15 Oct 03
Is this democracy?
Personally, I think that even the bad guys have some rights. That’s part of what democracy’s supposed to be about, right? That everyone has fundamental human rights( yes even the muslim terrorists), that the government cannot be judge, jury and executioner. You’re supposed to be protected, no matter how ridiculous or racist or terrorist-ish your viewpoint is. The government must prove that you’ve done something wrong before you are locked away.
I don't think that this is democracy. I think that this is fear and hysteria. I am worried about this.
15 Oct 03
Originally posted by Black Lungyes-it's not democracy. but i, personally, hate the bill of rights or whatever its called. political correctness and all that crap. surely you should get what you deserve? isn't there something about people not living in poverty, or people should not go hungry or summant? but while a lot of western children are suffering from obesity, the rest of the world is starvingincluding, may i add, people in these western countries. and prison's meant to be a place to reform (or whatever you call it) people, not to punish them. but what myra hyndly not meant to have been "reformed"-but was not allowed out-justice?
Is this democracy?
Personally, I think that even the bad guys have some rights. That’s part of what democracy’s supposed to be about, right? That everyone has fundamental human rights( yes even the muslim terrorists), that the government cannot be judge, jury and executioner. You’re supposed to be protected, no matter how ridiculous or racist or terror ...[text shortened]... think that this is democracy. I think that this is fear and hysteria. I am worried about this.
15 Oct 03
Originally posted by geniusGenius, while any intelligent person recognizes the practical problems inherent in the modern world system, it is misguided to attack the theoretical underpinnings of only a very small part of the system. If you object to the Bill of Rights, it should be an objection to either the concept of rights themselves (with which you don't seem to take issue) or to the statements made in that document. You can't fault the Bill of Rights for society's failure to scrupulously observe human rights.
yes-it's not democracy. but i, personally, hate the bill of rights or whatever its called. political correctness and all that crap. surely you should get what you deserve? isn't there something about people not living in poverty, or people should not go hungry or summant? but while a lot of western children are suffering from obesity, the rest of the world ...[text shortened]... them. but what myra hyndly not meant to have been "reformed"-but was not allowed out-justice?
16 Oct 03
You gotta be kidding?...those Al-Qaeda terrorists are in tropical paradise...Guantanamo Bay, Cuba has some of the most beautiful beaches in the world, the sun shines 300 days out of the year, they get three hots and a cot, pay no taxes, get to read the Koran and plan on killing more innocent people all at tax payers' expense. The enlisted club at GitMo rocks, with quarter beer night every Tuesday, but those scumbags aren't invited...if you want them to have justice, petition Mandela; he'll probably set them up in a penthouse highrise in Cape Town...🙄
16 Oct 03
Originally posted by chancremechanicI will remind you that none of those detainees has been convicted of any crime yet, 'alleged Al-Qaeda terrorists' would be the appropriate phrase. I'd recommend a bit of reading on the subject from standard news sources.
You gotta be kidding?...those Al-Qaeda terrorists are in tropical paradise...Guantanamo Bay, Cuba has some of the most beautiful beaches in the world, the sun shines 300 days out of the year, they get three hots and a cot, pay no taxes, get to read the Koran and plan on killing more innocent people all at tax payers' expense. The enlisted club at G ...[text shortened]... justice, petition Mandela; he'll probably set them up in a penthouse highrise in Cape Town...🙄
16 Oct 03
Originally posted by royalchickenJeez Chicken, you are so unpatriotic. You should know that the government detains people if and only if they are guilty. 🙄
I will remind you that none of those detainees has been convicted of any crime yet, 'alleged Al-Qaeda terrorists' would be the appropriate phrase. I'd recommend a bit of reading on the subject from standard news sources.
16 Oct 03
OK, 'alledged Al-Qaeda terrorists' if that makes you feel better. Whatever you want to call them, they don't warrent bail until we figure out what to do with them: criminal court or military tribunal. Or, do you think we should let them out on bail and send them to Seattle or Maine? What better place than Guantanamo Bay? It's isolated and a long swim to Mecca, although we could use the resulting footage to film Jaws V...it would be a morale booster at all USO facilities...😵
16 Oct 03
Originally posted by Black LungSCREW them Muslim terrorists!! What about the rights of all those innocent people (from a bunch countries I might add) who went to work on 9/11 and had their life end because some Muslim terrorists decided to fly airplanes into buildings? And what about those poor people who were innocently taking a plane ride, to be high jacked and lost their lives? What happened to their rights? What about the rights of all their children and families that will suffer the rest of their lives due to these %$@!##$??? Not to mention the rights of all the NYFD and NYPD who lost their lives trying to save others? And what about their families rights??
Is this democracy?
Personally, I think that even the bad guys have some rights. That’s part of what democracy’s supposed to be about, right? That everyone has fundamental human rights( yes even the muslim terrorists), that the government cannot be judge, jury and executioner. You’re supposed to be protected, no matter how ridiculous or racist or terror ...[text shortened]... think that this is democracy. I think that this is fear and hysteria. I am worried about this.
WE WILL NEVER FORGET!!!!
16 Oct 03
Originally posted by chancremechanicAgreed, they should not be released until they have been tried. But how long is it justified to detain someone without trying them? Citizens are granted the right to a speedy trial and access to legal defence. On what grounds should these rights be denied the detainees, given that their guilt has yet to be established?
OK, 'alledged Al-Qaeda terrorists' if that makes you feel better. Whatever you want to call them, they don't warrent bail until we figure out what to do with them: criminal court or military tribunal. Or, do you think we should let them out on bail and send them to Seattle or Maine? What better place than Guantanamo Bay? It's isolated and a long ...[text shortened]... e the resulting footage to film Jaws V...it would be a morale booster at all USO facilities...😵
16 Oct 03
Originally posted by WildekoyoteThe very point at issue is the determination of whether those being detained are in fact terrorists. If they are terrorists, then they ought to be punished. But we haven't charged them with a crime, so why the continued detention? If we charge them with a crime then they have the right to a legal defence, just like any alleged rapist or murderer. Although your anger is competely justified, it should only be directed at those who are in fact guilty of terrorism, and this is something we need a trial to determine in the case of the detainees. Remember, not everyone being detained is even suspected of being an Al-Queda member or sympathizer. Some are only very loosely associated with the Taliban regime, and in some cases the evidence indicates that those captured in the fighting in Afghanistan did so against their will, because the Taliban threatened them or their families.
SCREW them Muslim terrorists!! What about the rights of all those innocent people (from a bunch countries I might add) who went to work on 9/11 and had their life end because some Muslim terrorists decided to fly airplanes into buildings? And what about those poor people who were innocently taking a plane ride, to be high jacked and lost their lives? Wha ...[text shortened]... ives trying to save others? And what about their families rights??
WE WILL NEVER FORGET!!!!
16 Oct 03
Originally posted by bbarrPoint taken.
The very point at issue is the determination of whether those being detained are in fact terrorists. If they are terrorists, then they ought to be punished. But we haven't charged them with a crime, so why the continued detention? If we charge them with a crime then they have the right to a legal defence, just like any alleged rapist or murderer. Although ...[text shortened]... in Afghanistan did so against their will, because the Taliban threatened them or their families.
However, these idiots were captured during war, while shooting their weapons upon US and British forces. Thus they are guilty of war crimes until proven innocent. (OK B4 you jump over "guilty of war crimes, what I mean by this is they have been caught during times of war, and thus guilty until proven innocent). This is not a crime committed in the US where you are innocent until proven guilty.
They have no rights, just like the rights of above mentioned in my previous post had their rights taken away.
16 Oct 03
Originally posted by WildekoyoteFair enough. I'll admit that they may not have the rights of citizens, but do you agree that they should at least be accorded the status of "prisoners of war", with the rights accorded to such prisoners by, e.g., the Geneva Convention?
Point taken.
However, these idiots were captured during war, while shooting their weapons upon US and British forces. Thus they are guilty of war crimes until proven innocent. (OK B4 you jump over "guilty of war crimes, what I mean by this is they have been caught during times of war, and thus guilty until proven innocent). This is not a crime commit ...[text shortened]... ghts, just like the rights of above mentioned in my previous post had their rights taken away.
16 Oct 03
1 edit
Originally posted by royalchickeni meant to write more but was lazy and pressed post 😛
Genius, while any intelligent person recognizes the practical problems inherent in the modern world system, it is misguided to attack the theoretical underpinnings of only a very small part of the system. If you object to the Bill of ...[text shortened]... ights for society's failure to scrupulously observe human rights.
what i mean is-the bill of rights will not and cannot be adhered to. which is the fundamental flaw with them. communism would settle the poverty, but freedom of speech? and even freedom of speech-the sex pistols were banned from playing everywhere for swearing on live TV (so they played on the queen victoria to celebrate queen elizabeths 25th...😉).
and yesterday, i had a kick-ass argument! but i forgot it...😞
basically-it said that what's the point of it-to make the world a better place? but people with common decency would not need such a thing. we have laws etc. and when this bill of rights is broken (i have no idea if you have to sign it...which seems to take the whole point away...😛) very little happens about it from an international perspective. iraq is just one country with other factors (oil?...)
kinda...
alan
16 Oct 03
Originally posted by bbarrA fine point made!
The very point at issue is the determination of whether those being detained are in fact terrorists. If they are terrorists, then they ought to be punished. But we haven't charged them with a crime, so why the continued detention? If we charge them with a crime then they have the right to a legal defence, just like any alleged rapist or murderer. Although ...[text shortened]... in Afghanistan did so against their will, because the Taliban threatened them or their families.
When arrested fighting against foreign invaders they are imprisoned for an undisclosed time with no right for legal aid etc. removed from their own country (and l am NOT talking S11 involvees) yet at ANY other time they are freedom fighters...go figure.
It seems Iraq is crawling with Al-Qadea nowdays, funny since they are from opposing sides of the Muslim faith, and despite the Bush Administrations and thr CIA's best efforts no-one could not prove a link between Husseins regime and Bin Laden.
Funny world we live in. What is right for me and you is only so as long as you agree with me!
Peace!
Nook7🙂
16 Oct 03
Originally posted by WildekoyoteHow come the white american guy was given first class treatment and an immediate trial? Sure he was punished but he was at least charged with a crime and allowed a defence.
Point taken.
However, these idiots were captured during war, while shooting their weapons upon US and British forces. Thus they are guilty of war crimes until proven innocent. (OK B4 you jump over "guilty of war crimes, what I mean by this is they have been caught during times of war, and thus guilty until proven innocent). This is not a crime commit ...[text shortened]... ghts, just like the rights of above mentioned in my previous post had their rights taken away.
He was as guilty as the Taleban fighters (more so if some of them were coerced into fighting - he volunteered).
It seems that a non-american muslim may have a twisted morality but an good old american kid who converted is just confused or misled!