terrorist suspects can attempt to win their freedom or pay with their life? Why not recruit and train an army of Judge Dredd style "enforcers"?

    Or even better, the governments of the world could attempt to look at why a tiny minority of Muslims are driven to comit acts of terrorism.
  11. 01 Jan '10 21:42 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    Well this is no surprise, the guardian is known for this sort of left-wing propaganda, it is amusing how these people are more concerned about the rights of terrorists than they are about the lives of innocent people.

    This individual isn't a suspect, he is a terrorist who attempted to blow himself up, so why give him the benefit of the doubt? Isn't ...[text shortened]... e enough evidence to conclude this guy is a terrorist and therefore should be treated as such?
    The Bush administration treated the attempted "shoe bomber", Richard Reid the exact same way. He was given the full rights of any other suspect, he was tried in criminal court, he was convicted and he's serving out a life sentence.

    Not only did the Bush administration treat Richard Reid like any other criminal, they bragged about doing so. Now, please fill in the blanks.

    1: The situation with the "shoe bomber" was different from the "underwear bomber" because _____________________________________________ .

    And now that you can't come up with anything please fill in the next blank.

    2: This doesn't mean I, and the rest of the GOP aren't doing something as disgusting and pathetic as politicizing a terrorist attack because _________________________ .
  12. Standard member smw6869
    Granny
    01 Jan '10 21:52
    I say release Umarfaroukabdulmullab as long as he promises to change his name to Billy Joe Smith.

    GRANNY.
  13. 02 Jan '10 01:06
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    Well this is no surprise, the guardian is known for this sort of left-wing propaganda, it is amusing how these people are more concerned about the rights of terrorists than they are about the lives of innocent people.

    This individual isn't a suspect, he is a terrorist who attempted to blow himself up, so why give him the benefit of the doubt? Isn't ...[text shortened]... e enough evidence to conclude this guy is a terrorist and therefore should be treated as such?
    No one disputes that he is a terrorist. The questions are, how much of one, and, how should NGO-affiliated or independent terrorists be treated anyway?
  14. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    02 Jan '10 01:18
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    Well this is no surprise, the guardian is known for this sort of left-wing propaganda, it is amusing how these people are more concerned about the rights of terrorists than they are about the lives of innocent people.
    The article in the OP makes no such assertions. You presumably didn't read it. Why taint this thread with this dreary cliched misrepresentation? Why not go out and find some material on some blog somewhere written by people who ARE more concerned about the rights of terrorists than they are about the lives of innocent people, and then start your own thread in which you start off by hammering them in the OP?
  15. 02 Jan '10 18:11
    Originally posted by scherzo
    No one disputes that he is a terrorist. The questions are, how much of one, and, how should NGO-affiliated or independent terrorists be treated anyway?
    No one disputes that he is a terrorist

    Originally posted by spruce112358
    "The notion that anyone accused of "terrorism"..."

    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    "...they forget that we're not talking about people who are terrorists - we're talking about people who are SUSPECTED of being terrorists."