|
CIA runs secret terrorism prisons abroad (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| nusty |
| quote: | Originally posted by jon jon
bahah who tha fack posted that xfiles midi in this thread? HAHAHA
I was listening to a set, and i was like " this xfiles sample is SO LAME"
BAHAHA kldsajflka sdf;ljdaskf; |
I was just thinking that! I wasn't sure were it was coming from and thought that it was wierd to have it playing that loudly from outside at the same time as I opened this thread! |
|
|
| StereoPrincess |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
Terrorism prison?
You mean a prison for terrorists?
Sounds like a very good idea to me. |
that's what i was thinking. |
|
|
| DigitalMP |
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
Okay. 2 points
The keyword in your post being 'You'. You as an individual, not as a nation. If our humanity has any meaning to us, of course we would be against a lot of crazy that goes on.
But it's not us as individual that controls what nation does. it is the collective society through its leaders that decides whether to go on peacekeeping mission or do aid or what not. (At least in most democracies) Unless you're giving a nation some sort of schizo person status, there's no way that everyone in that nation has some sort of consensus on every issue.
Yes, to individual obligation to humanity. No that nations have that same burden.
United Nations... well, I'm sure Diginut can rant about it better than I am but here's my take.
United Nations is not world government, at least not in terms of nations governing its citizens. Because nations are not individuals, therefore it is obsurd to think that UN can control nations like a nation controls its citizens.
There is no higher sovereign power above a nation, at least as of now. A nation can give up some of its power, but a nation can take back that power. (As of case of US and Kyoto protocol) When a UN passes a resolution, it is actually the coalition of nations passing a resolution and the power of nations enforcing that resolution, not UN itself. UN cannot enforce anything without the aid of other nations.
So to claim that UN has some sort of overlord authority is weak argument at best.
I'm all for doing good deeds. But I know where the power to do good deeds lies and it starts with the individual and what an individual and its fellow same thinking people can do. (or willing to do) |
I do agree with you, and I'm also aware that there's a difference between humanitarianism and what really is the way of the world.
Sure my judgement seems clouded, but maybe I'm just baffled at seeing any other possible way to halt the advance of terrorism.
Do I think it would still exist had the US kept its nose out of the East? Yes.
Do I think Isreal would be wiped off the map had the US not stuck their nose in that conflict? Yes. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
Give me one good reason why US has any sort of moral obligation to be the world police. |
Because it's in their own national interest to root out and eliminate the collective of people who have committed over 30 different attrocities on U.S. soil and abroad, and who are known to be seeking to detonate a nuclear weapon in the USA if possible.
Because it's in their own national interest to see that these battles (or "wars", if you must use the word) are fought by trained soldiers on the enemy's soil, rather than by Joe Sixpack in his own backyard.
Because it's in their own national interest to try to bring stability to regions that play critical roles in the global economy, because if those regions failed or erupted in war, it could not only cost trillions of dollars, but millions of lives.
Give me one good reason why the U.S. shouldn't act according to its own national interest? |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Give me one good reason why the U.S. shouldn't act according to its own national interest? |
That's the answer I was looking for; national interest. |
|
|
| Dblock |
| US runs ...so they do wat they gotta do |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
That's the answer I was looking for; national interest. |
People say it like it's a dirty word - it's unreasonable (and really, downright silly) to expect a country to act against its own interest or the interest of its citizens. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
Terrorism prison?
You mean a prison for terrorists?
Sounds like a very good idea to me. |
It would be a great idea, if it wasnt for the fact that these terrorists doesnt get any fair trial whatsoever, neither are they treated in a way that would be acceptable by our standards (torture etc).
Someone who can't see the problem in that doesn't belong to a democracy imo. |
|
|
| DigitalMP |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
It would be a great idea, if it wasnt for the fact that these terrorists doesnt get any fair trial whatsoever, neither are they treated in a way that would be acceptable by our standards (torture etc). |
I hate to play devil's advocate, if it's not too cliche in this thread, but these terrorists don't even know the definition of a fair trial.
Though, please note that is very extreme thinking coming from me, because I don't think that one should compromise the law of their own land for what I just said, but these s are likely going to get freed from Guantanamo in 3-5 if they are taken there, so why not try to get to the top behind closed doors?
Again, that's not in accord with my morals and beliefs, but I'm just trying to look through 'their' eyes a bit. |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
terrorists doesnt get any fair trial whatsoever, neither are they treated in a way that would be acceptable by our standards (torture etc). |
It is -really- unfortuante that a terrorist who's modus operandi is to kill innocent women and children doesn't get a fair trial... Really unfortunate. |
|
|
| daves |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
It is -really- unfortuante that a terrorist who's modus operandi is to kill innocent women and children doesn't get a fair trial... Really unfortunate. |
it's even more unfortunate that due to the lack of a fair trial, someone 'deemed' a terrorist gets thrown in with the wolves.
but I guess that's the luxury of not having to have a fair trial, you don't really need to worry about whether or not the person's guilty - you just skip the whole phase of figuring it out and get to the good stuff!
I wonder how many more suffer a fate such as Maher Arar... secret detainments/torture/etc...?
yay to deciding what parts of due process are still actually due. |
|
|
|
|
