Obama preserves renditions as counter-terrorism tool

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

that same token there has always been torture  us raising our behavior bar at the same time the terrorists raise the stakes by going n/b/c/ on us seems a real good way to get creamed. i like the vince lombardi pass defense.  thats a quarterback lying in a pool of his own blood dying
if there is good reason to believe someone has knowledge we can  use to prevent an occurence i'll do him myself.

[Frank Castle]

but it does prohibit you from treating people in an unchristian like manner

How many people did the christian killed during the Crusades.

[Jamisjockey]

How many people did the christian killed during the Crusades.

Which were un-Christian-like and your argument is invalid.  The past is the past. 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Oy.  Not this terrorist "suspect" nonsense again.  If all terrorists ever committed was crime then there'd be sense in calling them criminal suspects and giving them criminal trials.  But terrorists don't commit crime, they commit terrorism.  Confusing the two is idiotic, dangerous, and an insult to justice.

[MicroBalrog]

Oy.  Not this terrorist "suspect" nonsense again.  If all terrorists ever committed was crime then there'd be sense in calling them criminal suspects and giving them criminal trials.  But terrorists don't commit crime, they commit terrorism.  Confusing the two is idiotic, dangerous, and an insult to justice.

So you're saying we should just punch a hole into presumption of innocent because you declare (rather arbitrarily) terrorism to be separate from crime?

[Jamisjockey]

 Confusing the two is idiotic, dangerous, and an insult to justice.

Something we agree on.

So you're saying we should just punch a hole into presumption of innocent because you declare (rather arbitrarily) terrorism to be separate from crime?

If you weren't so sex positive I'd hug you....
<bold added by me for emphasis>

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I'm saying that it's idiotic to pretend that terrorism is the same as common crime.  We have procedures that work for prosecuting crime, but not for terrorism.  We need to build some procedures that make sense for terrorism.

[MicroBalrog]

I'm saying that it's idiotic to pretend that terrorism is the same as common crime.  We have procedures that work for prosecuting crime, but not for terrorism.  We need to build some procedures that make sense for terrorism.

Why don't they work for terrorism? THey seemed to have worked well for the previous generations of bomb-chuckers.

[Jamisjockey]

I'm saying that it's idiotic to pretend that terrorism is the same as common crime.  We have procedures that work for prosecuting crime, but not for terrorism.  We need to build some procedures that make sense for terrorism.

No its not a common crime.  Its a war crime and should be treated as such, instead of as a weak re-election tool by politicians.

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security

Taking the liberty of another cheapens all mankind.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

A hypothetical for you folks who don't see the difference:

Let's say Mahmoud the Al Qaeda goon is in some Pakistan cave working on a plot to loose the black plague on Washington DC.  American intelligence figures out the plot and wants to stop it.  The American .gov calls upon the Paki .gov to go in a get Mahmoud and his compatriots.  They do so, and hand the terrorists over to the Americans.

What do we do with 'em now?  How would you all, as terrorism-is-petty-crime-advocates, propose handling the matter?  Tell me how to do justice for Mahmoud and society at large by using our criminal justice system.

[makattak]

So you're saying we should just punch a hole into presumption of innocent because you declare (rather arbitrarily) terrorism to be separate from crime?

Terrorism is an ACT OF WAR.

It is not a simple crime. Responding to it as as such is foolish. You bring the perpetrators of a crime to justice. You defeat an enemy in war.

Not only that, but since we have decided that war is supposed to be limited, we ALREADY do more than we should to make sure only those responsible for these acts of war are the ones we make war upon.

And now you want to handcuff our ability to prosecute a war even more?

No wonder the West is losing.

[Jamisjockey]

A hypothetical for you folks who don't see the difference:

Let's say Mahmoud the Al Qaeda goon is in some Pakistan cave working on a plot to loose the black plague on Washington DC.  American intelligence figures out the plot and wants to stop it.  The American .gov calls upon the Paki .gov to go in a get Mahmoud and his compatriots.  They do so, and hand the terrorists over to the Americans.

What do we do with 'em now?  How would you propose handling the matter?

Investigate, interrogate, work the evidence.  Force the intelligence community to work together (which they still do not do).  Pour all of the information into one database that can be cross referenced by the other intelligence agencies.  Put boots on the ground whenever possible.  When we have actionable intelligence, react swiftly and reasonably.  

Terrorism is an ACT OF WAR.

Then how dare we ever ask that our troops, when captured, be treated humanely and not tortured. 

We have lost the moral high ground, which is part of the aim of the terrorists to begin with. 

[ronnyreagan]

What do we do with 'em now?  How would you all, as terrorism-is-petty-crime-advocates, propose handling the matter?  Tell me how to do justice for Mahmoud and society at large by using our criminal justice system.

Federal courts have handled foreign terrorists before, why can't they now?

[PTK]

Reading through this thread, in the nicest way possible... you're all madmen. 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

kinda a drag waiting till after they fubar some real estate when you could be proactive

[slugcatcher]

kinda a drag waiting till after they fubar some real estate when you could be proactive

But we'll still have our principles. Those of us not present on the fubar'd real estate anyhow.

[Jamisjockey]

But we'll still have our principles. Those of us not present on the fubar'd real estate anyhow.

If we don't stand behind those principles, than what is the point?  And then we become the same kind of animals we fight against.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Federal courts have handled foreign terrorists before, why can't they now?

I wouldn't hold up the Clinton Admin's handling of the embassy bombings as being particularly exemplary, if I were you.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

If we don't stand behind those principles, than what is the point?  And then we become the same kind of animals we fight against.

Unless we contort our criminal courts into terrorist courts we're just as bad as they are?  That's just foolish. 

[Werewolf]

If we don't stand behind those principles, than what is the point?  And then we become the same kind of animals we fight against.

You fight fire with fire as the saying goes. So we may act like the animals we are fighting against while fighting them but unlike them when the fight is over and we have won we can take up our civilized ways again. The terrorists will always be uncivilized animals.

[Jamisjockey]

You fight fire with fire as the saying goes. So we may act like the animals we are fighting against while fighting them but unlike them when the fight is over and we have won we can take up our civilized ways again. The terrorists will always be uncivilized animals.

And there will always be terrorists therefore we will always act like uncivilized animals?


This one's done for me. 

[ronnyreagan]

I wouldn't hold up the Clinton Admin's handling of the embassy bombings as being particularly exemplary, if I were you.

Care to elaborate? The Federal Court didn't implode under the complexities of international terrorism. The suspects they had were given a trial, found guilty and sentenced in Federal Court. Why can't that be done now?

[makattak]

Care to elaborate? The Federal Court didn't implode under the complexities of international terrorism. The suspects they had were given a trial, found guilty and sentenced in Federal Court. Why can't that be done now?

Yes, we caught the people and put them in jail.

We did not find anything out about their networks, future planning or who was involved in supporting them which allowed the network to learn from thier mistakes and plan for a more successful attack.

Brilliant.

As for our rights to expect our soldiers to be treated humanely- we treat captured SOLDIERS in accords with the laws of war. We expect opposing ARMIES to treat our soldiers in the same way.

Funny how you suggest we have no right to expect humane treatment of our soldiers when our current enemy is incapable of such treatment.

What do you suggest? We better treat them nice or else they might do something like... I don't know, decapitate a journalist?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Care to elaborate? The Federal Court didn't implode under the complexities of international terrorism. The suspects they had were given a trial, found guilty and sentenced in Federal Court. Why can't that be done now?

It didn't implode, but it didn't do justice either.

Of the 21 people charged, only 4 were put in jail.  That's dangerous and unacceptable.

The prosecution was entirely reactive.  This particular method of fighting terrorism requires that we wait until after the bad guys have killed hundreds or thousands of people.  Again, that's dangerous andunacceptable.

The "crime" took place on sovereign American territory, our embassies.  That's the only way we were able to get the FBI in to investigate.  Do you think this level of investigation would have been possible in a place like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, or for our hypothetical Mahmoud?  I certainly don't.  How can you justify a criminal conviction without proper investigation and evidence collection?  Or is the goal to force every terrorist to be "acquitted"?

I think it's a mockery of justice to claim that American housewives and businessmen can constitute a jury of peers to an Egyptian or Saudi citizen. 

I think it's a mockery of justice to claim that the US Federal courts have jurisdiction to prosecute crimes that took place in Africa.  I guess you could make a case that these particular crimes took place in the United States, being on US embassies.  But that limits you to only prosecuting an event after the attackers have entered the US and caused mayhem here.  Border security becomes the only viable defense against terrorism.  Thankfully we have good border security here.  Oh, wait...

Even Clinton acknowledged that the embassy bombings were akin to acts of war, not common crimes, when he responded by launching missile strikes into foreign countries.  That those particular military strikes were pathetic and impotent is irrelevant.  He understood that some sort of military response was necessary and appropriate and just.

Do you think it's just for Americans to pass criminal laws and then yank foreigners out of foreign countries to be put on trial here in our courts for violating those laws?  Would you support other countries doing that to our citizens?

How do you propose we arrest foreigners who've violated our laws?  Are you going to send in a county sherrif with a warrant?  In most cases you'd need to send in the military to nab these types of people.  Are you comfortable with using the military to make criminal arrests?

[MicroBalrog]

Israel tries captured terrorists like the criminal scum they are. We even fund their attorneys. We do this with people who are outright captured on foreign battlefields. Why can't America do this with people who are not?