human rights for the al-queda terrorists [Archive]

el Gringo Loco

Jan 13 2002, 09:24

I don't know what all the nuisance is about, what I heard of Rumsfeld the prisoners are being treated accordingly to the rules set in the Geneva convention, even if it can be argued if you can call these murderers soldiers. So actually they are treated like real POWs. Amnesty should be concerned with the real human right problems in the world, like political prisoners in muslim states or child labour in India and Pakistan.

IMO those al-queda members are treated good enough (apart from the ones bombed to oblivion) and I have no problems with the fact that maybe they are going to be a little roughed up in order to extract more informations on Bin Laden.

I saw a very disturbing documentary on Discovery a couple of days before. I had to do with the 78 russian nuclear briefcase bombs which can't be found anymore. There were also some russian specialities who told there is a good likelihood that one of these days one or more of these briefcases will end up in the wrong hands. And with Bin Laden still on the loose, it doesn't look like a very good omen for the US. On the other hand I don't think that Bin Laden will be captured, despite the billions of extra funding the CIA, NSA, FBI received they are seemingly not making any progress in locating this piece of shit, which IMO is a very unsettling thought for the US citizens who still are forced to live in fear. Also the bulk of the al-queda members (80%) has fled to another country. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

foxer

Jan 13 2002, 09:56

I saw a very disturbing documentary on Discovery a couple of days before. I had to do with the 78 russian nuclear briefcase bombs which can't be found anymore. There were also some russian specialities who told there is a good likelihood that one of these days one or more of these briefcases will end up in the wrong hands. And with Bin Laden still on the loose, it doesn't look like a very good omen for the US. On the other hand I don't think that Bin Laden will be captured, despite the billions of extra funding the CIA, NSA, FBI received they are seemingly not making any progress in locating this piece of shit, which IMO is a very unsettling thought for the US citizens who still are forced to live in fear. Also the bulk of the al-queda members (80%) has fled to another country.

i'am not scared of being in a nuke,because it would be soo fast,scared part would be ,to see one go off.

Pete

Jan 13 2002, 10:31

if "roughing up" means torture...u better rethink it.

even if the torture is used to find a nuke, and if the torturers (americans, in this case) arent trialed and sentenced for crimes of war for the torture...then it would only legalize torture for all nations.

torture is never acceptable.

and if usa decides to do it, it should find some volunteers who are willing to get trialed and sentenced as war criminals....

el Gringo Loco

Jan 13 2002, 10:54

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Pete @<hidden> Jan. 13 2002,12:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">if "roughing up" means torture...u better rethink it.

even if the torture is used to find a nuke, and if the torturers (americans, in this case) arent trialed and sentenced for crimes of war for the torture...then it would only legalize torture for all nations.

torture is never acceptable.

and if usa decides to do it, it should find some volunteers who are willing to get trialed and sentenced as war criminals....[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Ehhhh, not exactly torture like with electrodes stuck high up in your ass, I mean the occasional slap on the cheek to get a nice discussion going.

BTW
I have no problems with torturing these people mentally, like a little witheld sleep or some white noise or some stimulating drugs. Main goal is to get the animal locked up or shot if you will, so that the masterbrain of 11 september will not get off that easily this time. Sad thing tho' he'll become a martyr and people around the world will see it as their holy duty to revenge his death. So in other words it is a vicious cycle.
I feel sorry for the people, especially the americans who believed bush when he said that he's going to root out terrorism around the world, his mission seems to run out of steam right now because lack of accurate information. I'm afraid that within 10 years we will be sitting again chained to our tv-set wondering if we're looking at some new hollywood blockbuster when some mushroom cloud forms somewhere above a US city or people are falling down from some bio/chem. attack. Sad but true, the wheels are set in motion and it seems that the bandwagon is going downhill without breaks. I think people around the world, especially the US know by now that their governments can't protect them anymore (or they should do something about their political agenda abroad) so I think this is a war we're we need to go further than we ever have gone.

Also in europe attacks are being prepared and thankfully up till now uncovered in time by the authorities. There was also an attack planned on the EU building in brussels. I think we have to fight for a better future, and if the need is there to torture known terrorists or sympathizers than it should be that way!
You can call me shortsighted, but in this case I think we should make any effort to get rid of these animals.

Pete

Jan 13 2002, 11:31

i know what you mean, and what we have against us.

but the problem ís that if "we" do something morally wrong to others, we cant complain when the same is done to us.

osama and al-queda needs to be tracked down, but even if we get all of them, and all of todays terrorists.....nothing still prevents a new group of terrorists from rising up somewhere.

about the captured terrorists..they are not soldiers, and if they are sentenced to a life in prison (or death, but i dont support death penalties) it would be no problem, but torture..it would only let the world know that usa thinks it is acceptable, even with those methods u mentioned..it is still torture.

since these men are not soldiers, but more like criminals..it would mean that usa approves to torture of prisoners..and then how can we complain over china's violations of human rights for example?

usa will not use torture, they are not that stupid.

would torture be used, it should be inofficially done, by men who "break" the rules of its own goverment..and the goverment should sentence those men for committing war-crimes.

if torture is what it takes to save the lifes of millions..please do so, but also to prevent millions in prisons all over the world being tortured you need to punish the torturers according to the law.

i hope i make any sence.

about the terrorists that are still free...killing them all wont prevent the rise from future terrorists, for me it doesnt matter much what happens to them..the main important thing is to prevent a new terrorstrike, and to do that us. foreign policy needs to change radically.

KingBeast

Jan 13 2002, 12:58

As far as I know, only a very small amount of Bin Ladens closest friends new of the planning of Setp 11th, so i doubt that these few low level Al Quaeda people know anything about that.
So in reality these people may not have even done anything wrong at all (other than being part of Al Qaueda of course)

Of course im not sympathising with them, there were Nazis that didnt actually ever do anything, but that doesnt mean i wouldnt have kicked them in the nuts if I saw one http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

But anyway back to the point, I from BBC news, it would seem that because America has decided not to refer to these people as POWs, the Geneva convention does not apply whatsoever so I myself expect those people to be having a pretty rough time.
Though i wouldnt be surprised if the yanks just used a truth serum on them and got it over with http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Satchel

Jan 13 2002, 13:05

I´m confident Al Queada prisoners will meet Mr. Psy Ops, CIA and other specially trained interrogation units. And i´m pretty sure that during the interrogation there is little room for exchanging polite small talk, AFAIK the complex is sealed off completely from every outside influence, so noone except those working there will know what happens to those prisoners. There are no names, exact numbers or anything about Al Queada prisoners flown in, so it won´t be easy to track if some of them magically dissapears during his stay there.

Edit:
Might i also add that the U.S. doesn´t categorize them as POW´s, but as suspects or criminals, so they´re not protected by normal means as a soldier would be when he´s fallen in enemy hands. Simple but effective way to justify whatever is going to be done to those prisoners.

nordin dk

Jan 13 2002, 13:14

Even though they might not be "oficially" tortured, you can bet your a** they will be.

And the whole points is, as placebo said, that two wrongs don't make a right. If you want to brand yourself as more human than the terrorists, dont terrorise them.

And I didn't say in my first post that 9/11 wasn't terrorism, although I can see it might come out that way, if you really want to put words in my mouth.
It's amazing how it's impossible for some people to see things from different viewpoints.

As for the killing of 3000 innocents....well, let's just say that the so called "civilized" western world isn't beyond this, and never has been. Can anybody say "Dresden"?

Charlie_McSheenie

Jan 13 2002, 13:20

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Pete @<hidden> Jan. 13 2002,12:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">if "roughing up" means torture...u better rethink it.

even if the torture is used to find a nuke, and if the torturers (americans, in this case) arent trialed and sentenced for crimes of war for the torture...then it would only legalize torture for all nations.

torture is never acceptable.

and if usa decides to do it, it should find some volunteers who are willing to get trialed and sentenced as war criminals....[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
i personally don't care if we kick the shit out of them to get a bit of information. They're terrorists, and they probably treated the afghan people in a torturous fashion. Simply being human doesn't mean they should be spared from the same kind of thing they enjoyed so much while in power (remembering these people started massacring taliban people as well http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif ).

Just like i wouldn't object to sending peadophiles to prisons were i know they'd get the shit kicked out of them every day they're locked up.

Its not like they're innocent, what do you think they wanted to do when they joined the al queda?

Most drug lords, peadophiles, rapists, petty theives etc... would have you believe they were tortured in some way by the police. Thats why when people go on a violent protest they whinge about being knocked over by riot police.

And no doubt many countries like china, russia, middle eastern countries... will be happy to torture people in search of info. (and no doubt many people in our o so great countries will think about it as well http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif ).

I think most people would understand the US torturing people to find out the location of a nuke or find out the next terrorist targets or something. Of course minority groups will protest but what the fuck do they know?

I think terrorists, as terrorists, should if neccessary be subjected to torture if its the only way to get information.

So it'll fuel hatred towards the US in the middle east, who cares. Bush needs to fart or smile to have some minor ass middle eastern faction declare jihad on his devil country.

But thats just imho

Pete

Jan 13 2002, 16:18

i think you missed my point ruskie.....

i wouldnt care less if you hang the al-gueda dudes by the balls..i have no problem what so ever, they are scum.

BUT...if the most (supposedly) civiliced nation does that to its prisoners, if the worlds most powerfull nation violates human rights...it looses its argument when saying that other nations should not torture prisoners..political prisoners, or just petty thiefs who stole candy.

look at the new soon-to-be-a-war between pakistan and india, you think india would have threatened with war after a terrorstrike if not usa had pawed the way first and made it clear that it can be done for that reason.

the reason WE cant torture is becouse WE are supposed to set an example for others to follow, WE need to have a moral upperhand when telling others to stop it.

as i said....if use wants to use torture, the torturers should be prepared to face trial and sentence for doing that...i am sure that in a nation where u find so many people ready to kill and die for there country u find some who are ready to torture and sit in a prison (without honor) for there country.

the thing is..WE cant be allowed to do what WE want to stop others from doing...if in your opinion USA is allowed to torture these men, and if usa does so and gets away with it, then you should also be prepared that if your dad (who is military) gets caught by the enemy can and will be "legally" tortured without any possible punishment to the torturers.

look at the wider scale picture.

if the stakes are this high....usa better find volunteers willing to spend a long time in prison for trying to get the information by torture.

torture is not acceptable...and if it is used as a last resort, the torturers still need to be punished.

Red Oct

Jan 13 2002, 20:52

if you just killed all the terrorists there wouldnt be a problem

Wobble

Jan 13 2002, 21:17

define 'torture'.. you cant..

because what is torture varies from country to country, person to person.. some of the moronic assholes from UC berkley and such consider almsot ANYTHING besides giving someone a bubble bath as torture.. while some countries in the middle east consider breaking fingers and such a perfectly acceptable form of interroagation...

ahh theres the word.. INTERROGATION..

is interrogation torture? well what kind? how? to who?

aside from VERY VERY VERY extreme acts of brutality you cant really say "this is offically torture"

they way I see it as long as you do not cause any long term (month +) damaging physical or mental problems to the person you are interrogating then it is not torture.. but thats just me, there are people who will be on VERY VERY different sides of that..

similar to what I said before.. if someone thinks that sitting some murder down under a hot light for a few hours asking the questions is torture.. fucke em... they dont know what torture is..

you want to see cut and dry torture.. rear about some of the 'interrogations' given to captured russian soldiers by Chechen rebles.. I would ask ask a formerly captured russian soldier but I doubt there are many alive, as most chechen interrogations ended in decapitation.

Red Oct

Jan 14 2002, 00:11

.. I would ask ask a formerly captured russian soldier but I doubt there are many alive, as most chechen interrogations ended in decapitation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i would think it would be viceversa as most chechens dont really take prisoners. in russia, police brutatlity is a common practice. ever watch some of those "worlds scariest police chases"? it showed russian police doing a raid on some mafia guys, before they put them in cuffs they pummled them to the ground and gave in a few kicks than escorted them to the car

Red Oct

Jan 14 2002, 00:39

for mindless entertainment relating to this topic go
Here (http://www.joecartoon.com/cartoons/osamabox.html)

Longinius

Jan 14 2002, 09:03

1. What right does America have bringing those guys to Cuba to start with? Aren't they POW's?
2. Isn't it illegal to keep prisoncamps like the one on Cuba, where prisoners are exposed to the elements like that?
3. Do you really think all Taliban soldiers are terrorists, or even knew about WTC? If you do, you are truly stupid.

Its all utter crap and a big setback for international law and human rights. Again, the biggest guy on the block does whatever he damn pleases.

As for defining torture, it is rather simple. Any action deviced to do physical or mental harm to a defenseless person(s) is torture.

foxer

Jan 14 2002, 09:39

You people seem to forgeting people don't go to afghanistan for a fun week off.They go there to train and learn how to make bombs and kill people.I really doubt any of these prisoners will get the shit kick outta them,i think they are just going get mind rape.

Red Oct

Jan 14 2002, 18:41

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1. What right does America have bringing those guys to Cuba to start with? Aren't they POW's?
2. Isn't it illegal to keep prisoncamps like the one on Cuba, where prisoners are exposed to the elements like that?
3. Do you really think all Taliban soldiers are terrorists, or even knew about WTC? If you do, you are truly stupid.

Its all utter crap and a big setback for international law and human rights. Again, the biggest guy on the block does whatever he damn pleases.

As for defining torture, it is rather simple. Any action deviced to do physical or mental harm to a defenseless person(s) is torture.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
1. i believe there classified as "detianies" not P.O.w.'s
2. No and they do have shelter
3. It depends

whats with the crap on everybody accusing or suggesting my country on torture? we aint torturing nobody, the only time it would ever be acceptable if there was a scenairo were a nuke was hidden somewhere in a densely populated city (new york for example) and the only person who knew where it was located was a single captured terrorist. But that kinda thing is unlikely.

nordin dk

Jan 14 2002, 20:50

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">whats with the crap on everybody accusing or suggesting my country on torture? we aint torturing nobody (snip)[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
How naive is that? http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

Jan 14 2002, 22:53

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (nordin dk @<hidden> Jan. 14 2002,11:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">whats with the crap on everybody accusing or suggesting my country on torture? we aint torturing nobody (snip)[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
How naive is that? http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Uhhh, who did the US torture? Or is this based of a "belief" rather than "evidence"? Did amnesty international list the US as a torture country?

Wobble

Jan 14 2002, 23:21

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @<hidden> Jan. 14 2002,11:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1. What right does America have bringing those guys to Cuba to start with? Aren't they POW's?
2. Isn't it illegal to keep prisoncamps like the one on Cuba, where prisoners are exposed to the elements like that?
3. Do you really think all Taliban soldiers are terrorists, or even knew about WTC? If you do, you are truly stupid.

Its all utter crap and a big setback for international law and human rights. Again, the biggest guy on the block does whatever he damn pleases.

As for defining torture, it is rather simple. Any action deviced to do physical or mental harm to a defenseless person(s) is torture.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
1: everything complies with the terms set in the genive convention.

2:everything complies with the terms set in the genive convention.

3: maby not, but seeing as how the taleban was givin MANY MANY chances to cooperate with the US and refused and aeven mocked the attempt at avoiding a conflict with them by calling the US 'cowards' then they are the enemy. they had their chanced, they made the decision.. now they are fucked.

and are the terrorists? all of them/ maby not BUT a terrorist (bin laden) finances and controls their 'army' so they are fighting for a terrorist orginazation.. If you fight for a terrorist are you not a terrorist aswell??

bottom line is that the taleban NOT the US drove this to conflict.. the US made every attempt to negotiate with them to cooperate.. not to 'give us bin lade' but to allow the NATO to enter the region.. the Taleban said if we come looking for Bin Laden we will be attacked.. so they are protecting terrorists.. and as bush and blair said anyone knowingly aiding or housing a terrorist organization will be treated as terrorist themselves.. which is perfectly sensable and fair..

Bin Laden OWNS the Taleban.. period..they are almost literally his personal army... he gives them LOTS of money (should i say gave) http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Camel

Jan 15 2002, 00:49

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Red Oct @<hidden> Jan. 14 2002,08:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">if you just killed all the terrorists there wouldnt be a problem[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Then who is being a terrorist?

That would be a fine simple solution to a simple problem, but its not a simple problem.

Many Americans seem to forget that the motivation behind Osama Bin Laden lies in his -and some muslim peoples- sense of betrayal at the abuse of their respective countries by America. It backed middle eastern occupation of their countries and has since imposed sanctions and taken out covert bombing raids for over 40 years.

You cannot say "they pushed me first so we're pushing them back harder" because US foreign policy over the past 40 years in Israel and Iraq and Afghanistan (Supplying arms to the Taliban) has actively encouraged fomentation of muslim hatred and enabled the rise of terrorist-harbouring groups.

Maybe Wobble (above) would look at it differently if she/he recognised that less than 10 years ago it was the US who gave the Taliban heaps of money to attempt (vainly) to drive the Russians out of Afghanistan.

Regards, a particularly pissed off Australian who has to put up with his current government backing a futile and pointless war which will only continue to encourage xenophobic hatred on both sides of the conflict. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

Jan 15 2002, 00:56

*Sigh*

So, "Camel": it's all our fault that we were attacked? Jesus.

And, so what if we helped the Taliban 10 years ago? Does that mean we owe them something? What's the point of your post anyway?

KingBeast

Jan 15 2002, 01:01

Well not all taliban soldiers were necessarily evil terrorists.
Thats like saying the entire german army of WW2 were Nazis.
Sometimes people do stuff because they want to, and sometimes they do stuff because they were forced to, or sometimes they do stuff because it is required in order for them and/or their family to survive.

I dont know where im going with this, just dont assume all taliban are baby killing, women raping building exploding bad guys.

Wobble

Jan 15 2002, 01:04

I dont know where im going with this, just dont assume all taliban are baby killing, women raping building exploding bad guys.

no, they just protect and help the people who do that.

KingBeast

Jan 15 2002, 01:08

Again same as the German soldiers. They were Hitler and the Nazis tool, they protected the fatherland, then extended the reach of the Reich.
Doesnt mean all Germans were bad guys.

Wobble

Jan 15 2002, 01:37

yes but most german soldiers didnt know about the atrocities that were commited... im pretty sure every soldier fighting for the taleban has a pretty good idea about what happened to get them in the situation they are in... they know what happened, they either:

A: know it is wrong and fight anyway

B: think it was right and are no better then the people who did it..

either way...

I know you say they are doing their job.. and yes being a soldier is their job.. but as proven by the Nurenberg trials "I was just following orders" is no longer an acceptable excuse the soldier in question was knowingly doing something that is WRONG.. I.E. defending an international terrorist.. sure he has orders to do it.. but that doesent absolve them of any and all responability for their actions (again.. nurenberg)

so like I said, they either know what they are fighting for is wrong.. and do it anyway or they think its ok.. either way

KingBeast

Jan 15 2002, 01:44

No offence but how the hell would the average afghan taliban know about whatever your talking about when they are totally cut off from the world? (no radio, no tv etc)

Any news would have been by word of mouth and wrapped up in propaganda ie (Allah has shown his mighty wrath blah blah)

Hope im making sense. The Taliban were invovled in their own wars and skirmishes within the country before 90% of us even knew what al queda was and certainly before the WTC bombing. Therefore the taliban soldiers were likely in the faction because A) they were assholes B) It was that or die C) the Taliban were a strong strict islamic group. Very appealing to the average afghan male no doubt

I hope i didnt get anything wrong

Wobble

Jan 15 2002, 01:48

so your view is that because the average soldier *might* not know what has happened.. or at least what REALLY happened.. that they should be immune to normal military procedure concerning captured enemy troops?

the bottom line is they are fighting against us.. we captured them.. they may have valuable intellegence that we could use.. as long as the US sticks to the terms set in the geniva convention then they have done nothing wrong..

you think the Taleban would uphold the geneva convention?

KingBeast

Jan 15 2002, 01:51

I read on BBC news that the geneva convention does not apply to them as they are not Prisoners Of War. The US classes them as criminals not POWs, something like that

Wobble

Jan 15 2002, 02:26

well if they are considered 'criminals' then they have even less rights than a soldier.. or POW..

Im still waiting for ANYONE to name ANYTHING that the US has 'done' to these guys thats any problem..

and not "I bet they are gonna... etc etc.." real factual stuff.

nordin dk

Jan 15 2002, 02:28

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OBiJuan @<hidden> Jan. 14 2002,23:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">whats with the crap on everybody accusing or suggesting my country on torture? we aint torturing nobody (snip)[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
How naive is that? http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Uhhh, who did the US torture? Or is this based of a "belief" rather than "evidence"? Did amnesty international list the US as a torture country?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Are you sure you wanna hear this?

Pete

Jan 15 2002, 03:35

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (nordin dk @<hidden> Jan. 15 2002,04:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">whats with the crap on everybody accusing or suggesting my country on torture? we aint torturing nobody (snip)[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
How naive is that? http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Uhhh, who did the US torture? Or is this based of a "belief" rather than "evidence"? Did amnesty international list the US as a torture country?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Are you sure you wanna hear this?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
damn!!!

i wanted to be the first to reply http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

well, yes...USA IS on amnestys list for being a torture country.

mainly for it "allowing" female prisoners being raped by male prison guards.

american laws does not let those women be raped, but american use of the law doesnt punish the rapers...so it is in its way allowing the women get raped....that for that usa is on amnestys list for being a torture country.

Wobble

Jan 15 2002, 03:45

thats the biggest pile of horse shit ive ever heard..

american use of the law doesnt punish the rapers...so it is in its way allowing the women get raped

In this country if you rape someone you usually get a sentence about equal to attempted murder.

and 'rape' is not torture.. its rape..

Im looking for info on this right now..

Wobble

Jan 15 2002, 03:56

the US is listed for the following:

The death penalty, police brutality, prison and jail conditions and the treatment of refugees,

"treatment of refugees" this is because we turned back cuban refugees on rafts.. as in we transported them back to cuba... oh how evil.

however there is NO mention of torture on the writeup of the US accept::

The report acknowledged there were areas of concern but stated that torture did not occur except "in aberrational situations and never as a matter of policy".

HOWEVER.. gues who else also appears on their list..

French Republic
Head of state: Jacques Chirac
Head of government: Lionel Jospin
Capital: Paris
Population: 58.6 million
Official language: French

first thing listed:: Torture, ill-treatment and death in
police custody

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Head of state: Queen Elizabeth II
Head of government: Tony Blair
Capital: London
Population: 59 million
Official language: English

Listed: Deaths in custody
Police handling of racist killings
Ill-treatment in prisons
Refugees
Racism

its kinda hard NOT to find a country that is not on AI's shit list for one thing or another...

so dont go trying to make the US out as some vilinous country based on what AI says.. because chances are yours is on the very same shit list.

I could go on and on adding wonderful wholesome countries that are on AI's 'list' but you get the idea..

asking AI if a country is "good" is like asking a vegetarian if beef tasts good.

Pete

Jan 15 2002, 03:57

http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf....DITIONS (http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/Index/AMR510321999?OpenDocument&of=THEMES\PRISON+CONDITIONS)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">•Sexual abuse: rape of an inmate by staff is internationally recognized as a form of torture and violates US federal and state criminal laws, yet reports of rape and other forms of sexual abuse are common in US prisons and jails. Amnesty International is calling for female inmates to be supervised by female staff only, and for victims to be more effectively protected from retaliation if they report abuses.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

rape is torture, it causes longterm mental harm and a shortterm physical harm (if lucky).

and when done regulary in a prison for example...its pure torture.

Pete

Jan 15 2002, 04:00

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">so dont go trying to make the US out as some vilinous country based on what AI says.. because chances are yours is on the very same shit list. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

so, the better of a reason to find out shit of eachothers countries...we learn what bad WE do also.

it is so much more easier to point fingers at others when u know nothing of your own nations wrongdoings.

im finnish, and i live in sweden...ill see what bad we do here (im sure there is atleast a few things)

Wobble

Jan 15 2002, 04:01

so be it.. but AI does not list the US as a 'torture' country... as opposed to what you earlier said.

it is so much more easier to point fingers at others when u know nothing of your own nations wrongdoings.

im finnish, and i live in sweden...ill see what bad we do here (im sure there is atleast a few things)thats not the point doofus, the point is that according to AI almost EVERYONE is some evil empire.. the US is on the list.. so is almost every other nation in the world..

im not pointing fingers, the point is that according to AI almost every country is some evil empire.. they do not judge countries realistically..

Im not trying to say "well you do it too" im saying that maby AI is not the greatest place to go for a non-biased opinion on whats right and wrong..

Wobble

Jan 15 2002, 04:05

case in point.. Sweden is on their list for one single un-solved muder.. to AI thats enough to be considered a troubled country.

have a peek at it section on Afganistan http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif
Systematic killings.. and it just gets better.

Wobble

Jan 15 2002, 04:15

reports of rape and other forms of sexual abuse are common in US prisons and jails

criminals commiting acts on other criminals in a prison hardley makes the US a 'torture' country...

if a prisoner in Britian murders another prisoner does that make britian a 'murder' country??..

Pete

Jan 15 2002, 04:18

ur right..but i think AI is better to whine too much than too little, its goal is a utopia..it can never be reached but we should never stop trying.

about that un-solved murder...my dad knew that guy very well, and i know a lot about the case.

sweden is not on the list cos of that murder, it is on the list cos the cover-up the police tried to pull..they lied and falsified documents to seem to be innocent.

police is a goverment institution..so what lower-ranked police does is in a way the goverments responsibilty...but i agree on it being a lil far-fetched.

point is, i didnt say that cos about raped women of my anti-americanism, i said it cos a guy asked if the us was listed at amnesty for torture...and it is.

Pete

Jan 15 2002, 04:25

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @<hidden> Jan. 15 2002,06:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">reports of rape and other forms of sexual abuse are common in US prisons and jails

criminals commiting acts on other criminals in a prison hardley makes the US a 'torture' country...

if a prisoner in Britian murders another prisoner does that make britian a 'murder' country??..[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
not criminals + criminals...its guards + criminals

you dont get on amnestys list unless it is a goverment institute that does it..the army or the police for example.

would you please stop excusing the rapes simply cos it happens in your nation wobble...usa is listed there for the deathpenalty and other things, but that is something we can have different opinions about, some are for death as a penalty, some are against.

..but rape, id like to see the man who is for rape as a punishment.

Frizbee

Jan 15 2002, 04:28

All Australian / American / British Nationals etc. working with them should be tried for treason, and then hung.

All Afghanistan etc members of the organisation should be tried for terrorism and executed by hanging.

There should be no lethal injection... that is for civilians. No shooting. That is for Soldiers.

They deserve nothing more than a cowards death by hanging.

Wobble

Jan 15 2002, 04:30

said it cos a guy asked if the us was listed at amnesty for torture...and it is

show me where it says so.. because according to the writeup IT IS NOT...

as for the guards+prisoners.. how many? 10? 20? 200?

because it seems ANY would be enough for AI to get all pissy on it

its goal is a utopia..it can never be reached

exactley so it cant exactly be used in a "country good/country bad" argument.. because it is so unrealistic..

after reading some of the CRAP AI lists countries for it would no longer suprise me if the US was indeed on their 'torture' list.. as all it seems it would take is one or 2 isolated incidents for it to slap a country with that lable..

well at least I learned something today.. AI is as big of joke as PITA (dont get me started on PITA)

not to say AI is bad or anything.. but their 'judgment' is quite suspect in its labeling of what a country is or is not... VERY suspect.

Jan 15 2002, 04:33

LOL!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Are you sure you wanna hear this?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

You guys are hilarious. You went from that to:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i think AI is better to whine too much than too little, its goal is a utopia..it can never be reached but we should never stop trying[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

All the way to:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">would you please stop excusing the rapes simply cos it happens in your nation wobble[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

What happened to the US being a TORTURE COUNTRY??

Morons.

Wobble

Jan 15 2002, 04:38

well Juan sometimes when the point of an argument cannot be won the losing party will deftley slllliiidddee the point to a different topic that they stand a better chance of winning http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

would you please stop excusing the rapes simply cos it happens in your nation wobble
(just noticed this)

I said that a prison rape which is an isolated incident.. not a premeditated goverment sponsored act DOES NOT make a country a 'torture' country..

well it might to AI but like you said... unrealistic utopian view..

but if you interpret that as me 'excusing rape because its in my country'... you my friend have a sever outlook issue.

Wobble

Jan 15 2002, 04:43

I wish I could type.. I need to take a keyborading class next semester http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Pete

Jan 15 2002, 04:49

when did this become a good/bad country argument??

and the rape (and other ill-treatments) might be a few isolatet cases (most likely so)...but when the goverment does nothing to stop the rapers or to prevent it happening again...or even to the very least improve the prisoners condition...then it is a major issue and should be on amnestys list.

just like the single murder case in sweden...its there to put a pressure to make things change before they get any worse.

its not a good/bad country argument.....all our nations have defects and we should sort them out and make them better.

and yes, ur right..usa is not listed as a torture country, but it is listed for torture...

something that annoys me is when people defend something that is clearly wrong...if you dont like us coming with too much anti-us stuff, find some anti-euro stuff we can argue about...but do not defend raping of female prisoners and such clearly wrong things...we can argue about wars and reasons for them, but not this.

Wobble

Jan 15 2002, 04:59

...if you dont like us coming with too much anti-us stuff, find some anti-euro stuff we can argue about...but do not defend raping of female prisoners and such clearly wrong things...we can argue about wars and reasons for them, but not this.

I dont like starting shit like that.. I like the "he who knows no sin cast the first stone" rule, in otherwords dont pick on someone else's country because your's has its trouble's too..

and how am i 'defending' raping prisoners.. all I said is that they have nothing to do with the goverment.. thats it. I never said its not a big deal. just that it doesnt make the US a torture country.. you see the difference.. sure its wrong of course it is and for quite a while the prison system has been trying to deal with it.. but its not a very easy thing to do.. after all how many women do YOU know who would want to be a prison guard?.. hell I dont know anyone male or female who would want to.. its a shitty job.. and you make it sound like this prison rape thing is some sort of rampant problem thats spinning out of control.. then you turn around and say its most likley isolated incidents.. well which is it? isolated incidents.. ANY isolated incident are hard for ANY goverment to deal with.. becasue they are just that.. isolated incidents.. its not like the gov has some majic cure for this problem and just refuses to do anything about it.. its a hard thing to deal with.. because it has nothing to do with goverment.. its a single person with their own strange motive commiting a crime.. just like any other rape or murder or other crime.. you cant just 'fix' it.. you can try and make the incidents more rare by screening potental employees better and whatnot.. but its not something that can really be fixed.. because it occurs on the personal level.. it still sucks and is VERY VERY wrong.. but there is only so much a goverment can do about it becuase like I said... its a personal individual act...

Wobble

Jan 15 2002, 05:05

wow, I just found this..

Between 1980 and 1995, expected punishment more than doubled for murder and nearly tripled for rape

it was written in 97.. but it does show that the gov IS trying its best.. and stiffining punishments for the crime itself is really about all the gov can do..

wow here is an updated one:
1999
Rape has decreased 17 percent, as the probability of prison has increased 20 percent

this is interesting.. stuff

if you can scare up a 2000 or 2001 NCPA report I would like to see.. all I can find is the 1997 and 1999 one..

Pete

Jan 15 2002, 05:15

ok wobble....i over-reacted i quess http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

but the solution to solve that is simple and can be done real fast.

no males as guards.....raise the salary to a level where women want to work as prison guards, problem solved.

in sweden to my knowledge males arent allowed to be in touch with the female prisoners at any time, they might have administrative jobs in the prison, but all that has to do with the female prisoners is off limits for the male workers/guards.

thats something the goverment can do any time, just set a few "rules" on how a female prison is to be run.

Wobble

Jan 15 2002, 05:19

no males as guards.....raise the salary to a level where women want to work as prison guards, problem solved
I agree that would probably cut down on it some... but still its easier said than done.. first off you have the Law. now I know this sounds dumb.. but only allowing female prison guards would be considered gender descrimination... I know thats totally retarded.. but the same thing happened with male inmates.. a womens group sued and make it against the law for Prisons to deny females jobs based on their sex..

I totally agree with you.. all female staff is the way to go.. butUUGGH! the damn red tape..

Longinius

Jan 15 2002, 05:33

DEFINITION OF POW
"(DOD) A detained person as defined in Articles 4 and 5 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949. In particular, one who, while engaged in combat under orders of his or her government, is captured by the armed forces of the enemy."

The Taliban were under orders from their LEGAL government.

"As such, he or she is entitled to the combatant's privilege of immunity from the municipal law of the capturing state for warlike acts which do not amount to breaches of the law of armed conflict. For example, a prisoner of war may be, but is not limited to, any person belonging to one of the following categories who has fallen into the power of the enemy: a member of the armed forces, organized militia or volunteer corps; a person who accompanies the armed forces without actually being a member thereof; a member of a merchant marine or civilian aircraft crew not qualifying for more favorable treatment; or individuals who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces. "

They sure seem like POW's to me.

TREATMENT OF TALIBAN PRISONERS
Geneva Convention on POW’s
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/undocs.html

”Art 20. The evacuation of prisoners of war shall always be effected humanely and in conditions similar to those for the forces of the Detaining Power in their changes of station.”

Since when are US soldiers drugged when transported to Cuba?

”Art 22. Prisoners of war may be interned only in premises located on land and affording every guarantee of hygiene and healthfulness. Except in particular cases which are justified by the interest of the prisoners themselves, they shall not be interned in penitentiaries.

Prisoners of war interned in unhealthy areas, or where the climate is injurious for them, shall be removed as soon as possible to a more favourable climate.”

Somehow I don’t think living in a cage is very healthful. Ever hear of dungeon decease? Its something you get from being held in damp, wet and cold cells. And it is quite bad for your health.

”Art 25. Prisoners of war shall be quartered under conditions as favourable as those for the forces of the Detaining Power who are billeted in the same area. The said conditions shall make allowance for the habits and customs of the prisoners and shall in no case be prejudicial to their health.”

Are the marines living in cages to?

The list goes on and on. Since America never goes against the Geneva convention, these guys can’t be POW’s. Even though they were captured combatants in a war…Hmmm, someone is giving people the run around.

”3: maby not, but seeing as how the taleban was givin MANY MANY chances to cooperate with the US and refused and aeven mocked the attempt at avoiding a conflict with them by calling the US 'cowards' then they are the enemy. they had their chanced, they made the decision.. now they are fucked.”

Then you are admitting they were the enemy in a war and thus POW’s that fall under the geneva convention which the US clearly is breaking.

AMERICA AND TORTURE
”Thank you all for coming. As a survivor of torture, I want to urge you to support declassification of United States government documents that shed light on human rights abuses. Simply by declassifying documents, our government can save lives. Survivors of human rights violations need to know as much as possible about who committed the atrocities against them. With this information, justice is possible, and only justice can lay the foundation for reconciliation, stability, and peace. Guatemala and Honduras are two countries that would benefit immeasurably from full declassification. The sticking point in these instances seems to be that the US has supported the abusers.”

http://www.struggle.ws/mexico/usa/torture_guatemala_jun98.html

”In its conclusions and recommendations (released May 15th, 2000), UNCAT very firmly called attention to the high number of reports in the US of "police ill-treatment of civilians, ill treatment in prisons, (including inter-prisoner violence)," calling special attention to the fact that much of the police violence seems to be discriminatory in nature, and "alleged cases of sexual assault on female detainees and prisoners by law enforcement officers, and prison personnel," stressing that women are often held in humiliating and degrading circumstances.”

http://www.disinfo.com/pages/dossier/id363/pg1/

”AMERICAN investigators are considering resorting to harsher interrogation techniques, including torture, after facing a wall of silence from jailed suspected members of Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network, according to a report yesterday. ”

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1022-01.htm

And then we have the fact that the CIA often have been accused of torture. But that is really not relevent since they do not represent the US society per say.

COMMENTS
”yes but most german soldiers didnt know about the atrocities that were commited... im pretty sure every soldier fighting for the taleban has a pretty good idea about what happened to get them in the situation they are in... they know what happened, they either:”

I really doubt that. Why would a person without TV or radio know what was going on? I doubt they even knew about WTC.

”so your view is that because the average soldier *might* not know what has happened.. or at least what REALLY happened.. that they should be immune to normal military procedure concerning captured enemy troops?”

No, but they SHOULD be treated according to the Geneva Convention. Which they aren’t.

”Im still waiting for ANYONE to name ANYTHING that the US has 'done' to these guys thats any problem..”

See above. And human rights still apply to criminals. No matter what, the regular soldier in the Taliban armed forces is an enlisted man, thus a soldier, thus a POW. No matter WHAT Bush says. This is not for him to decide, this is for the international community to decide.

And no, I am not saying the US is a torture country. The US government supports torture however.

Pete

Jan 15 2002, 05:33

rofl!!...it sounds so dumb that im sure ur right about it!!

heheheh...equal rights, i agree on men and women being cabable on doing the same kinds of jobs, but in some cases men/women should be allowed to work with certain jobs..

here, in sweden....if u are a man and try to find a job where u work with children..in a daycare or kindergarden, u will have BIG trouble getting a job.

we had a few incidents with pedophiles (sp?) with those jobs and they photographed children when they were naked, touched them in the wrong places and other really sick stuff...i think none of the kids were actually raped, but it caused a big scandal here and many men (innocent of course) were fired from there jobs....just in case.

now a few years after the initial shock its still a sensitive issue...it is not illegal for men to work with children, but nobody wants to hire men.......so, now the question here is.

1: should the goverment push harder to give the men a equal chance to get those jobs.

2: should men be allowed to work with children at all, considering the risk (even is it is a small risk).

my personal opinion, even if many disagree is to only have women with those jobs....if one child gets molested by a man working in a daycare centre its one child too much...but you can see that its a sensitive issue here...specially since sweden is one of the most "egual" nations in the world, men and women have the same rights (or should have) and the pedophile-scare is causing double-standards.

Jan 15 2002, 05:38

That's quite different from liberal america: they'd rather see 10 guilty go free than 1 innocent suffer in jail. Unfortunately, the result of that kind of thinking is: 1500 guilty go free and 2 innocents suffer in jail.

Longinius

Jan 15 2002, 06:02

"That's quite different from liberal america: they'd rather see 10 guilty go free than 1 innocent suffer in jail. Unfortunately, the result of that kind of thinking is: 1500 guilty go free and 2 innocents suffer in jail. "

Are you sure about that?

"WASHINGTON (UPI) - A congressional investigation into abuses and illegal conduct by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in its handling of organized crime investigations over the last 30 years has found evidence that then-FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover knowingly allowed innocent men to be convicted - and spend decades in prison - for a murder allegedly committed by an FBI witness, documents examined by United Press International indicate."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/4/25/213718.shtml

"But ask Bednar about the controversy engulfing Oklahoma's criminal justice system, forcing the review of nearly 1,700 convictions, and he sounds downright radical. Prosecutors, he says, are playing games with forensic evidence, putting their desire to convict ahead of the demands of science. Judges, he argues, don't insist on high standards of admissible evidence. Defense attorneys, he contends, haven't delved deeply enough into scientific tests used to determine their clients' guilt.

"We have used for the last 25 years bad science in this state to convict people, and we have stretched the truth," said Bednar, now head of Oklahoma's Indigent Defense System. "It's got to stop.""

http://www.freep.com/news/nw/zlabs13_20010713.htm

http://www.justicedenied.org/innocent.htm

I don't give much for the American judicial system (which is similar to the Swedish, which also is inefficient). Basically if you have money or power you go free. Justice is not blind. And that is not how it is supposed to be.

Besides, when you can sue a company because you spilled hot coffee in your lap AND get millions for it, something is VERY wrong.

theavonlady

Jan 15 2002, 06:17

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @<hidden> Jan. 15 2002,09:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Besides, when you can sue a company because you spilled hot coffee in your lap AND get millions for it, something is VERY wrong.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yep. Most places would refill your cup for you.

Stag

Jan 15 2002, 07:17

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @<hidden> Jan. 15 2002,07:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">DEFINITION OF POW
"(DOD) A detained person as defined in Articles 4 and 5 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949. In particular, one who, while engaged in combat under orders of his or her government, is captured by the armed forces of the enemy."

The Taliban were under orders from their LEGAL government.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
And there you have it. The prisoners are Al Qeda, NOT Taliban, and among them are six individuals holding British citizenship. The Taliban are NOT their government. These are terrorists, not soldiers.

You think that they are going to have a rough time? I certainly hope so, BUT, I suspect that the reason that they are not given the status of Prisoners of War is because the US intends to execute them, or lock them up and throw away the key. POW's would go home when the fighting is over.

As for those 6 "Brits?" I certainly hope that the US hands them back. Treason is the one reason left in British law where you can get your neck stretched.

Pete

Jan 15 2002, 07:27

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> I suspect that the reason that they are not given the status of Prisoners of War is because the US intends to execute them, or lock them up and throw away the key. POW's would go home when the fighting is over.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

i believe you are right about it...it will be intresting to see what happens next, but im convinced that it will cause a big argument heheheh

anyways..the al-queda could be classed as mercenaries i think, does the rules of war apply to them?

personally....as i said, i dont care what happens to the prisoners, i am however worried that usa might once again break a few rules and set a new "standard" for others to follow..creating a worse world to live in for everyone.

long term thing...usa needs to do the right thing at all times, and follow international rules, cos if they dont then why would anyone follow international rules....it would just end up with a chaotic world...

Longinius

Jan 15 2002, 07:33

"And there you have it. The prisoners are Al Qeda, NOT Taliban, and among them are six individuals holding British citizenship. The Taliban are NOT their government. These are terrorists, not soldiers."

But according to the news they are detaining both Talibans and Al Queda men. As for the foreign nationals, I wont comment since I do not know if they hold Afghan citizenship aswell. That does not matter anyway because they were fighting for a government. Just likes Swedes fought with the Finns against Russians and even with the Americans in Vietnam. If they were caught, they would have been POW's (Even though the Swedish Armed Forces wasn't directly envolved).

"You think that they are going to have a rough time? I certainly hope so, BUT, I suspect that the reason that they are not given the status of Prisoners of War is because the US intends to execute them, or lock them up and throw away the key. POW's would go home when the fighting is over."

This is probably true. But it is not for the US to decide if they are POW's or not.

Stag

Jan 15 2002, 07:39

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @<hidden> Jan. 15 2002,09:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That does not matter anyway because they were fighting for a government. Just likes Swedes fought with the Finns against Russians and even with the Americans in Vietnam.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Not according to the passage of the Geneva Convention you quoted.

Krull SGC

Jan 15 2002, 07:43

Pete your right about Al Qaeda members being covered by the Geneva Convention. They fall under Article 4, persons who aren't part of an involved nations regular military, but are still a party to the conflict, by virtue of affiliation, see below:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
© that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

One last thing according to Article 2, a state of war is not necessary for the convention to apply, this clearly means that affirmative action such as that taken by the US is covered and any prisioners taken by the US must treated accordingly, Afghanistan by the way is a party to the convention (yes even the Taliban, who while not recognised fully as the legitimate government, were the only "effective" government in place, and so bound by the predecessors)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Art 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

For the full text of the Convention check out this link here. (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/6fef854a3517b75ac125641e004a9e68?OpenDocument)

Stag

Jan 15 2002, 07:43

It appears you are right about Taliban being there as well. Okay, another reason why they would not be treated as POWs would be that Nobody on the planet except Pakistan recognised the Taliban as a National government. However:

[Prime Minister Tony Blair's official spokesman says the American authorities have given assurances the prisoners are being treated "humanely" and in accordance with "international norms of behaviour".]

Believe it, or not.

Longinius

Jan 15 2002, 07:48

Krull beat me to it...

"(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces."

Thus foreign nationals fighting in a volunteer corps are in fact POW's when captured.

foxer

Jan 15 2002, 11:02

I think you people are forgeting again that these are Al Qeda terrorist.There's 2 different things from a soldier and terrorist,Soldiers fight soldiers.Soldiers train to kill other soldiers.Terrorist kill civilians,They train on how to blow up civilian building,how to kill civilians,other.When the war is over soldiers go home and live their life.Terrorist know no end,They keep trying kill civilains.If someone said he was going kill you with an gun,and he lived down the street,wouldn't you want the cops to go put him in jail ?

In all the conflicts america has been in ,all of our POW got the living shit kick outta them.Heck the japanese were alot worse then the nazi's in some cases,better yet alot worse(not just talking about POW,talking about what they did to the chinese and koreans too.

Longinius

Jan 15 2002, 11:10

"I think you people are forgeting again that these are Al Qeda terrorist."

First of, we have been talking about Taliban soldiers, not Al Queda operatives. There is a difference. They are not the same. The Taliban regime was a legal government. Al Queda is a terrorist organisation.

"There's 2 different things from a soldier and terrorist,Soldiers fight soldiers."

No, soldiers fight the enemy. This means soldiers can fight soldiers, soldiers can fight terrorists, soldiers can fight freedom fighters. And freedomfighters are civilians. When they pick up weapons however, they become combatants.

"Soldiers train to kill other soldiers.Terrorist kill civilians,They train on how to blow up civilian building,how to kill civilians,other."

So does soldiers. Popular targets are purification plants, infrastructure, food storages etc. Civilians targets. Sure, they have to be destroyed so the enemy can't use them, but they are still civilian targets.

"When the war is over soldiers go home and live their life.Terrorist know no end,They keep trying kill civilains."

Wrong. Not all terrorists work like that. Some have a very distinct goal they work towards.

"In all the conflicts america has been in ,all of our POW got the living shit kick outta them.Heck the japanese were alot worse then the nazi's in some cases,better yet alot worse(not just talking about POW,talking about what they did to the chinese and koreans too."

So, just because some American POW's got treated badly by army X, the Americans can do the same to army Y? Thats real logical, and maybe the reason shit like WTC go down.

Stag

Jan 15 2002, 11:15

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @<hidden> Jan. 15 2002,13:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">First of, we have been talking about Taliban soldiers, not Al Queda operatives. There is a difference. They are not the same. The Taliban regime was a legal government. Al Queda is a terrorist organisation.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Not accroding to the UN, or the majority of governments on the planet.

Longinius

Jan 15 2002, 11:19

"Not accroding to the UN, or the majority of governments on the planet."

Not any longer, no. That is why I say "was". But up until this conflict, noone objected. Noone tried to stop them. Noone sent UN peacekeepers to establish a real government. They were accepted until they fucked up.

foxer

Jan 15 2002, 11:27

I really doubt these are Taliban soldiers ,When the NA let most of them go,i'am sure there is some taliban soldiers.But not normal foot soldiers,and taliban was never the afghanistan gov't.

Stag

Jan 15 2002, 11:29

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @<hidden> Jan. 15 2002,13:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Not accroding to the UN, or the majority of governments on the planet."

Not any longer, no. That is why I say "was". But up until this conflict, noone objected. Noone tried to stop them. Noone sent UN peacekeepers to establish a real government. They were accepted until they fucked up.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Tolerated, would be a better word:

"...Executive branch: on 27 September 1996, the ruling members of the Afghan Government were displaced by members of the Islamic Taliban movement; the Islamic State of Afghanistan has no functioning government at this time, and the country remains divided among fighting factions

note: the Taliban have declared themselves the legitimate government of Afghanistan; however, the UN still recognizes the government of Burhanuddin RABBANI; the Organization of the Islamic Conference has left the Afghan seat vacant until the question of legitimacy can be resolved through negotiations among the warring factions; the country is essentially divided along ethnic lines; the Taliban controls the capital of Kabul and approximately two-thirds of the country including the predominately ethnic Pashtun areas in southern Afghanistan; opposing factions have their stronghold in the ethnically diverse north..."

http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/af.html

Just the first reference I came across. About the only country in the world that recognised Taliban legitimacy was Pakistan.

foxer

Jan 15 2002, 11:33

So, just because some American POW's got treated badly by army X, the Americans can do the same to army Y? Thats real logical, and maybe the reason shit like WTC go down.

ww2(european pows too),korea,vietnam,gulfwar(european pows too), probably little more too.

Anyways,i'am not saying we should beat the crap outta them,but why do we have to always follow the rules when The western world POW get his ass kicked.Sure you say we have to or the world will do it,well guess what most of them do already.What about what russia did to their terrorist ? They just didn't talk to them.

WhoCares

Jan 15 2002, 11:38

Just some thoughts...
At the initial question about the human rights - in fact they were excactly done for these guys to protect against cruelties

independent of what they have done.
The US called the 9/11 a declaration of war of terrorists against the western world (otherwise they couldn't have asked for

support by NATO and I think it was never an Afganistan war, but only a campaign in this war), but the captives of this war

are no POWs???
All they have against the Al-queda captives is the 'membership' in an terroristical organization - not sufficient for the

electrical chair. (However, I'm sure the US intelligence services are capable of 'generating' evidences)
If those guys are no POWs but 'just' terrorists, they deserve the same treatment as murderers, thiefs, drug dealers or

white-collar criminals.
All informations gained by turture can't be used against the captives or even OBL - if they capture him just out of such

informations they have to set him free again!!!

Just some (critical) thoughts

WhoCares

Pete

Jan 15 2002, 11:48

who ever said afganistan was not a legal goverment is correct.

only pakistan accepted taliban rule, but they were the ruling goverment..they had a "state"..and the power to send men to war.

so i quess in the end it makes no difference, i could be wrong tho...international legal rights is not exactly my strong side.

and about human rights...it is for humans, all humans...and nobody is allowed to break them.

if the al-gueda are pows or not...i quess that they might be found legally as pows easier than just simple prisoners...mmmm

either way, no matter what they are "classed" as..torture and/or denial of human rights is still not acceptable.

Longinius

Jan 15 2002, 12:28

To be honest, I don't really care what other nations and organisations say NOW, after it all went down. Hinesight is 20/20. Fact is, before WTC, noone really tried to do anything about the Taliban. That to me is accepting something.

Stag

Jan 15 2002, 12:30

There is no evidence that the prisoner's human rights are being violated; that's not the issue. They are simply not being treated as prisoners of war.

A prisoner of war can be expected to be repatriated once "hostilities" cease; Who wants to bet that at least some of these animals would just go back to what they were doing before the invasion?

Lock them away as the criminals they are, or kill them.

Sorted.

Stag

Jan 15 2002, 12:32

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @<hidden> Jan. 15 2002,14:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">To be honest, I don't really care what other nations and organisations say NOW, after it all went down. Hinesight is 20/20. Fact is, before WTC, noone really tried to do anything about the Taliban. That to me is accepting something.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The only thing accepted is that invading a country like Afghanistan is usually more trouble than it's worth.

silent wings

Jan 15 2002, 14:26

SHOOT ALL THE AL QUEDA TERRORISTS.

Jan 15 2002, 16:01

Didn't president bush say that if you help terrorists, you are a terrorist? If you shelter terrorists, you are a terrorist state? The taliban are terrorists.

Pete

Jan 15 2002, 16:24

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OBiJuan @<hidden> Jan. 15 2002,18:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Didn't president bush say that if you help terrorists, you are a terrorist? If you shelter terrorists, you are a terrorist state? The taliban are terrorists.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
he said so, so what?

his words are not "international law"...his words change nothing, it only reflects the american view on the whole thing....did you know that the kosovo-albanians you aided were seen as terrorists by the serbs, even today you could easily label them as terrorists.

usa supports/supported them, so usa is a terrorist nation?

usa even supported terrorism a'la contras not too long ago, among other things....with the words of the not-so-clever bush america is a terrorist nation now.

comments?

Jan 15 2002, 16:31

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Pete @<hidden> Jan. 15 2002,07:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">his words are not "international law"...his words change nothing, it only reflects the american view on the whole thing....did you know that the kosovo-albanians you aided were seen as terrorists by the serbs, even today you could easily label them as terrorists.

usa supports/supported them, so usa is a terrorist nation?

usa even supported terrorism a'la contras not too long ago, among other things....with the words of the not-so-clever bush america is a terrorist nation now.

comments?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yes, it's the american view. America is taking care of the terrorists. America drew a line and you were either with us or against us. If you need an international referrendum to fight back after being attacked, then you would not be the most powerful nation in the world, now would you?

The US may have supported the mujahadin (sp?) in the past, but they were given a chance to be on our side this time and they spat in our faces, and they sided with the enemy.

The US does NOT support the Taliban, so I don't know why you say the usa is a terrorist nation.

Uh, again, the contras were in the past, not the present, so I don't see how that a valid argument.

KingBeast

Jan 15 2002, 17:12

BBC News Article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/newsid_1760000/1760522.stm)

interesting read.

"There have been allegations that detainees were shackled, drugged and hooded as they were flown to Cuba, although the US says they are being treated "very humanely." "

Jan 15 2002, 17:21

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @<hidden> Jan. 15 2002,08:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">BBC News Article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/newsid_1760000/1760522.stm)

interesting read.

"There have been allegations that detainees were shackled, drugged and hooded as they were flown to Cuba, although the US says they are being treated "very humanely." "[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Finally, a short article to read! http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Interesting how people forget the mazar-e-shariff (sp?) incident. It started with one prisoner jumping on the cia interrogatting him and beating the agent to death while the others rioted.

Actually, the cell/showers/food described sounds a lot better than living in a cave with smelly bearded men. They probably never ate this well, if how us inmates are treated can be used as a guage.

el Gringo Loco

Jan 15 2002, 18:37

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @<hidden> Jan. 15 2002,19:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">BBC News Article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/newsid_1760000/1760522.stm)

interesting read.

"There have been allegations that detainees were shackled, drugged and hooded as they were flown to Cuba, although the US says they are being treated "very humanely." "[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
They do almost the same thing they do to my niece who is in a mental institution. But I already wrote about her in a different thread.

I think they are being treated humane enough the al-queda criminals. More humane than the US treats some of its own inmates. Like executing mentally handicapped people, who can't possibly be held responsible for the deeds they've done.

Wobble

Jan 15 2002, 20:23

Like executing mentally handicapped people, who can't possibly be held responsible for the deeds they've done.

that has happened.. what once or twice?? I cant think of a single incident where someone who has been proven 'mentally' handicapped has been put to death..

Pete

Jan 15 2002, 20:50

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @<hidden> Jan. 15 2002,22:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Like executing mentally handicapped people, who can't possibly be held responsible for the deeds they've done.

that has happened.. what once or twice?? I cant think of a single incident where someone who has been proven 'mentally' handicapped has been put to death..[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
wasnt there a guy with a IQ of 70 just executed?

maybe not the same thing?

personally, im against death penalties..no matter if the prisoner is sane or insane, life in prison is better as it gives a chance to a innocent to get out after it has been found that he was not quilty.

death is final....and it really makes no differnece if the prisoner (quilty) is in jail for life of buried, as long he is not free to repeat his crime.

but since innocents get convicted too by "mistake" sometimes...death penalty should not exist.

just my point of view.

Jan 15 2002, 20:54

I am pro-death penalty. It costs way too much to keep someone for life, especially when they get older. The costs are astronomical. Even putting someone to death is pretty expensive. China has the death penalty part right, I think: Firing squad, and charge the family for the bullets. China has the justice part wrong, though.

Wobble

Jan 15 2002, 20:55

Im sort of with you pete.. I only approce of it in the case of REPETE violent offenders.. I.e. someone who has commited murder/rape once then does it again.. that way your sure that:

A: pretty good chance ya got the right guy..

B: he abviousley cannot be reformed.

KingBeast

Jan 15 2002, 21:39

Sorry was just browsing through the BBC news archives and came across this. Made me feel rather ill.

17 April 2001
A bed within a death chamber
"An internet company says Americans should have the right to watch the Oklahoma bomber die. Entertainment Network Incorporated wanted to broadcast the execution live on the internet on a pay-per-view basis."

madmike

Jan 15 2002, 21:49

Thats pretty rude making money out of death.

Wobble

Jan 15 2002, 21:50

An internet company says Americans should have the right to watch the Oklahoma bomber die. Entertainment Network Incorporated wanted to broadcast the execution live on the internet on a pay-per-view basis."

sounds good to me.. but only if if the way he is executed involves ants and honey..

that bastard deserves NO.. NONE ZIP ZILCH respect or pity from anyone.. screw his views and screw him... no matter what your beliefs there is no justification in murdering that many men women and children.

at lest the Ql-Queda swine were brave enough to give their life for their 'conviction' (dillusion).. that sack of shit wanted to get away scott free.. all terrorists are cowards.. as terrorism is a cowardly act.. but that moron took it to a whole new level..

Thats pretty rude making money out of death.

well he got his kicks out of killing innocent people, seems fair that innocent people could get their kicks by seeing justace done...

it is kinda.. wierd though.

KingBeast

Jan 15 2002, 21:55

Well i think its sick for anyone to want to watch a man be killed live on television. Sick enough to warant needing help, no matter who the guy getting executed was.
That kind of thing might have been all the rage in the middle ages but it has no place in todays society.

Wobble

Jan 15 2002, 22:08

Well i think its sick for anyone to want to watch a man be killed live on television well unless you are very sick person you wouldent watch it just to 'watch a man be killed' but for closure.. what he did effected LOTS of people in a very big way, and seeing justace done oftin helps people 'move along' in life..

I dont think I would watch it though..

Jan 15 2002, 22:14

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (placebo @<hidden> Jan. 13 2002,04:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">two wrongs don't make a right and all that[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Love saying this

- and another - make a +

Jan 15 2002, 22:15

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @<hidden> Jan. 15 2002,23:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well i think its sick for anyone to want to watch a man be killed live on television. Sick enough to warant needing help, no matter who the guy getting executed was.
That kind of thing might have been all the rage in the middle ages but it has no place in todays society.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Are you telling me, you would not watch a gladiator battle?

nordin dk

Jan 15 2002, 22:40

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am pro-death penalty. It costs way too much to keep someone for life, especially when they get older. The costs are astronomical.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
This is sickening. It makes me miserable to see that kind of comment.

What kind of pricetag are you setting on somebodys' life?
Where do you draw the line?

50.000$ 1 Million $?

How much is your life worth?

Do you truly believe that it helps, if you act in the same way as the guy, whose actions you condemn?
Oh God, the logic is so simple.

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

Jan 15 2002, 22:41

I probably wouldn't watch the execution. I might watch a gladiator battle. See? That's called freedom of choice. I don't watch stupid ass sitcoms either, but you don't see me complaining about them or making judgements on people who watch them (i.e. that they are sick). Just change the channel. Or better yet, turn off the set.

Jan 15 2002, 22:42

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (nordin dk @<hidden> Jan. 15 2002,13:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is sickening. It makes me miserable to see that kind of comment.

What kind of pricetag are you setting on somebodys' life?
Where do you draw the line?

50.000$ 1 Million $?

How much is your life worth?

Do you truly believe that it helps, if you act in the same way as the guy, whose actions you condemn?
Oh God, the logic is so simple.

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Someone walks into your house and rapes your 3 month old son to death. Does that person deserve to die?

brgnorway

Jan 15 2002, 22:46

DVII

Jan 15 2002, 22:47

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OBiJuan @<hidden> Jan. 15 2002,23:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is sickening. It makes me miserable to see that kind of comment.

What kind of pricetag are you setting on somebodys' life?
Where do you draw the line?

50.000$ 1 Million $?

How much is your life worth?

Do you truly believe that it helps, if you act in the same way as the guy, whose actions you condemn?
Oh God, the logic is so simple.

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Someone walks into your house and rapes your 3 month old son to death. Does that person deserve to die?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
yes.

Jan 15 2002, 22:51

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @<hidden> Jan. 15 2002,13:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There and then I probably would have killed him if I could. Genereally speaking I still believe it's the society who should do the punishment.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You mean like mob lynching?

Jan 15 2002, 22:53

DVII

Jan 15 2002, 22:54

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OBiJuan @<hidden> Jan. 15 2002,23:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There and then I probably would have killed him if I could. Genereally speaking I still believe it's the society who should do the punishment.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You mean like mob lynching?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yes some good ol' mob lynchin!
Hang him at the highest tree http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

If someone really comittes a crime like raping a 3 month year old kid then i wouldn't mind him being lynched by such a mob.

KingBeast

Jan 15 2002, 22:55

Talk like this reminds of a quote from the Lord of The Rings book, concerning Gollum.

goes something like

"There are those that deserve life and those that deserve death. You cannot give life to those who are dead, so what gives us the right to give death to those who deserve it?"

The quote is not exactly like that, but i cannot be bothered to page through the book and find it http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
But it is pretty much what i wrote.

Jan 15 2002, 23:02

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @<hidden> Jan. 15 2002,13:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Talk like this reminds of a quote from the Lord of The Rings book, concerning Gollum.

goes something like

"There are those that deserve life and those that deserve death. You cannot give life to those who are dead, so what gives us the right to give death to those who deserve it?"

The quote is not exactly like that, but i cannot be bothered to page through the book and find it http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
But it is pretty much what i wrote.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I think it's great that you feel that way, but I like to have more substance in my reasoning. I can't see how Lord of the Rings reasoning applies in the real world. I can't pinpoint it, but there's some kind of fallacy happening there.

DVII

Jan 15 2002, 23:03

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @<hidden> Jan. 15 2002,23:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Talk like this reminds of a quote from the Lord of The Rings book, concerning Gollum.

goes something like

"There are those that deserve life and those that deserve death. You cannot give life to those who are dead, so what gives us the right to give death to those who deserve it?"

The quote is not exactly like that, but i cannot be bothered to page through the book and find it http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
But it is pretty much what i wrote.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Kingbeast what gives a criminal the right to take life?

I believe that (if possible) the criminal should experience the same thing the victim did. That is the only way for the criminal to learn what he did.

KingBeast

Jan 15 2002, 23:09

So you think rapists should be raped as a punishment? :|

2 wrongs dont make a right and I dont understand why so few people on this forum understand that.
And as for the quote, yes it may be from a fictional book written probably over 50 years ago, but if you fail to see the logic within that quote then I guess theres no point in me going on.

We (society) have come a long long way from the days where execution was very common and was used as entertainment for the peasants. Why bother taking steps backward?

Satchel

Jan 15 2002, 23:13

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well i think its sick for anyone to want to watch a man be killed live on television well unless you are very sick person you wouldent watch it just to 'watch a man be killed' but for closure.. what he did effected LOTS of people in a very big way, and seeing justace done oftin helps people 'move along' in life..

I dont think I would watch it though..[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
In over 100 years of american history over 8000 suspects had been executed, lowest age for death penalty candidates 16 years in some states.
All executions, even when broadcasted, couldn´t prevent further crimes from happening; for the year 2000 U.S. population was 281,421,906 with 15,517 cases of murder, 90,186 cases of rape, 407,842 cases of armed robbery and 910,744 cases of armed assaults.
Put this all in a pot and you get 1.424.289 cases of severe criminality, 1/16 of them making the death penalty applicable, but not always executed because suspects couldn´t be caught, unsoved crimes and death penalties that had been changed to life time prison, note this is only for a single year.
So according to these statistics the Death penalty has no real effect or use, other than "you did bad" "we do bad to you in return"...a basic human emotion for revenge. Besides those directly affected by someone that is going to get executed, there is a much greater audience watching for the morbid fascination when an execution is broadcasted, you know those people staring and standing in the way hindering rescue operations when a traffic accident occured, same stuff.
Personally i think the U.S. is way behind most other western states when it comes to justice, social and economical belongings.

Jan 15 2002, 23:16

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @<hidden> Jan. 15 2002,14:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So you think rapists should be raped as a punishment? :|

2 wrongs dont make a right and I dont understand why so few people on this forum understand that.
And as for the quote, yes it may be from a fictional book written probably over 50 years ago, but if you fail to see the logic within that quote then I guess theres no point in me going on.

We (society) have come a long long way from the days where execution was very common and was used as entertainment for the peasants. Why bother taking steps backward?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
THe problem with the quote from LOTR:

There are those that deserve life and those that deserve death. You cannot give life to those who are dead, so what gives us the right to give death to those who deserve it?"

The first sentence is fine.
The first part of second sentence is stating something obvious.
The second part of the second sentence jumps to a conclusion without giving sufficient arguments.

That is a SLIPPERY SLOPE, I believe. It's like saying: "If I make an exception for you then I have to make an exception for everyone."

Here's the link to where I found the example: Stephens Fallacies (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ss.htm)

That's why I can't see the logic in your quote. It's nonsense.

DVII

Jan 15 2002, 23:17

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @<hidden> Jan. 16 2002,00:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So you think rapists should be raped as a punishment? :|[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
If a girl or kid is raped they are marked for life, do you realize that? Most criminals don't care about it and many would do it again if they could. Keeping them in prison will just move the next crime(rape) till they get out of jail.

Jan 15 2002, 23:23

Satchel - I didn't know they had broadcast executions in past. Where can I find that info?

Also, c'mon - there have been 8,000 executions in 100 years and then you give stats of 89,018.0625 executable crimes a year. Let's see: that's 8,901,806.25 in 100 years. Only 8,000 executed? That's a 1 in 1,112 chance of being executed for commiting a crime that is covered by execution. That's a bad ratio.

If you told me I had a 1 in 1,000 chance of something happening to me, I'd laugh it off too.

We need to up that ratio to decide if executions deter crime or not.

brgnorway

Jan 15 2002, 23:23

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DVII @<hidden> Jan. 16 2002,00:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There and then I probably would have killed him if I could. Genereally speaking I still believe it's the society who should do the punishment.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You mean like mob lynching?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yes some good ol' mob lynchin!
Hang him at the highest tree http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

If someone really comittes a crime like raping a 3 month year old kid then i wouldn't mind him being lynched by such a mob.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Why do we have a law system???
If you were supposed to do the judging yourself you could just as well move to afghanistan or any other country where you could do whatever you wish.

KingBeast

Jan 15 2002, 23:27

Yes i realise that, but by your logic the criminal should get what his victim got. But how does that solve anything?
If for example someone tortures and the kills another person, should the criminal then be tortured and killed?
How is creating more evil and suffering ever going to sovle anything.

And no im not excusing rapists or murderers or anything like that, and anyone to accuse me of such a thing is narrow minded indeed.

All im saying is, as i keep saying. TWO WRONGS DONT MAKE A RIGHT

"Do unto others as you would have them do to yourself"

okay now look at this quote. Criminals/sickos dont abide by this. Good "normal" people usually do.
So, when we start making up rules and treating people bad (ie this is relating not only to our current discussion but also to the thread topic) we are crossing that line.

DVII

Jan 15 2002, 23:29

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @<hidden> Jan. 16 2002,00:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There and then I probably would have killed him if I could. Genereally speaking I still believe it's the society who should do the punishment.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You mean like mob lynching?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yes some good ol' mob lynchin!
Hang him at the highest tree http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

If someone really comittes a crime like raping a 3 month year old kid then i wouldn't mind him being lynched by such a mob.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Why do we have a law system???
If you were supposed to do the judging yourself you could just as well move to afghanistan or any other country where you could do whatever you wish.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Good idea! I didn't like it around here anyways! LOL

If the crime has been proven the mob can have him. They should not kill someone whose quilt has not been proven.
Sorry if i wasn't clear about that.

DVII

Jan 15 2002, 23:32

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @<hidden> Jan. 16 2002,00:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes i realise that, but by your logic the criminal should get what his victim got. But how does that solve anything?
If for example someone tortures and the kills another person, should the criminal then be tortured and killed?
How is creating more evil and suffering ever going to sovle anything.

And no im not excusing rapists or murderers or anything like that, and anyone to accuse me of such a thing is narrow minded indeed.

All im saying is, as i keep saying. TWO WRONGS DONT MAKE A RIGHT

"Do unto others as you would have them do to yourself"

okay now look at this quote. Criminals/sickos dont abide by this. Good "normal" people usually do.
So, when we start making up rules and treating people bad (ie this is relating not only to our current discussion but also to the thread topic) we are crossing that line.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
There is some truth in what you say but i still stand behind my opinion.

Altough i don't like killing the criminal imediatly, it doesn't punish him, it frees him.

Jan 15 2002, 23:33

TWO WRONGS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT.

That is a true statement.

But you first have to accept that capital punishment is wrong. Where's your proof for this? So far you are "begging the question":

Q: Is the Death Penalty is wrong?

If YES, then why?
If NO, then why?

Right now, your answer is "yes, it's wrong, because two wrongs don't make a right."

C'mon, you can do better than that!

Stag

Jan 15 2002, 23:38

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @<hidden> Jan. 16 2002,01:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes i realise that, but by your logic the criminal should get what his victim got. But how does that solve anything?
If for example someone tortures and the kills another person, should the criminal then be tortured and killed?
How is creating more evil and suffering ever going to sovle anything.

And no im not excusing rapists or murderers or anything like that, and anyone to accuse me of such a thing is narrow minded indeed.

All im saying is, as i keep saying. TWO WRONGS DONT MAKE A RIGHT

"Do unto others as you would have them do to yourself"

okay now look at this quote. Criminals/sickos dont abide by this. Good "normal" people usually do.
So, when we start making up rules and treating people bad (ie this is relating not only to our current discussion but also to the thread topic) we are crossing that line.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
There is one difference.

Criminals have the choice of committing the crime, or not. If they commit the crime, they should be very aware of the consequences.

But when these bastards DO commit their crimes, they give the victims no choice at all.

I agree that summary execution is unnacceptable; even one mistake is one too many. but when the case is cut and dried, why prolong a life that doesn't give a shit about taking others?

KingBeast

Jan 15 2002, 23:38

Well the Death Penalty isnt right because its "inhumane"
And its a lack of freedom, the Government decide who gets killed and who doesnt. Not the family or friends of the berived.
No one has any right whatsoever to dish out death like it was a tasty dish.
What does it achieve, other than killnig someone? Absolutely bugger all. And people on death row arent even encessarily evil people that deserve death. Im sure many of them are but not all of them.

You always give the situation of "If your son got murdered would you want the perpetrator to fry etc"
But what if your dad killed some people. Or your mum. Not because they were evil, but because they felt it needed to be done, or for whatever reason. And take into fact these people arent psycho and dont have a case that can get them off of death row
Would you sit back, hands behind your head and say
"Cya mum, cya dad. The death penalty is right, you guys deserve to fry"

Not likely guvnor...

brgnorway

Jan 15 2002, 23:38

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DVII @<hidden> Jan. 16 2002,01:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There and then I probably would have killed him if I could. Genereally speaking I still believe it's the society who should do the punishment.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You mean like mob lynching?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yes some good ol' mob lynchin!
Hang him at the highest tree http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

If someone really comittes a crime like raping a 3 month year old kid then i wouldn't mind him being lynched by such a mob.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Why do we have a law system???
If you were supposed to do the judging yourself you could just as well move to afghanistan or any other country where you could do whatever you wish.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Good idea! I didn't like it around here anyways! LOL

If the crime has been proven the mob can have him. They should not kill someone whose quilt has not been proven.
Sorry if i wasn't clear about that.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I strongly believe criminal offenses should be treated by societies institutions like courtsystems and prisons (excluding death penalty).

About this thread - It's strange that the hole of Nato was involved because of an "act of war". During this campaign it has always been a "war against terrorism" and the "war in Afghanistan. Why then do the US deny the prisoners the status as a prisoner of war?

Satchel

Jan 15 2002, 23:39

ObiJuan,
are you denying that the execution of McVeigh and hundreds other death sentenced suspects went unnoticed and unmentioned by the media, or that it was made up more like a sensation circus. Dozends of satellite trucks lurking like hungry vultures in front of the Penitentiary, plus bringing specials about how an execution is done in detail?
For the numbers, go here:
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

DVII

Jan 15 2002, 23:39

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wardog @<hidden> Jan. 16 2002,00:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes i realise that, but by your logic the criminal should get what his victim got. But how does that solve anything?
If for example someone tortures and the kills another person, should the criminal then be tortured and killed?
How is creating more evil and suffering ever going to sovle anything.

And no im not excusing rapists or murderers or anything like that, and anyone to accuse me of such a thing is narrow minded indeed.

All im saying is, as i keep saying. TWO WRONGS DONT MAKE A RIGHT

"Do unto others as you would have them do to yourself"

okay now look at this quote. Criminals/sickos dont abide by this. Good "normal" people usually do.
So, when we start making up rules and treating people bad (ie this is relating not only to our current discussion but also to the thread topic) we are crossing that line.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
There is one difference.

Criminals have the choice of committing the crime, or not. If they commit the crime, they should be very aware of the consequences.

But when these bastards DO commit their crimes, they give the victims no choice at all.

I agree that summary execution is unnacceptable; even one mistake is one too many. but when the case is cut and dried, why prolong a life that doesn't give a shit about taking others?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
This is what i mean.
Couldn't say it better.

Jan 15 2002, 23:41

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Satchel @<hidden> Jan. 15 2002,14:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">ObiJuan,
are you denying that the execution of McVeigh and hundreds other death sentenced suspects went unnoticed and unmentioned by the media, or that it was made up more like a sensation circus. Dozends of satellite trucks lurking like hungry vultures in front of the Penitentiary, plus bringing specials about how an execution is done in detail?
For the numbers, go here:
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Satchel, that's not even close to broadcasting the execution.

DVII

Jan 15 2002, 23:43

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @<hidden> Jan. 16 2002,00:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well the Death Penalty isnt right because its "inhumane"
And its a lack of freedom, the Government decide who gets killed and who doesnt. Not the family or friends of the berived.
No one has any right whatsoever to dish out death like it was a tasty dish.
What does it achieve, other than killnig someone? Absolutely bugger all. And people on death row arent even encessarily evil people that deserve death. Im sure many of them are but not all of them.

You always give the situation of "If your son got murdered would you want the perpetrator to fry etc"
But what if your dad killed some people. Or your mum. Not because they were evil, but because they felt it needed to be done, or for whatever reason. And take into fact these people arent psycho and dont have a case that can get them off of death row
Would you sit back, hands behind your head and say
"Cya mum, cya dad. The death penalty is right, you guys deserve to fry"

Not likely guvnor...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Why would my mam or dad kill anyone? They would probably have a good reason? not?
I didn't say we should get rid of courts and law.
And if they do commit the crime they should be punished for that, it might seem harsh but thats the way it is.

Jan 15 2002, 23:51

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @<hidden> Jan. 15 2002,14:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well the Death Penalty isnt right because its "inhumane"
And its a lack of freedom, the Government decide who gets killed and who doesnt. Not the family or friends of the berived.
No one has any right whatsoever to dish out death like it was a tasty dish.
What does it achieve, other than killnig someone? Absolutely bugger all. And people on death row arent even encessarily evil people that deserve death. Im sure many of them are but not all of them.

You always give the situation of "If your son got murdered would you want the perpetrator to fry etc"
But what if your dad killed some people. Or your mum. Not because they were evil, but because they felt it needed to be done, or for whatever reason. And take into fact these people arent psycho and dont have a case that can get them off of death row
Would you sit back, hands behind your head and say
"Cya mum, cya dad. The death penalty is right, you guys deserve to fry"

Not likely guvnor...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Right, now you've got it.

Now, these are concepts that can be debated, not a vauge notion of "it's not right."

Yes, I agree it's awful if your relative (mum or dad) is murderer, but that's why we have courts to decide whether the murder was justified or not. If my dad went around raping babies to death, then yes, I would advocate for his death. No question.

Yes, some people in prison are innocent. I'd rather fix that to minimize it than let guilty people go free.

Satchel

Jan 15 2002, 23:51

So how do you call it when in realtime reporters are standing on the doorway to the Penitentiary waiting for details on how the execution went, did the executed breathe in once or twice after the injection, how long did he struggle, did he say something, what was his facial expression......
Can do you call it Report? Coverage?
You could get exact info on how McVeigh died on the net in detail as soon as he died, i call this broadcast for sheer sensation lust nothing else and it disgusts me.

KingBeast

Jan 15 2002, 23:52

Well im no expert on law but what if there was some person or people that were giving yourparents a very hard time, but doing so in a way that it was legal yet making the parents and families life miserable.
Now say your dad goes out and does something he probably shouldnt have done ie shot the buggers.
Now you know your dad is still a good and great man (perhaps your dad is or isnt, this is jsut an example)
But hes going to get the death penalty. If you were in that situation you would feel a lot differently.

This perhaps doesnt apply so much to someone that walks out of their home, shoots a couple of people he doesnt know and then goes on a mad spree of death and carnage.
But ive put across my point.

We dont have the death penalty over here, (only for treason) and it hasnt effected out country in a big bad way.

There really is no need to take antoher life. If anything, imprisonment for life or perhaps labour. I dont know

Jan 15 2002, 23:55

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Satchel @<hidden> Jan. 15 2002,14:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So how do you call it when in realtime reporters are standing on the doorway to the Penitentiary waiting for details on how the execution went, did the executed breathe in once or twice after the injection, how long did he struggle, did he say something, what was his facial expression......
Can do you call it Report? Coverage?
You could get exact info on how McVeigh died on the net in detail as soon as he died, i call this broadcast for sheer sensation lust nothing else and it disgusts me.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yes, that is reporting and covering. Broadcasting is like when something is covered live, i.e. they show you what is happening. WHy am I even explaining this? Go look up the difference between broadcasting and reporting.

Think of the difference between watching porno and reading the letters to editor in magazines.

You are too easily disgusted. You make me sick! http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif <---that was an attempt an a joke, btw.

Jan 15 2002, 23:57

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @<hidden> Jan. 15 2002,14:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well im no expert on law but what if there was some person or people that were giving yourparents a very hard time, but doing so in a way that it was legal yet making the parents and families life miserable.
Now say your dad goes out and does something he probably shouldnt have done ie shot the buggers.
Now you know your dad is still a good and great man (perhaps your dad is or isnt, this is jsut an example)
But hes going to get the death penalty. If you were in that situation you would feel a lot differently.

This perhaps doesnt apply so much to someone that walks out of their home, shoots a couple of people he doesnt know and then goes on a mad spree of death and carnage.
But ive put across my point.

We dont have the death penalty over here, (only for treason) and it hasnt effected out country in a big bad way.

There really is no need to take antoher life. If anything, imprisonment for life or perhaps labour. I dont know[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yeah, but it's totally different. Your dad going out and shooting someone out of rage or because they were doing something to him is defendable. CHild raping to death is not. I sure as hell wouldn't want someone who did that to live the rest of their life in an air-conditioned room, getting three meals a day, access to internet/libraries and me footing the bill.

KingBeast

Jan 15 2002, 23:58

On the subject of timothy McVeigh, please take the 5 minutes to read this article.

Now im getting mixed up in between which thread im posting in (this is hard work http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
But i remember somewhere I was talking about how the people likely to go on a killing spree arent likely goign to be petty criminals that own a gun.

Read that article on McVeigh and tell me afterwards that he was some kind of a loony.Timmy Profile (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1321000/1321244.stm)

Stag

Jan 15 2002, 23:59

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @<hidden> Jan. 16 2002,01:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well im no expert on law but what if there was some person or people that were giving yourparents a very hard time, but doing so in a way that it was legal yet making the parents and families life miserable.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Harrassment of any kind is an offence. It's possible that the crime could not be proven which may provoke daddy to picking up the chainsaw, but in this day and age, I doubt it. Webcams, Walkmans, evedence could soon be found if given time, so how about coming up with a specific case where a person could be executed for reacting to harrassment?

Jan 16 2002, 00:02

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @<hidden> Jan. 15 2002,14:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">On the subject of timothy McVeigh, please take the 5 minutes to read this article.

Now im getting mixed up in between which thread im posting in (this is hard work http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
But i remember somewhere I was talking about how the people likely to go on a killing spree arent likely goign to be petty criminals that own a gun.

Read that article on McVeigh and tell me afterwards that he was some kind of a loony.Timmy Profile (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1321000/1321244.stm)[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
He's no loony. Just evil. If he was loony, he would have gotten off. But he's not. And he's dead. Good riddance.

KingBeast

Jan 16 2002, 00:02

Im not making a point about harassment, that was just the easiest example to come to mind in where someone you care for would get put on death row for murder, yet wouldnt be considered a loony

KingBeast

Jan 16 2002, 00:06

I dont think he was necessarily evil. I agree what he did was very nasty, but its hard to judge what is evil and what is not.
If you read the person who evaluated him said:

"After examining him in prison, psychiatrist Dr John Smith concluded that prisoner 12076-064 was a decent person who had allowed rage to build up inside him to the point that he had lashed out in one terrible, violent act."

Now evil would be someone like Myra Hindley or Fred and Rosemarie West. At least in my opinion.

Tim McVeigh didnt do what he did for pleasure or amusement, he was just bitter and angry and thought he had some kind of a cause or war to fight. Misguided or dissilusioned is probably a better word.

Satchel

Jan 16 2002, 00:09

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So how do you call it when in realtime reporters are standing on the doorway to the Penitentiary waiting for details on how the execution went, did the executed breathe in once or twice after the injection, how long did he struggle, did he say something, what was his facial expression......
Can do you call it Report? Coverage?
You could get exact info on how McVeigh died on the net in detail as soon as he died, i call this broadcast for sheer sensation lust nothing else and it disgusts me.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yes, that is reporting and covering. Broadcasting is like when something is covered live, i.e. they show you what is happening. WHy am I even explaining this? Go look up the difference between broadcasting and reporting.

Think of the difference between watching porno and reading the letters to editor in magazines.

You are too easily disgusted. You make me sick! http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif <---that was an attempt an a joke, btw.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
"Broadcasting is like when something is covered live"

So all Reports and Coverages are non-live, hmm interesting point of yours, but terminologically incorrect.
I can do a broadcast via radio of a message i got 30min earlier, therefore all your comparisons are invalid.
English is not my native tongue, but nevertheless broadcast means that something is broad-casted, and in case of executions it has always been brought to the broad masses via media.
A report and coverages can be live as well, in case noone told you." This is Mr. xy reporting from Kabul, Afghanistan we see flak fire going up and hear detonations....."

"WHy am I even explaining this"

because you are obviously trying to justify yourself, such as i do while answering your post http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif.
Nevertheless, this neglatable point doesn´t change the meaning of my original message.

Jan 16 2002, 00:16

Satchel - the problem is that you said the executions were broadcasted, which they were not. I may have been mistaken at the semantics of reporting and coverage and broadcast, I'll admit. English is not my first language either.

If you broadcast an execution, it sounds like you are showing the person lying on the table (or sitting the chair) getting their just desserts and WATCHING THEM DIE.

That is very different from someone reporting from outside of the building, don't you think?

Frizbee

Jan 16 2002, 01:04

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @<hidden> Jan. 15 2002,03:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well not all taliban soldiers were necessarily evil terrorists.
Thats like saying the entire german army of WW2 were Nazis.
Sometimes people do stuff because they want to, and sometimes they do stuff because they were forced to, or sometimes they do stuff because it is required in order for them and/or their family to survive.

I dont know where im going with this, just dont assume all taliban are baby killing, women raping building exploding bad guys.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The Taliban aren't the problem in my eyes. Its Al Queda. They were the ones that attacked innocent civilians in the World Trade Center. And soldiers just doing their jobs in the Pentagon..

They don't deserve anythign more than a brutal and public hanging for their crimes.

The Taliban should just be disbanded for allowing such people to operate inside the border of their country.

KingBeast

Jan 16 2002, 01:07

Friz maybe the Taliban arent the problem but they are stil lbeing imprisoned. Might even face the death penalty, who knows what will happen to them now.

Frizbee

Jan 16 2002, 02:12

Not all Taliban are being imprisoned. Many were allowed to lay down their weapons and return to their homes unhindered.

Its only the high ranking Taliban members, those from countries like Australia, Britain etc. and those with strong links to Al Queda members that are being imprisoned.

oh, and those who refused to surrender immediately.

Pete

Jan 16 2002, 06:35

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OBiJuan @<hidden> Jan. 16 2002,00:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is sickening. It makes me miserable to see that kind of comment.

What kind of pricetag are you setting on somebodys' life?
Where do you draw the line?

50.000$ 1 Million $?

How much is your life worth?

Do you truly believe that it helps, if you act in the same way as the guy, whose actions you condemn?
Oh God, the logic is so simple.

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Someone walks into your house and rapes your 3 month old son to death. Does that person deserve to die?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
as usual..someone comes with that "logic".

yes, he deserves to die..id kill him with my bare hands, id strangle him to death...

when im done...i see that he was not the one who killed the child, he was someone who was passing by, saw the killer and chased him away.....he tried to save my child and i killed him when blinded by my rage.

now im the one who gets eletricuted......

morale: you cant be 100% sure, innocents have been sent to death by courts, we both know it.

also, a goverment should not act with rage, its obligation is to protect its citizens...even murderers.

a goverment is to keep the dangerous ones from the others, thats why we have prisons, and simply cos we pretty much never can be 100% sure death penalty should not exist.

Longinius

Jan 16 2002, 10:37

Bottom line, death penalty is wrong because it can never be reversed nor compensated. If you execute the wrong person, an innocent person, does not the state then committ murder? Feels like it to me.

As for the LOTR quote I think the spirit of it was just that. You cannot reverse a death.

If we could be sure that innocent people never ever were sentenced, then yes, death penalty would be an option. But we can't. Besides, which crimes warrants execution? A rape crime would, I should think. But many men have been falsly accused of rape AND convicted for it. Same with murder. And murder is a tricky crime because you can commit murder in a form of self defence. What is it then? Not a murder anymore?

To me death penalty is not an option and neither are jails. Criminals don't learn anything creative in jails, they are not reformed, they do not learn to follow the laws. If anything, they become even worse criminals than before. Jails need to change and become more productive because as it is now, they just make the problems worse.

Stag

Jan 16 2002, 11:12

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @<hidden> Jan. 16 2002,12:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Same with murder. And murder is a tricky crime because you can commit murder in a form of self defence. What is it then? Not a murder anymore?

To me death penalty is not an option and neither are jails. Criminals don't learn anything creative in jails, they are not reformed, they do not learn to follow the laws. If anything, they become even worse criminals than before. Jails need to change and become more productive because as it is now, they just make the problems worse.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Come up with a viable alternative, fine. Until then save your compassion for the victims, or don't they count?

As for killing in self defence; don't be so bloody niave; there is all the difference in the world between some bastard attacking you with intent to take your life and you using any means to prevent him.

And what would you do with those people that don't want to reform; the ones who are paroled and go on to to kill and rape again?

You want them around your house, family and children, great, but I don't want them anywhere near mine.

Pete

Jan 16 2002, 11:36

in a perfect world......you go to a institute, they say some magic words and you come out as a monk who is not able to hurt a fly.

now jails are the only option we have...but the time the convicted are in custody should be used to change them, only only to hold them and let them become more hatefilled or to get more information of how to commit crimes is not effective.

perhaps there are better solutions, who knows...if we are to keep a man in prison for 5-6 years we can as well try to make a better man of him, instead of letting him rot in there all that time and then let out a potentially dangerous man.

you guys who are pro-death seem to assume that only quilty people get fried, but in reality many innocents have died...in some cases new evidence comes out later, after the conviced is dead...evidence that prooves his innocence.

but its a bit late, as the poor fella is now buried and forgotten.

the thing is, you cant be 100% sure, and 99% sure leaves a 1% chance that he might be innocent....and if he is, its a great tragedy that he was killed, far greater than if 1000 quilty ones sit in prison for life instead of been dug down in a grave to save money.

maybe someday you, or someone you love is sentenced to death while innocent...it happens, you know it, i know it...you support it, i dont.

WhoCares

Jan 16 2002, 11:39

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And what would you do with those people that don't want to reform; the ones who are paroled and go on to to kill and rape again?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

And who tells you, that people can't change after 20 years???

And maybe there will be reliable psychological test in 20 years with which it would be possible to proof that he will never rape/murder again...

Stag

Jan 16 2002, 12:23

Let me put to you a hypothetical situation, one far more plausable than "Mammy and daddy have somehow been legally hassled and killed someone;"

A man draws a gun in a bank, grabs money and starts shooting, and kills. When he is captured he threatens to kill any witnesses who testify. It comes out later that he has a previous record of violence, including against people who testified against him at a previous trial, what do you do with him?

For clarification; I do not believe in an automatic death penalty; as you say, death is not something that can be undone.

Now as I said before, if you can come up with a viable realistic alternative to the present system of incarceration, then good for you, you deserve the Noble Peace Prize.

Until then remember there's nothing theoretical about the pain inlflicted on the victims, so stop talking bollocks.

Delfia

Jan 16 2002, 12:41

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Let me put to you a hypothetical situation, one far more plausable than "Mammy and daddy have somehow been legally hassled and killed someone;"

A man draws a gun in a bank, grabs money and starts shooting, and kills. When he is captured he threatens to kill any witnesses who testify. It comes out later that he has a previous record of violence, including against people who testified against him at a previous trial, what do you do with him?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah, let me put you even a MORE plausible situation. SOMEBODY draws a gun in a bank, grabs money, starts shooting and kills in Texas. Police rush to the scene and investigates. The media goes crazy when the investigation lasts for weeks without arrests. Finally a black man with a previous record of violence is arrested. Since he is poor, he gets a crappy lawyer. The court finds him guilty and the judge sentences him to death, filled with godly wrath. The media and public are ecstatic as the man is put to death. Politicians get re-elected.

The only thing that you can be sure about is that SOMEBODY killed a lot of people and that the government killed one human being as a retaliatory action. (Heh. Reminds me of the War on Terror, except the retaliatory action didn's waste just one dupe.)

If he was innocent, put yourself in his place and think how it must feel to win the national death lottery. (That's right. It can happen to you too, even if you're not black.) If he was guilty, well, it sure as hell tortures you more to be locked up for life than to be painlessly offed.

You can NEVER absolutely prove whether somebody is guilty or not.

Stag

Jan 16 2002, 12:50

No? How about he is captured at the scene with the smoking gun in his hand? he never leaves the sight of the witnesses?

Oh, I know; They all have a grudge against him.

Delfia

Jan 16 2002, 13:26

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
No? How about he is captured at the scene with the smoking gun in his hand? he never leaves the sight of the witnesses?

Oh, I know; They all have a grudge against him.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

This almost NEVER happens, you know, so this kind of argument cannot be used when discussing general policy. Besides, what if some moron just picked up a dropped gun just before the cops stormed in? Or the witnesses just wanted to get somebody punished and picked a random innocent bloke from the line-up to blame (happened to my friend), what then?

BESIDES, even if he is bloody guilty, inprisonment is both more humane and more punishing than death penalty. What distinguishes "normal" people from the criminals is that they should not use inhumane means even when confronted by an enemy using inhumane means. Also, sometimes people actually stop being bad in the slammer and live perfectly lawfully ever after (quite rare I admit).

By the way, if I was captured on the scene with the smoking gun in my hand, I'd know I have nothing to lose, because I'm going to get the chair anyway. So I'd just blaze away and try to waste as many cops as possible, before they got me. There's more dignity in dying like that than getting butchered like an animal.

Longinius

Jan 16 2002, 14:11

"Come up with a viable alternative, fine. Until then save your compassion for the victims, or don't they count?"

The alternative ofcourse is no death penalty. Alternative to the current jails would be more like schools where the criminals actually learn something creative and get help. Most people are not criminals just for the heck of it, it is caused by personal problems. If those are never solved I doubt the person becomes lawabiding.

"As for killing in self defence; don't be so bloody niave; there is all the difference in the world between some bastard attacking you with intent to take your life and you using any means to prevent him. "

Ofcourse there is, which was my point. But how would YOU know what happened in a court room? I could be sentenced for a murder when it was actually selfdefence.

"And what would you do with those people that don't want to reform; the ones who are paroled and go on to to kill and rape again?"

Don't parol them.

"You want them around your house, family and children, great, but I don't want them anywhere near mine."

If you think anyone wants that, you are not only stupid, but you are also trolling for idiotic replies.

Stag

Jan 16 2002, 14:50

"The alternative ofcourse is no death penalty. Alternative to the current jails would be more like schools where the criminals actually learn something creative and get help. Most people are not criminals just for the heck of it, it is caused by personal problems. If those are never solved I doubt the person becomes lawabiding."

Hell yeah, do that tomorrow, after you've assembled the cold fusion reactor.

"Ofcourse there is, which was my point. But how would YOU know what happened in a court room? I could be sentenced for a murder when it was actually selfdefence."

The court is to ascertain guilt. as for sentancing I can't be bothered to repeat myself.

"Don't parol them."

Too late.

"If you think anyone wants that, you are not only stupid, but you are also trolling for idiotic replies."

Guess it worked then.

Longinius

Jan 16 2002, 15:07

"Hell yeah, do that tomorrow, after you've assembled the cold fusion reactor."

Yeah, I suppose it is so much better not to bother with it, to leave it as is, since it works so marvelously well and all.

Stag

Jan 16 2002, 15:25

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @<hidden> Jan. 16 2002,17:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Hell yeah, do that tomorrow, after you've assembled the cold fusion reactor."

Yeah, I suppose it is so much better not to bother with it, to leave it as is, since it works so marvelously well and all.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You know as well as I do that it doesn't work well at all. But
I actually believe that a solution will evolve in time. From previous experience, attempting to implement revolutionary theory doesn't work very well.

Pete

Jan 16 2002, 15:32

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"The alternative ofcourse is no death penalty. Alternative to the current jails would be more like schools where the criminals actually learn something creative and get help. Most people are not criminals just for the heck of it, it is caused by personal problems. If those are never solved I doubt the person becomes lawabiding."

Hell yeah, do that tomorrow, after you've assembled the cold fusion reactor.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

i once nearly killed a man when angry, i also thought of killing many more...i could beat down people for silly reasons, as once for interupting me while i was talking to someone else.

then a number of things happened and i changed, now i cant imagine beating down anyone except in pure selfdefence...now im a peacefull person (as i quess u can see by my posts), i learned that violence solves nothing, proves nothing and changes nothing.

you could say i turned from a devil to a saint (no, im not religious).

thats a true story, actually...im sure none of you can even imagine what a potential danger to my surrounding i once was.

if i could change so much (i was not in jail or at a phsycologist) by myself, dont you think a prisoner with the same kind of backround can change with outside help?

todays prison system is just that you remove the "bad guy" for a set time, and then let him out again....he is either the same as before or worse.

thats what i quess longinus meant...teach them a new way to see life, teach them what to value in life.

Jan 16 2002, 16:43

OK, the guy who beats and rapes a 79-year-old grandmother should be talked nice to and given a place to "grow" so he can become a better person.

I'd love to hear you people talking this lilly bull when someone does something bad to YOUR family.

Satchel

Jan 16 2002, 16:58

Maybe also a point to consider;
murderers/rapists costing the tax payer money when brought in jail for a life sentence, by executing them it´s a cheap way out, a question of economy...
However, some death candidates are waiting years in the death row before being executed.
Crime almost always emerges out of social deficits or unemployment resulting in poverty. Instead of countering this misbalance by taken precautions on educational, social and employment levels, the U.S. under Bush is spending large amounts of the tax payers money on the army.
An very old saying goes; "You can´t cure a disease without knowing and treating it´s cause", sadly noone in the current U.S. Government seems to have heard of this.
The 11.09. is used to justify the increase of defence spendings even more, the U.S. on it´s course to fight against windmills that will suck in billlions and billions of $. This is why i think Gore would have been the better choice for the US, as he intended to put more budget into schools (education), while improving the political and social systems.
In the long run this is more efficiant, and saves money for the tax payers.
Bush in return as a true texan and republican spends the money to flatten any opposition or signs of problems, sadly many americans seems to go conform with his primate course. Gore displayed himself as a problem solver, by promising to go to the actual roots of the problems, which Bush is not.
I guess his mother couldn´t have made him a more suiting face, he looks like an ape and he acts like one http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Pete

Jan 16 2002, 17:21

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OBiJuan @<hidden> Jan. 16 2002,18:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">OK, the guy who beats and rapes a 79-year-old grandmother should be talked nice to and given a place to "grow" so he can become a better person.

I'd love to hear you people talking this lilly bull when someone does something bad to YOUR family.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
you dont get it do you?

todays prison:

you get in as a bad guy, you come out as a even worse guy.

the system produces tougher criminals..tell me it aint so if you think im wrong.

dreamland prison:

you get in as a bad guy, you come out as a normal person.

your pretty blind to the reality...do you know how a prison is?

you just sit there, nothing more....you sit there untill the time runs out and then you go home...you do nothing more.

instead of that, a mandatory education, school and going in therapy WHILE in prison would cost more....but it would give a lot better chance that the person who comes out is a different person.

by the way, why you assume that nothing bad happened to my family?...im pretty sure worse things happened to us than to you and your family,but does it make a difference on the legal system or what would be the best solution??

no...it doesnt.

thats the best solution, and i want to see if you have a better solution than your solution that is "put him behind bars, let him sit the time he needs to and then open the doors and let him out"

my solution doesnt make him be any less time in prison, but it gives a far better chance for him to be a better man....

comment, please.

Jan 16 2002, 17:24

That's funny Satchel. I guess sept. 11 is just an "excuse" huh?

Yeah, Gore would have been a great president! He would planted trees in Afghanistan.

Don't you understand that these people want to kill Americans because they are Americans? It's not even a military thing. They want to KILL CIVILIANS! If you are not them, they want you dead. It's simple as that.

Anyway, back to the death penalty thing. Yeah, people wait forever to be executed because the gov't is SO EVIL that it wants to KILL EVERYONE RIGHT AWAY.

YOu can't have it both ways - you say the gov't is bloodthirsty, yet only 8000 people executed in the past 100 years, despite millions of executable crimes committed. 1000:1 ratio is NOT bloodthirsty at all.

Jan 16 2002, 17:31

Uh, Pete, I think you're off track here. Or maybe it's me. The discussion was the death penalty, not prison time.

Pete

Jan 16 2002, 17:40

Don't you understand that these people want to kill Americans because they are Americans? It's not even a military thing. They want to KILL CIVILIANS! If you are not them, they want you dead. It's simple as that.

..sure, but as with everything, there is a reason...do you know why they want to kill americans?

YOu can't have it both ways - you say the gov't is bloodthirsty, yet only 8000 people executed in the past 100 years, despite millions of executable crimes committed. 1000:1 ratio is NOT bloodthirsty at all.

you still forget that many of those 8000 were actually innocent...some of the innocent would be alive today if capital punishment would have existed, they might have been set free and allowed to join there families...but hey, death is final.

1000:1 ratio is very bloodthirsty..compare it to a nation where we dont have deathpenalty....you have a funny logic, funny but scary.

Uh, Pete, I think you're off track here. Or maybe it's me. The discussion was the death penalty, not prison time.

its about death and prison..about punisments.

see what longinus posted earlier and what replies he got....thats what you replied on, propably without knowing what you were talking about http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Jan 16 2002, 17:55

Well, I guess I'm off track then - this topic went all over the place.

You obviously don't agree with the death penalty, which is fine. We can do this until we are blue in the face.

But, something you wrote confuses me (which is related to the ORIGINAL topic, btw):

..sure, but as with everything, there is a reason...do you know why they want to kill americans?

Would you really care to know why someone wants to kill your entire family? Or would you want to stop them first?

Stag

Jan 16 2002, 17:58

Actually the original discussion was about the rights of the Al-Qeda to be classed as Prisoners of War; the Execution and Imprisonment debate is a spinoff from that.

Would you send them to school then let them go?

Jan 16 2002, 17:58

Getting to the root of the problem is the best way of solving any situation

Longinius

Jan 16 2002, 17:59

"OK, the guy who beats and rapes a 79-year-old grandmother should be talked nice to and given a place to "grow" so he can become a better person. "

A guy that beats and rapes a 79 year old grandmother, or anyone at all for that matter probably...

...is mentally ill.
...high on drugs.
...both of the above.

A mentally ill person has to get treatment, he will not get more sane through punishment. A person doing drugs needs to go to detox and then be offered a solution out of his current situation.

Not all criminals can be reformed, but I am quite sure a good percentage could be. At any rate, the goal must surely be that the criminals are not worse when they get out of jail then they were coming in. Today, this isnt the case. A jail is a friggin nexus for growing crime: making new connections, learning new tricks of the trade and getting even MORE pissed of at society.

Jan 16 2002, 18:01

MonkeyLib: this is how I see it, which is why I disagree:

In your house, family huddled in corned, man with AK-47 pointing it at them.

Do you ask: "What troubles you, fellow?"

So, getting the root is NOT always the best way to solve it.

Albert Schweitzer

Jan 16 2002, 18:03

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Pete @<hidden> Jan. 16 2002,19:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Don't you understand that these people want to kill Americans because they are Americans? It's not even a military thing. They want to KILL CIVILIANS! If you are not them, they want you dead. It's simple as that.

..sure, but as with everything, there is a reason...do you know why they want to kill americans?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
(Pete, this is not the way you usually talk!!) no, there is no reason for their agression against America. I dont want to interfer your discussion but you have to understand that the organisation Al-quaida cannot be considered as a mirror of the Arabian heart. They are not defending Arabian values, their aim is not to reach certain Arabian goals. It is rather an introverted organisation, not fed by emotions of the people in their country but by a simple own interpretation of the Quran.

Jan 16 2002, 18:09

Nicely put Albert. I have a lot to learn from you. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Pete

Jan 16 2002, 18:13

@<hidden> twist http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

1: if they are pows, they are released after the war is officially over (now?)

2: if they are normal prisoners and sent to jail...would it hurt to try teach some of them to read and write and hope that they know what papers (al-gueda membership) they sign with there X the next time?

@<hidden> albert and obijuan.

what i meant is that they do have a "reason" that should have been prevented a long time ago, if you know your neighbour is armed and violent, and he repeatedly tells you that you should stop parking your car on his parkinglot...would you be suprised if he suddenly walks in with a ak47 (after threats to do so).

im not defending the terrorists...but dont you think it is too much of a coinsidence that america, that is a enemy for them (iraq santions, ally to israel etc etc), gets targetted rather than switzerland which is closer and propably a much easier target.

yes there is a reason to hate, but not a justified one....

Jan 16 2002, 19:09

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Pete @<hidden> Jan. 16 2002,09:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">yes there is a reason to hate, but not a justified one....[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
That's fine, Pete. But if it's unjustified, what purpose would there be to knowing the reason? Does it matter if it's not a justified one?

Satchel

Jan 16 2002, 19:19

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yeah, Gore would have been a great president! He would planted trees in Afghanistan.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

You obviously didn´t understand what i wrote, what´s a "Gore planting trees in Afghanistan" anecdote got to do with increased efforts on education, social and political systems instead of spending the biggest chunk on the military?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Don't you understand that these people want to kill Americans because they are Americans? It's not even a military thing. They want to KILL CIVILIANS! If you are not them, they want you dead. It's simple as that.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

What people want to kill americans? Who wants to kill civillians- Afghan people, Taliban? Are you talking about Media made up generalizing phrases for simple minds, i could swear i heard them in the exact manner somewhere on television before.....
The real world is a bit complexer than that, everyone should know better.
It´s really sad to see some people are still victims of the generalizing black/white scheme caused by media brainwashing. But again what´s your entertaining story got to do with my posting of internal affairs in the US regarding executions and crime?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Anyway, back to the death penalty thing. Yeah, people wait forever to be executed because the gov't is SO EVIL that it wants to KILL EVERYONE RIGHT AWAY.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

People are waiting sometimes for a considerable amount of time in the Death Row for their execution because of many reasons, there can be still proceedings initiated by relatives, lawyers or civil persons ongoing, that eventually led to acquittal. That doesn´t change the fact that the majority will be executed with proper media broadcast of the event, even if there are hints that an individual might be unguilty. It´s always better to execute someone, than having to admit that there were sleazy investigations that led to someone being accused of murder and put on death row, questioning the whole process of justice.
For the bloodthirstyness of the US government you interprete into my posts; what is of more cruelty, dying a quick death in split seconds, or having to wait with knowing you will die for sure, that every day could be your last.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">YOu can't have it both ways - you say the gov't is bloodthirsty, yet only 8000 people executed in the past 100 years, despite millions of executable crimes committed. 1000:1 ratio is NOT bloodthirsty at all.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Did you take into account that the statistics provided are the numbers of crimes that actually occured, and do not reflect the amount cases closed/open, caught suspects etc.
For you i will put it simple:
- No suspect - no arrest - no death row - no execution
- Already dead suspect - no need for execution
- Changed death penalty to life time prison - no need for execution.
What you don´t have in Death row, you can´t execute, quite simple, isn´t it?

foxer

Jan 16 2002, 19:19

There always a reason for wars,and to kill people,I almost got killed the other day,should i have got outta my car and kill the truck driver ? I had a very good reason.Israel civilians(same as the other side) have been getting killed,theres a reason for them to kill Palestinians.There is always a reason for something,but we do not act upon them,because sometimes their wrong.

foxer

Jan 16 2002, 19:23

Satchel,

Do you know why they increased military budget ? Do you know like half of america soldiers are on welfare,They are going get a pay raise,Which is goood.

Pete

Jan 16 2002, 19:25

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OBiJuan @<hidden> Jan. 16 2002,21:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">yes there is a reason to hate, but not a justified one....[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
That's fine, Pete. But if it's unjustified, what purpose would there be to knowing the reason? Does it matter if it's not a justified one?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
mmmm...thats what i get for posting when dead tired heheh

well, about the 9-11 case, its something not done by a gang of criminals for profit, but more for political reasons backed by a religious fanatism.

if you manage to find the reason (in this case very simple) you can remove that reason, solve the problem and your more likely to be safe in the future.

the criminals who has done the crime needs to be punished, the ones who have not yet committed a crime you can do little against, you cant inprison them..but you can do things to prevent them from becoming terrorists, remove the reason for there cause...

pretty much the same as kids joining up in gangs, the gangs lead them into bigger crimes......find out why they join gangs (poverty) and fix that problem....it takes ages, but it works in the long term.

instead now we can only punish something that happens because we done nothing to stop it.

im tired and i go to bed now, i think i need to quit these arguments...they bore me to death http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

Jan 16 2002, 19:28

Pete - I agree with you 100%. I also agree with the tired part. I'm tired of this debating too. Round and round, 175 posts later, it's still the same thing.

Satchel - I am also tired of going around and round with you. Let's just stop ok?

I think everyone here agrees on the fundamentals - punish bad people.

The topic about human rights for al-queda: They don't deserve it, some say, but they will get it, because the US doesn't torture it's detainees or pows.

Can we now get some sleep? http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Satchel

Jan 16 2002, 19:36

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Satchel,

Do you know why they increased military budget ? Do you know like half of america soldiers are on welfare,They are going get a pay raise,Which is goood.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
No question it is good for those serving, i too like my wallet being filled http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif.
But on the other hand what you give to one side, you´ll have to take from the other, that could need it even more desperately. In the end improving politics and social systems would turn out more economical than having to invest more and more money into force fighting the results (symptoms) of misconceptions and unbalances (illness), that could have been prevented the other way.

nordin dk

Jan 16 2002, 19:40

Violence begets violence

Broaden your horizon, maybe even sit down and watch one of the soon-to-be-live-broadcasted executions and see if it makes you feel good.

If someone raped my 3 month old child to death, no I wouldn't want him to die, because I don't believe that will solve any of the problems leading to his killing my child, or the problems arising after that. I would not bring back my child, it would only spread more sorrow and pain. To me and to the perp's family. Closure comes from living your life, not from ending someone elses.
DP does not stop crime from occuring. And the US is the best example of all.
I fear the worst...

Jan 17 2002, 14:40

perhaps a country that parades around declaring itself a champion of freedom and justice (one of the core principals of which is that you are innocent until proven otherwise) should attempt to apply its ideals to other people as well. But if they had been doing that, we probably wouldn't be in this mess.

Jan 18 2002, 14:26

"about the terrorists that are still free...killing them all wont prevent the rise from future terrorists, for me it doesnt matter much what happens to them..the main important thing is to prevent a new terrorstrike, and to do that us. foreign policy needs to change radically."

True, killing all terrorists won't prevent new people becoming terrorists and that's why I think that we should exterminate all ragheads. They revenge if they exist so lets make them exist no longer! So you are completely right about changing US's foreign policy, it is too humanitarian.

I think that western people are quite masocists, especially peacenicks. We should forget humanitarian when dealing with enemies. Sometimes west will lose to ragheads if we are humanitarian. Sometimes they might become also humanitarian but then we have probably lost. That's why I think that we should abandon ALL moral when it's about non-western people and start to think that if suffering in poor countries benefits us, it is good thing.

People say that imperialism was bad thing. I think that it was good thing because it has kept other (non-west) countries weak and increased our power and wellfare and western people should realize and accept it. However, it might be good to try to appear as good guys but act different if it benefits us.

Pete

Jan 18 2002, 14:36

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Joku @<hidden> Jan. 18 2002,16:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"about the terrorists that are still free...killing them all wont prevent the rise from future terrorists, for me it doesnt matter much what happens to them..the main important thing is to prevent a new terrorstrike, and to do that us. foreign policy needs to change radically."

True, killing all terrorists won't prevent new people becoming terrorists and that's why I think that we should exterminate all ragheads. They revenge if they exist so lets make them exist no longer! So you are completely right about changing US's foreign policy, it is too humanitarian.

I think that western people are quite masocists, especially peacenicks. We should forget humanitarian when dealing with enemies. Sometimes west will lose to ragheads if we are humanitarian. Sometimes they might become also humanitarian but then we have probably lost. That's why I think that we should abandon ALL moral when it's about non-western people and start to think that if suffering in poor countries benefits us, it is good thing.

People say that imperialism was bad thing. I think that it was good thing because it has kept other (non-west) countries weak and increased our power and wellfare and western people should realize and accept it. However, it might be good to try to appear as good guys but act different if it benefits us.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
niin, että sä löysit takaisin tänne?

joku = someone.

placebo, lock the thread and/or ban joku (he is someone).