• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the Hutaree militia be waterboarded?

Should the Hutaree militia be waterboarded

  • I am for waterboarding Al Quaeda and Hutaree terrorists

    Votes: 7 19.4%

  • I am for waterboarding Al Quaeda terrorists but not Hutaree terrorists

    Votes: 3 8.3%

  • I am for waterboarding Hutaree terrorists but not Al Quaeda terrorists

    Votes: 2 5.6%

  • I am against waterboarding Al Quaeda and Hutaree terrorists

    Votes: 24 66.7%
  • Total voters
    36
Politics101 said:
Excellent point. So... if the missile could have delivered said chemical and biological weapons, then it would be considered a WMD.
Click to expand...

No.

It's not a WMD just because it could deliver one. If the warhead isn't a WMD, the missile isn't a WMD.
 
samsmart said:
The Hutaree Militia is a religious domestic terrorist organization located in Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio. They planned to make terrorist attacks on local law enforcement and then do follow-up attacks at the funerals to kill more local law enforcement. This plot was stopped by the F.B.I. who arrested 9 of the members. Their beliefs in fundamentalist Christianity caused them to believe that they would need to serve as warriors for God against the Anti-Christ and plotted against the American government.

So my question is this: since they are terrorists and since they are religious extremists and they planned a terrorist attack here in the United States, should they be waterboarded to see if they know of any other terrorist attacks being planned by any other terrorist organizations?

Edit: I posted the questions the way I did because most right-wingers are for waterboarding Muslim terrorists, and I wanted to know what they felt about waterboarding Christian terrorists.
Click to expand...

They're American citizens, so I'm not sure on what legal basis you could deny them their right to Constitutional due process.
 
Last edited:
Gander said:
They're American citizens, so I'm not sure on what legal basis you could deny them their right to Constitutional due process.
Click to expand...

For the most part, due process applies to everyone, even non-citizens.
 
Catawba said:
I suppose you think our police have become tyrannical and oppressive and deserves to be killed while at funerals? :doh
Click to expand...




If you supose that, well. Get some help because your comprehension and observational skills suck. :shrug:
 
Catz Part Deux said:
You're suggesting that killing police officers is now justified?
Click to expand...



No now it is not justified. However, if we were say in nazi germany and I liked bage and lox, I'd be arguing that yes indeed it would be justified.


And no, currently it is not justified. My point was Catawba said that the government should never be afraid of violence from the people or some such nonsense.

I asked him "even if said government becomes tyranical?"



I made no contention that this government is tyrannical, simply stated as our founding fathers did, that governmnent SHOULD fear you and I. ;)
 
misterman said:
For the most part, due process applies to everyone, even non-citizens.
Click to expand...

Constitutional due process applies to everyone? What about foreign soldiery? Are they entitled to Constitutional due process?
 
Gander said:
Constitutional due process applies to everyone? What about foreign soldiery? Are they entitled to Constitutional due process?
Click to expand...

I didn't say it applies to everyone in all cases. Just that it doesn't apply strictly to citizens.
 
misterman said:
I didn't say it applies to everyone in all cases. Just that it doesn't apply strictly to citizens.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of this. What's the point you are trying to make?
 
Gander said:
I'm aware of this. What's the point you are trying to make?
Click to expand...

When you said:

Gander said:
They're American citizens, so I'm not sure on what legal basis you could deny them their right to Constitutional due process.
Click to expand...

you seemed to imply that due process only applies to citizens. Sorry if that's not what you meant.
 
misterman said:
When you said:



you seemed to imply that due process only applies to citizens.
Click to expand...

My implication was that Constitutional due process undoubtedly applies to US citizens.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
And no, currently it is not justified. My point was Catawba said that the government should never be afraid of violence from the people or some such nonsense.

I asked him "even if said government becomes tyranical?"

I made no contention that this government is tyrannical, simply stated as our founding fathers did, that governmnent SHOULD fear you and I. ;)
Click to expand...

What I said was that the government should always be afraid of being voted out of office, they should not be afraid of being killed at a friends funeral.

I am very happy to hear that you agree!

We trust you will all let us know if and when the government ever becomes tyrannical. Some claim that it is already but we are comforted with the knowledge that you know better! :2wave:
 
lizzie said:
American citizen terrorists.
Click to expand...

Lmao. This is is so ridiculous and more proof that the American right is a joke. The right to not be tortured is apparently something only American citizens have.
 
Hatuey said:
Lmao. This is is so ridiculous and more proof that the American right is a joke. The right to not be tortured is apparently something only American citizens have.
Click to expand...

It is the Christian way. God does not like brown peoples! He was on our side in the wars on terrorism, was he not? ;)
 
Catawba said:
It is the Christian way. God does not like brown peoples! He was on our side in the wars on terrorism, was he not? ;)
Click to expand...

It is like the American right wing in this country believes the only people who have the basic right to keep their dignity are redneck terrorists from Ruby Ridge and child molesters from Waco.
 
Hatuey said:
Lmao. This is is so ridiculous and more proof that the American right is a joke. The right to not be tortured is apparently something only American citizens have.
Click to expand...

So is there no way that someone can believe that non-citizens don't have all of the same legal rights that citizens do? Because according to the Constitution, they don't.

Catawba said:
It is the Christian way. God does not like brown peoples! He was on our side in the wars on terrorism, was he not? ;)
Click to expand...

There are U.S. citizens who are "brown peoples", you know. Not that the statement wouldn't have been a useless straw man anyways.

Hatuey said:
It is like the American right wing in this country believes the only people who have the basic right to keep their dignity are redneck terrorists from Ruby Ridge and child molesters from Waco.
Click to expand...

I keep wanting to apologize for going over-the-top in another thread, but then I keep seeing more motivation not to like this.
 
Last edited:
Dav said:
There are U.S. citizens who are "brown peoples", you know. Not that the statement wouldn't have been a useless straw man anyways.
Click to expand...

I was making a point about some "christians" here supporting torture of Muslim terrorists, but not American terrorists.

How many of the Hutaree arrested were brown peoples?
 
Dav said:
So is there no way that someone can believe that non-citizens don't have all of the same legal rights that citizens do? Because according to the Constitution, they don't.
Click to expand...

Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Read about it.

I keep wanting to apologize for going over-the-top in another thread, but then I keep seeing more motivation not to like this.
Click to expand...

Want me to buy you a ticket to Cuba?
 
Dav said:
So is there no way that someone can believe that non-citizens don't have all of the same legal rights that citizens do? Because according to the Constitution, they don't.
Click to expand...

With a few exceptions, non-citizens have all the same legal rights that citizens do, and the Constitution says so. (Even without the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).
 
Dav said:
So is there no way that someone can believe that non-citizens don't have all of the same legal rights that citizens do? Because according to the Constitution, they don't.
Click to expand...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights..."

There wasn't even an America when those words were written. Nor was there a constitution. Those words served as the primary justification for CREATING AMERICA. They are a foundational concept of this nation since its inception in July of 1776. They are a foundational concept that our founding fathers drafted and signed off on before declaring war on England to win our freedom. They are based upon the concept of natural rights, as clearly articulated in the philosophy of John Locke, and have served as the foundational justification for democratic nations around the world to free themselves from monarchy and tyranny.

A little light reading on natural rights:

Jefferson borrowed the expression from an Italian friend and neighbor, Philip Mazzei,[3] as noted by Joint Resolution 175 of the 103rd Congress as well as John F. Kennedy in "A Nation Of Immigrants."[4][5]

The opening of the United States Declaration of Independence written by Thomas Jefferson in 1776, states as follows:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;[6]
The same concept appears in the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, which was written mostly by John Adams.[7] The Declaration of Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts which opens that constitution states:

Article I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.[8]
The plaintiffs in the cases of Brom and Bett v. John Ashley and Commonwealth v. Nathaniel Jennison argued that this provision abolished slavery in Massachusetts.[9] The latter case resulted in a a "sweeping declaration . . . that the institution of slavery was incompatible with the principles of liberty and legal equality articulated in the new Massachusetts Constitution".[10]

These statements illustrated the idea of natural rights, a philosophical concept of the Enlightenment and many of the ideas in the Declaration were borrowed from the English liberal political philosopher John Locke. Locke, however, referred to "life, liberty and Property" rather than the pursuit of happiness.[11]

The phrase has since been considered a hallmark statement in democratic constitutions and similar human rights instruments, many of which have adopted the phrase or variants thereof.
Click to expand...

Jefferson's phrase, justifying the separation of the colonies from England, was later borrowed by France:

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizen[/ame]

And, by the member nations of the UN for international human rights treaties.

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_human_rights_instruments[/ame]


Furthermore, Jeffersons words were a foundational concept of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which we and other nations signed off on in 1948.

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights[/ame]


The natural rights of human beings is such a fundamental concept in America that I really do not understand how ANY AMERICAN can attempt to justify the use of torture for any reason.

To be frank, denying the fundamental human rights of any other person on this planet is, or should be, ANATHEMA to an American. It is the most basic and repugnant betrayal of who we are, as a nation.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
What I said was that the government should always be afraid of being voted out of office, they should not be afraid of being killed at a friends funeral.

I am very happy to hear that you agree!

We trust you will all let us know if and when the government ever becomes tyrannical. Some claim that it is already but we are comforted with the knowledge that you know better! :2wave:
Click to expand...


Actually I quoted what you said. Lets not be dishonest and change what you said into something else in order to save face..... :lamo


But lets say if that day ever comes, you can rest assured that you and yours will have other brave souls ready to fight to defend that tyranny you would most assuredly love.... Cause we know you and yours wouldn't have said stones to come to the fight yourselves.. :thumbs:
 
Last edited:
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Well if that day ever comes, you can rest assured that you and yours will have other brave souls ready to fight to defend that tyranny you would most assuredly love.... Cause we know you and yours wouldn't have said stones to come to the fight yourselves.. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

And we know that you'd never use a logical fallacy in lieu of an argument. :doh
 
Catz Part Deux said:
And we know that you'd never use a logical fallacy in lieu of an argument. :doh
Click to expand...




Nah, he wants to be snotty to me, I'll just point out factual information regarding his and his unwillingess to stand and fight for their beliefs. :shrug:


There was no argument. I was simply pointing out what Jefferson and our other foundng fathers position are on "shaking the tree of liberty"..... A couple of you mistook my point. You were smart enough to get my clarification. Catawba just wanted to continue being snotty.... So he gets what he gives shorty. :pimpdaddy:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom