9 ms·

The sad and dangerous thing that has happened is that a new category of criminals has been made: Terrorists. Once someone is put in that category all his rights

by flexie 13y ago

The sad and dangerous thing that has happened is that a new category of criminals has been made: Terrorists. Once someone is put in that category all his rights cease to exist. It's sort of like the outlaws of medieval Europe. The only right thing to do is to start treating terrorist suspects exactly like those suspected of any other crimes, be it murder, theft, rape etc.

aaronbrethorst 13y ago
We used to do that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh#Arrest.2C_trial.2C_conviction_and_sentencing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh#Arrest.2C_trial... http://www.cnn.com/US/9801/08/yousef.update/ http://www.cnn.com/US/9801/08/yousef.update/ Unfortunately, Congress isn't so keen on going back to that system. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-04/khalid-sheikh-mohammed-9-11-planner-to-get-military-trial-at-guantanamo.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-04/khalid-sheikh-moham...
- chronic25 13y ago
  Who cares.
- anaptdemise 13y ago
  Well, the US had a "prohibition on assassination" until 9/11[1]. The Clinton administration felt it was prudent to indict Bin Laden of a crime before taking any action on him[2]. We have come a long way. The tone of the article is a little off to me. Truthful portrayal of the grandfathers emotion, but... [1]http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/11/04/us.assassination.policy/index.html http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/11/04/us.assassination.poli... [2]https://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html https://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html
  - joering2 13y ago
    Thanks for this. I recall years ago Clinton getting some heat from saying on national news that they are going after OBL to "kill him". He had to be explaining himself from using word "kill" and that it wasnt what he was trying to say. Damn, when I come to think about how much of a frog in boiling water the USA become, to be okay with some unmanned aircrafts flying over foreign soil and dropping bombs in an attempt to kill people, it gives me goose bombs! At the end of the day, the true reason why I can still sleep well is that fact that like Rome Empire, the USA Empire will fall too. Observing closely for last 8 years from within the system, there is no other way to go. Its too late to wake up the masses. Let's only hope that when it collapse, those in majority will have good intentions, hopefully setting up Government 2.0.
InclinedPlane 13y ago
This is a good analysis but I think it misses the mark a bit. The problem is very much one of terrorism. The basic idea of terrorism is to erase the boundaries of the battlefield. The worst possible reaction to that is to do the same, but that's increasingly what we've been doing. In order to be capable of fighting a war effectively (even while acting purely defensively) the rules of the battlefield must necessarily be very much different from the rules of civilized society. Increasingly the ideas that police should act like soldiers, that soldiers should be used for policing, and that the protections inherent in the criminal justice system are now outmoded and no longer useful in fighting terrorism have taken hold. But this has occurred concomitant with the expansion of the "battlefield" in the "war on terror" to encompass no less than the entirety of human civilization. The result is that while the terrorists may have knocked a few holes in the walls we have put up between civilized society under the rule of law and the near-anarchy of the battlefield the governments of the world have gleefully participated in shooting vastly more holes in those walls.
- atdepth 13y ago
  The governments of the world aren't the only ones responsible; much of this has been cheered on and done with the gleeful support of their citizenry.
  - Centigonal 13y ago
    I don't recall a pro-expansion-of-governmental-power stance becoming the majority in any country after late 2005. I could be forgetting something, but my impression has been that (at least in the US) the public response to the war on terror was, for a short while, overwhelmingly positive and then, for a much longer period, in favor of more governmental restraint.
    - philwelch 13y ago
      The war on terror was never controversial. Iraq was controversial because it was seen to be totally irrelevant to the war on terror and because it cost American money and lives. Aside from a liberal fringe who quickly decided gay marriage and the symbolism of having a black president was more important than extraordinary rendition and torture, no one cared about anything else.
bigiain 13y ago
I propose everybody mentally replace the word "terrorist" with "infidel" everytime they encounter it - if that turns the sentence containing the word into "batshit insane ranting", that's almost certainly because it was "batshit insane ranting" to start with. Seriously - start examining the rhetoric sued by your representatives, your law enforcement, and your media. Are they _really_ speaking any sense?
Shivetya 13y ago
Criminals have rights because criminals are still people. Terrorists are the 20th and 21st century equivalent of pirates.
- 14113 13y ago
  Incredibly apt analogy, even down to the privateers part - Americans were perfectly happy to fund terrorists in Northern Ireland.
- randomchars 13y ago
  Terrorist are people too. But let's not go down that road, The problem (one of them at least) is that they're not only killing pirates, but people who they think might be pirates.
  - fixedd 13y ago
    Or people who happen to be in the same cafe as people who they think might be pirates.
znowi 13y ago
> The only right thing to do is to start treating terrorist suspects exactly like those suspected of any other crimes, be it murder, theft, rape etc. Well, the US can't do that. Terrorists is the replacement for the perished Soviets. It's of an ideological matter. They're evil and must be destroyed.
rayiner 13y ago
This is just not true. John Walker Lindh and Jose Padilla were "terrorists" yet they were given civilian trials. The Supreme Court has strongly opposed every attempt to make "terrorist" a label that changes peoples' rights. Al Awalki was not killed because he was a terrorist. He was killed for the same reason Dorner was killed: it was impossible for authorities to bring him in alive and give him a trial.

by flexie 13y ago

aaronbrethorst 13y ago

We used to do that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh#Arrest.2C_trial.2C_conviction_and_sentencing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh#Arrest.2C_trial... http://www.cnn.com/US/9801/08/yousef.update/ http://www.cnn.com/US/9801/08/yousef.update/ Unfortunately, Congress isn't so keen on going back to that system. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-04/khalid-sheikh-mohammed-9-11-planner-to-get-military-trial-at-guantanamo.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-04/khalid-sheikh-moham...

chronic25 13y ago
Who cares.
anaptdemise 13y ago
Well, the US had a "prohibition on assassination" until 9/11[1]. The Clinton administration felt it was prudent to indict Bin Laden of a crime before taking any action on him[2]. We have come a long way. The tone of the article is a little off to me. Truthful portrayal of the grandfathers emotion, but... [1]http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/11/04/us.assassination.policy/index.html http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/11/04/us.assassination.poli... [2]https://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html https://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html
- joering2 13y ago
  Thanks for this. I recall years ago Clinton getting some heat from saying on national news that they are going after OBL to "kill him". He had to be explaining himself from using word "kill" and that it wasnt what he was trying to say. Damn, when I come to think about how much of a frog in boiling water the USA become, to be okay with some unmanned aircrafts flying over foreign soil and dropping bombs in an attempt to kill people, it gives me goose bombs! At the end of the day, the true reason why I can still sleep well is that fact that like Rome Empire, the USA Empire will fall too. Observing closely for last 8 years from within the system, there is no other way to go. Its too late to wake up the masses. Let's only hope that when it collapse, those in majority will have good intentions, hopefully setting up Government 2.0.

InclinedPlane 13y ago

This is a good analysis but I think it misses the mark a bit. The problem is very much one of terrorism. The basic idea of terrorism is to erase the boundaries of the battlefield. The worst possible reaction to that is to do the same, but that's increasingly what we've been doing. In order to be capable of fighting a war effectively (even while acting purely defensively) the rules of the battlefield must necessarily be very much different from the rules of civilized society. Increasingly the ideas that police should act like soldiers, that soldiers should be used for policing, and that the protections inherent in the criminal justice system are now outmoded and no longer useful in fighting terrorism have taken hold. But this has occurred concomitant with the expansion of the "battlefield" in the "war on terror" to encompass no less than the entirety of human civilization. The result is that while the terrorists may have knocked a few holes in the walls we have put up between civilized society under the rule of law and the near-anarchy of the battlefield the governments of the world have gleefully participated in shooting vastly more holes in those walls.

atdepth 13y ago
The governments of the world aren't the only ones responsible; much of this has been cheered on and done with the gleeful support of their citizenry.
- Centigonal 13y ago
  I don't recall a pro-expansion-of-governmental-power stance becoming the majority in any country after late 2005. I could be forgetting something, but my impression has been that (at least in the US) the public response to the war on terror was, for a short while, overwhelmingly positive and then, for a much longer period, in favor of more governmental restraint.
  - philwelch 13y ago
    The war on terror was never controversial. Iraq was controversial because it was seen to be totally irrelevant to the war on terror and because it cost American money and lives. Aside from a liberal fringe who quickly decided gay marriage and the symbolism of having a black president was more important than extraordinary rendition and torture, no one cared about anything else.

bigiain 13y ago

I propose everybody mentally replace the word "terrorist" with "infidel" everytime they encounter it - if that turns the sentence containing the word into "batshit insane ranting", that's almost certainly because it was "batshit insane ranting" to start with. Seriously - start examining the rhetoric sued by your representatives, your law enforcement, and your media. Are they _really_ speaking any sense?

Shivetya 13y ago

Criminals have rights because criminals are still people. Terrorists are the 20th and 21st century equivalent of pirates.

14113 13y ago
Incredibly apt analogy, even down to the privateers part - Americans were perfectly happy to fund terrorists in Northern Ireland.
randomchars 13y ago
Terrorist are people too. But let's not go down that road, The problem (one of them at least) is that they're not only killing pirates, but people who they think might be pirates.
- fixedd 13y ago
  Or people who happen to be in the same cafe as people who they think might be pirates.

znowi 13y ago

> The only right thing to do is to start treating terrorist suspects exactly like those suspected of any other crimes, be it murder, theft, rape etc. Well, the US can't do that. Terrorists is the replacement for the perished Soviets. It's of an ideological matter. They're evil and must be destroyed.

rayiner 13y ago

This is just not true. John Walker Lindh and Jose Padilla were "terrorists" yet they were given civilian trials. The Supreme Court has strongly opposed every attempt to make "terrorist" a label that changes peoples' rights. Al Awalki was not killed because he was a terrorist. He was killed for the same reason Dorner was killed: it was impossible for authorities to bring him in alive and give him a trial.