• 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!

Final insult of Qaeda clowns

Actually I think all of them have admitted to it.

Big whoopie. After having been locked up and waterboarded in Guantanamo for all these years, who wouldn't admit to it :rolleyes: ? Besides anyone who hated a country a lot would only be too glad to admit to doing something like 9/11 against it.

Bottom line is that admission does not prove guilt.

The only one I don't think admitted to the 9/11 plot that is on trial is the person who admitted to killing Pearl. Either way, there is indeed evidence.

Then kindly cite the evidence, i. e. fingerprints, verifiable witness accounts, etc. that would suggest that they were responsible and/or involved in planning/executing 9/11.

FYI, US govt. allegations and/or statements the US govt. itself makes about what someone else said does not count as evidence. Nor does testimony taken under duress (i. e. torture).

I'm all for conducting trials when guilt is uncertain, but if they are admitting to it, the trial should be short and justice swift.

So if someone admits to something he/she didn't do simply to take credit for it (which is likely the case here), you have no problem allowing the real culprit to go free?
 
its good that we are exposing their idiocy.

From your point of view yes, they are idiots, but to many other Muslims they are heroes. And they are the audience these guys are playing too.
 
From your point of view yes, they are idiots, but to many other Muslims they are heroes. And they are the audience these guys are playing too.

I still think they should have been moved to a prison somewhere in the USA, and tried in the USA.

..but not in NYC. Maybe at that super-max prison in Indiana.
 
Actually I think all of them have admitted to it. The only one I don't think admitted to the 9/11 plot that is on trial is the person who admitted to killing Pearl. Either way, there is indeed evidence.

I'm all for conducting trials when guilt is uncertain, but if they are admitting to it, the trial should be short and justice swift.

Confessions extracted under torture are unreliable and inadmissible in the judgement of most civilised courts.
 
Last edited:
Umm, yes they were. Even US military prosecutors admit that torture took place.


Former military prosecutor denounces trial



Please list the times and dates these savages were waterboarded. SPecifically how many times.

They are freely today admitting thier crimes and mocking the victims, boasting about it. I feel no empathy for thier plight.
 
Please list the times and dates these savages were waterboarded. SPecifically how many times.

They are freely today admitting thier crimes and mocking the victims, boasting about it. I feel no empathy for thier plight.

Well, I guess that's a start. I seem to recall that in another thread a year or so ago you were denying that waterboarding could be classed as torture. A list of times and dates is neither available nor necessary. Just using pro-torture voices it's possible to get unequivocal admission of the use of torture at Gitmo.
According to recent information, Osama bin Laden was killed by the use of information that was obtained by “enhanced interrogation techniques” at Guntanamo Bay Prison... “Enhanced interrogation techniques” can be assumed to be waterboarding, or some other form of torture.

Bin Laden caught through waterboarding - RedState


Jose Rodriguez, the former head of the CIA's Counterterrorist Center, has acknowledged that waterboarding - an interrogation technique that simulates drowning - is "not a pretty sight".

Mr Rodriguez ordered the destruction of secret CIA video tapes of the process, which Newsnight's Peter Taylor has revealed contained footage of one al-Qaeda suspect "vomiting and screaming".

CIA: Waterboarding not a pretty sight


So yeah, I stand by my claim that AQ prisoners were tortured at Gitmo. Whether these particular defendants confessed to the crimes with which they are charged under torture, I cannot claim definitively. Were they to be allowed proper defence counsel and the court forced to operate proper disclosure, I'm sure that would be revealed.
 
Well, I guess that's a start. I seem to recall that in another thread a year or so ago you were denying that waterboarding could be classed as torture. A list of times and dates is neither available nor necessary. Just using pro-torture voices it's possible to get unequivocal admission of the use of torture at Gitmo.

Bin Laden caught through waterboarding - RedState




CIA: Waterboarding not a pretty sight


So yeah, I stand by my claim that AQ prisoners were tortured at Gitmo. Whether these particular defendants confessed to the crimes with which they are charged under torture, I cannot claim definitively. Were they to be allowed proper defence counsel and the court forced to operate proper disclosure, I'm sure that would be revealed.



I think that it's not quite torture, actually. There are far far worse things than waterboarding that cause permanent damage, and calling this torture, to me, anyway seems to cast too wide a net on what it is. I think what 2 people total were waterboarded? and key information that saved lives was extracted? meh, if one has to resort to extremes, in very very rare specific cases. such as this. I can forgive. I still feel it is shy of torture, in the context it was used.


Now if a civillian police force used it, or even if the military decided it would be used on more than the most extreme cases, I'd probably change my mind.
 
I think that it's not quite torture, actually. There are far far worse things than waterboarding that cause permanent damage, and calling this torture, to me, anyway seems to cast too wide a net on what it is. I think what 2 people total were waterboarded? and key information that saved lives was extracted? meh, if one has to resort to extremes, in very very rare specific cases. such as this. I can forgive. I still feel it is shy of torture, in the context it was used.


Now if a civillian police force used it, or even if the military decided it would be used on more than the most extreme cases, I'd probably change my mind.

Well, I think it more than a start down a very slippery slope and one that has repercussions for future combatants on whatever side. My original point was that if, as I believe happened, the defendants in this case confessed under torture then that confession should be inadmissible. If this military court accepts confession extracted under torture then it forfeits its legitimacy.

A lot of ifs, but a pretty clear principle.
 
Well, I think it more than a start down a very slippery slope and one that has repercussions for future combatants on whatever side. My original point was that if, as I believe happened, the defendants in this case confessed under torture then that confession should be inadmissible. If this military court accepts confession extracted under torture then it forfeits its legitimacy.

A lot of ifs, but a pretty clear principle.



Are you suggesting we set them free on a technicality?
 
Are you suggesting we set them free on a technicality?

The threat that this could happen is now why there are fewer Islamic terrorists going to Gitmo. They are just killing them in the field and stepping up the drone application.

This was obviously foreseeable, and while conditions at Gitmo were being protested there were those of us who easily predicted this would happen. Now, because of the antics of these guys, fewer terrorists will now even get to trial. They'll be disposed of elsewhere, forgotten about, and no one will be any the wiser. These people are not noted for their intelligence.
 
Are you suggesting we set them free on a technicality?

Not.At. All.

Ideally they would be handed over to the International Criminal Court as their alleged crimes have been against a multiplicity of nationalities, committed in numerous countries.

I know that's not going to happen, so they should be tried according to US law in a bona fide US court, not a military commission. There are real issues of legitimacy in trying them this way.

The lack of a freely-offered confession is a side issue and certainly makes little difference to the strength of the case against them. They should only be released if they are found not guilty, if the weight of evidence merits such a verdict.
 
How Pious the holy act. It would seem these clowns show no remorse and have nothing but venom towards thier victims and thier families. I find thier behavior odd to say the least, i for one will be glad when these assholes achieve room temperature.

I totally agree.


EDIT to say only that I would not call them clowns but murderers.
 
Last edited:
It's why we are Americans. We assume that God gives ALL men unalienable rights. These clowns will get their right to a trial, and if found guilty, will be given their right to an execution. Our legal system is one good reason why we are better than they are.

I don't believe the posters issue was simply that they got a trial. It seemed his issue was that it took 11 years for that trial to be fully taking place and finishing. It seems to be the issue is with what the legal system has BECOME, with all its loopholes and bureaucratic red tape, rather than the constitutional basis for it. Notice for example the 6th amendment speaks of a "Speedy" trial. You would be hard pressed to suggest to me that the founders ideals of our legal system was that in which 11 years is a "speedy" trial. The general practices, ideals, and foundation upon which our legal system resides is sound and absolutely a positive for America...but that does not change that there are glaring issues with the gargantuan mass that has been piled on top of that foundation in the years since.
 
I see. They behave like barbarians, so we (you) behave like barbarians. I thought the West were meant to be representing the civilised world.

I'd say you're waving this :surrender. You've ditched civilised standards because they have. They've turned you into them. They've won.

A man murders 100 people

You've never murdered anyone. Indeed, you're a firefighter whose saved many peoples lives.

Said firefighter is put in a situation with the man where the man admits all the murders he's done and highlights how he has not, and likely will never, be caught.

Firefighter has the ability to murder said man.

Firefighter murders him.

By your absolutely ridiculous moral absolutism that is so frequent in people ONLY when it suits them to make their political point and thump their chest, the firefighter is as horrible a human being and is "the same" as that murder. Becuase it is people making arguments like that....people who in so many other instances likely love to tell us how the world is not black and white, how there's "shades of grey"...people who in some other venue would likely be sitting there lecturing people about "how would you feel if it was missiles being lobbed into your country" and asking us to understand the terrorists....the type of person who see's shades of grey in EVERYTHING when it benefits them politically to see it....suddenly, MIRACULOUSLY, doens't see shades of grey in something like this and if America or an American did or wanted to do one thing, for whatever reason, that was against the generalized moral fabric that makes up the country for the past few centuries then that equates them to "becoming" exactly the same as those who perform said immoral acts on a routine basis and who have performed no where near the same number of positives acts based on that same moral fabric.

Idiotic. There's no other way to describe that one sided, "black and white when it suits me, grey when it doesn't", america-attacking mentality that is so readily apparent by those who routinely show their absolute love for all things negative about this country and people in it than that. Idiotic. If people that think like what you posted wish to think someone is "uncivilized" for saying in certain circumstances "torture" would be okay or that they wouldn't have an issue having seen these people executed frankly I say more power too you...because I truly don't give a **** what the opinion is of those with such a politically driven, hate filled, unrealistic, inconsistent, naive world view.
 
Last edited:
the type of person who see's shades of grey in EVERYTHING when it benefits them politically to see it....suddenly, MIRACULOUSLY, doens't see shades of grey in something like this and if America or an American did or wanted to do one thing, for whatever reason, that was against the generalized moral fabric that makes up the country for the past few centuries then that equates them to "becoming" exactly the same as those who perform said immoral acts on a routine basis and who have performed no where near the same number of positives acts based on that same moral fabric..
Obviously, people like Hicup haven't orchestrated terrorist attacks that have killed thousands of innocent people and I don't think anyone would argue that, which is why no one, except for you (to my knowledge), has said that people like Hicup are "exactly the same" as al Qaeda. Therefore, the barbarism of (most) angry Americans that want to piss on terrorists is not the exact same as that of Al Qaeda's. It's not the same because barbarism, like everything, exists on a scale - or what one would refer to in this context as "grey area." Consequently, your entire criticism of Anda's post is based on the false premise that posts like Hicup's cannot at once be barbaric and exist within the "grey area" you accuse him of ignoring.

It is, in fact, barbaric to argue that these guys should be tortured, pissed on, have pork thrown and them and whatever other nonsense was mentioned. The entire attitude that people, even if they have committed gross acts of their own, should be treated in such manners is barbaric. That doesn't mean it isn't understandable. I can understand why Hicup would have those feelings just as I can understand why radical Muslims might have similar ones about American soldiers, but they're still barbaric. One might be more barbaric than the other, but then that's the grey area you've claimed has been thrown out in criticism of arguments like those made by Hicup.
 
Last edited:
Not.At. All.

Ideally they would be handed over to the International Criminal Court as their alleged crimes have been against a multiplicity of nationalities, committed in numerous countries.

I know that's not going to happen, so they should be tried according to US law in a bona fide US court, not a military commission. There are real issues of legitimacy in trying them this way.

The lack of a freely-offered confession is a side issue and certainly makes little difference to the strength of the case against them. They should only be released if they are found not guilty, if the weight of evidence merits such a verdict.





I suspect you can guess my opinion on the International clown court. ;)


Furthermore, who is torturing them today, they who are freely bragging about thier place in terrorist events?
 
which is why no one, except for you (to my knowledge), has said that people like Hicup are "exactly the same" as al Qaeda.

So your quibble is that I used the word "exactly"?

Fine, take everything I said and replace the paraphrase to the exact quote of "turned into them". It makes my point no different. Anda's suggestion is that by hiccup suggesting to act like a "barbarian" in a specific instance that he has became them. If you say I'm reading into things by stating "exactly", I say you're reading into things by suggesting that "Turned into them" means something closer to kind of sort of similar to them in some ways. There is grey area, that's true. And what he suggested is barbaric. That's true too. But that grey area there is my point.

If someone lies once, are they a liar? If so we should just call everyone liars because I'd give a million dollars to someone who honestly could say they've never lied about anything

If someone has ever stollen, are they a thief? If so, may I ask if yo'uve ever left work a few minutes early before? Because if so you've stolen a tiny fraction of money from your employer...thief.

Or how about this...

Would someone who has one black friend but otherwise believes blacks are inferior to whites NOT be a racist because there's one instance of him acting in a different manner?

This is my point. A barbaric action a barbarian it does not make. An occasional action one way or another, typically caused under duress or special circumstances, is a hollow and inaccurate way generally to use as a means of defining what a person is or isn't. Someone expressing their anger (Mind you this, EXPRESSING it on a god damn web forum. God help me if everyone here believes that anything anyone ever says on the internet is something they'd absolutely actually do and support if push came to shove in real life) over a single issue with such an emotional tie to it equates to them "turning into [the terrorists that committed 9/11]"

Sorry, no...that's ridiculous, unrealistic, and frankly a disgusting way to view things.
 
And yes TPD, you're correct about the shades of Grey. Under the moral fabric that makes up their culture and society, what they're doing is not barbaric or wrong. And I wouldn't say that, based on THEIR moral fabric, they are barbaric.

But under OUR moral fabric? Absolutely I would call them that. Which again, was my point. To suggest we have "turned into them" then either we're judging ourselves by their moral fabric (in which case those "barbaric" actions wouldn't even be barbaric) OR we're judging ourselves by our own moral fabric, in which case the level and scope of singular incidents of barbaric actions that are miniscule in the greater picture of our moral fabric measures up to them in such a way that to say it "turns us into them" would be like saying that a woman who has gone MOOOO before in her life and is lactating has "turned into a cow" because in isolated instances she's shared similar traits.

Acting in a way similar to them in a specific situation? Sure.

Turned into them? ludicrous.
 
A man murders 100 people

You've never murdered anyone. Indeed, you're a firefighter whose saved many peoples lives.

Said firefighter is put in a situation with the man where the man admits all the murders he's done and highlights how he has not, and likely will never, be caught.

Firefighter has the ability to murder said man.

Firefighter murders him.

By your absolutely ridiculous moral absolutism that is so frequent in people ONLY when it suits them to make their political point and thump their chest, the firefighter is as horrible a human being and is "the same" as that murder. Becuase it is people making arguments like that....people who in so many other instances likely love to tell us how the world is not black and white, how there's "shades of grey"...people who in some other venue would likely be sitting there lecturing people about "how would you feel if it was missiles being lobbed into your country" and asking us to understand the terrorists....the type of person who see's shades of grey in EVERYTHING when it benefits them politically to see it....suddenly, MIRACULOUSLY, doens't see shades of grey in something like this and if America or an American did or wanted to do one thing, for whatever reason, that was against the generalized moral fabric that makes up the country for the past few centuries then that equates them to "becoming" exactly the same as those who perform said immoral acts on a routine basis and who have performed no where near the same number of positives acts based on that same moral fabric.

Idiotic. There's no other way to describe that one sided, "black and white when it suits me, grey when it doesn't", america-attacking mentality that is so readily apparent by those who routinely show their absolute love for all things negative about this country and people in it than that. Idiotic. If people that think like what you posted wish to think someone is "uncivilized" for saying in certain circumstances "torture" would be okay or that they wouldn't have an issue having seen these people executed frankly I say more power too you...because I truly don't give a **** what the opinion is of those with such a politically driven, hate filled, unrealistic, inconsistent, naive world view.

I'm sure you feel better having got that off your chest. It's a shame that your ire obscured your logic. On the one hand you berate me and others for their moral relativism and then, on the other, you set up a hypothetical that absolutely requires a degree of moral relativism to make it comprehensible. I apply no moral absolutes to torture. In certain, very limited, circumstances torture may be required in order to save lives. I don't see the extraction of confessions fits this requirement, but who knows? Perhaps it does in very exceptional circumstances.

The fact that it may be occasionally justifiable does not thereby transform torture into a moral, ethical or civilised thing to do. In order to defend the use of such tactics however, one does have to inhabit that world of grey and leave behind that trippy, dippy realm of moral absolutism that says that what our side does is, by definition, morally incomparable and incontestably superior with what the enemy does. We are white, the enemy is black. That Bush-like moral infantilism doesn't work any more. In this world of grey relativism we can stare our enemies right in the eye because we are in the same moral no man's land.
 
I'm sure you feel better having got that off your chest. It's a shame that your ire obscured your logic. On the one hand you berate me and others for their moral relativism and then, on the other, you set up a hypothetical that absolutely requires a degree of moral relativism to make it comprehensible. I apply no moral absolutes to torture. In certain, very limited, circumstances torture may be required in order to save lives. I don't see the extraction of confessions fits this requirement, but who knows? Perhaps it does in very exceptional circumstances.

The fact that it may be occasionally justifiable does not thereby transform torture into a moral, ethical or civilised thing to do. In order to defend the use of such tactics however, one does have to inhabit that world of grey and leave behind that trippy, dippy realm of moral absolutism that says that what our side does is, by definition, morally incomparable and incontestably superior with what the enemy does. We are white, the enemy is black. That Bush-like moral infantilism doesn't work any more. In this world of grey relativism we can stare our enemies right in the eye because we are in the same moral no man's land.
Its a shame that instead of protesting mightily when briefed on the use of EITs, the democrats in attendance all asked if there wasnt MORE they could be doing to get information.

You personally may be opposed to waterboarding terrorists as a means to extract data. You personally may believe it is torture. The courts disagree with you and both parties politicians agreed to its use.

I am curious...the scenario is familiar...I wonder as to your response. A terrorist group has slaughtered thousands. They have plans to slaughter many more thousands. Would you A-Use any interrogation techniques available to save lives or B-allow the thousands to be slaughtered?

THAT is the position leaders are put in. Its an ugly position...one we can make hypothetical choices with all day long. Easy for us because ultimately...we have zero real responsibility. We can afford to be morally superior.
 
Its a shame that instead of protesting mightily when briefed on the use of EITs, the democrats in attendance all asked if there wasnt MORE they could be doing to get information.

You personally may be opposed to waterboarding terrorists as a means to extract data. You personally may believe it is torture. The courts disagree with you and both parties politicians agreed to its use.

I am curious...the scenario is familiar...I wonder as to your response. A terrorist group has slaughtered thousands. They have plans to slaughter many more thousands. Would you A-Use any interrogation techniques available to save lives or B-allow the thousands to be slaughtered?

THAT is the position leaders are put in. Its an ugly position...one we can make hypothetical choices with all day long. Easy for us because ultimately...we have zero real responsibility. We can afford to be morally superior.



Torture is illegal. That's the Geneva Conventions that we are a signatory to. The law is clear. The moral lines are clear. We just suffered an Administration of low moral character and a lack of backbone to live by their own laws. That is what US politics breeds. Do you know any carpenters in National office, and why not? If these Guantanamo 5 scumbags were tried in a civilian court, they would have to be acquitted because no evidence can be use if torture is proved, and torture can most certainly be proved. OTOH, in the Military tribunal, the torture is classified "secret" and cannot be admitted as evidence even though it is in inumerable media reports and documentations. I'll explain it to you as a patriotic American. Take away their American rights and you can convict them. So you agree we need to get rid of those rights. Perhaps also, JUSTICE.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom