Does the United States have a right to torture suspected terrorist?

[snapping turtle]

Jack Bowyer on Fox's 24 say's YES.

 

[Fletch]

If you are not American then I do not believe you should get the same rights of Americans.

So you agree with the basic idea that the government gives us our rights?

 

[mettle]

So you agree with the basic idea that the government gives us our rights?

You probably know this/realize this: I think you've nailed the greatest problem the DOJ/D.O.D.?N.S.A. etc. has with the interrogation/torture issue; at what point is the person deserving of some sort of rights?

Obviously, under Bush II, probably way before (I'm not aware) once the US Patriot Act went into play--we basically saw KGB style abductions, interrogations and disappearances of natural born, immigrated and legal temporary citizens performed by the FBI, CIA and DOJ.

At what point does an 'enemy combatant' pass the threshhold of 'nontorturee' into 'detaineee' and beyond? When are they passed on to the Tribunal; or, if in a domestic case (like the Ft. Hood incident), when does the individual's designation from domestic/homegrown terrorist to 'suspect' and 'defendant'?

Does the Ft. Hood guy (can't think of the name) act in treason and void his rights when he declares jihad on American citizens, soldiers and .gov personnel and perform an act that 'normal' jihadist's declare as a strike against the 'West'?

Gray areas seem to permeate and blend... or are they gray?

 

[antsi]

Here's a great news item that relates to this thread topic:
Chinese PhD student Prosecuted for Embarrassing TSA Morons

Here's the synopsis: A Chinese PhD student, in America to do research on curing eye diseases, ducks under the velvet rope at an airport to kiss his girlfriend. The TSA agent who's supposed to be monitoring the rope is AWOL. Other TSA agents wildly over-react, shutting down the airport and delaying fight schedules all across the country. He's essentially being prosecuted for Embarrassing a Big Bureaucracy.

This is the same Department of Homeland Security that arrests people for GI Joe guns, and tried to confiscate Joe Foss' Congressional Medal of Honor, because you never know when a national hero is going to try to highjack a plane with the highest possible US honor for valor in combat.

These are the same people* that the majority of INGOers, apparently, would like to be empowered to detain and torture anyone they want, at any time, for any reason, whenever they perceive a "possible security threat."

* I was going to say "clowns," but that would be insulting to actual clowns who, after all, do perform a useful public service in an competent manner.

 

[jeremy]

The problem here is you are attempting to mix several systems of justice and law into one. Internal Civilian Law, International Civil Law, Internal Military Law, and International Military Law...

These people were captured and detained in different arenas in the world the ones that were apprehended by the Federal Legal Authorities...Would I think fall into the national Justice system. Torture is not allowed in our justice system model...

The ones that were captured and detained by the Military. Belong in the realm of the Military Justice system. Torture maybe needed dependent on operational needs...

 

[Fletch]

You probably know this/realize this: I think you've nailed the greatest problem the DOJ/D.O.D.?N.S.A. etc. has with the interrogation/torture issue; at what point is the person deserving of some sort of rights?

The point I'm driving at is that government does NOT give us rights. The only relationship that governments -- or any other people, for that matter -- have to our rights are in either violating or respecting them. Our rights are included with the Standard Human Package (tm) that all of us receive at birth.

I don't give a flying fart at the moon about the legal intricacies of war. As far as I'm concerned, aggression is immoral, and causes the aggressor to temporarily forfeit his ability to duly expect having his rights respected. But it is not until the act of aggression actually happens, or is unquestionably imminent, that this occurs. Believing that someone may at some point in the undefined future decide to commit an act of aggression is insufficient cause to violate their rights, and so doing causes the violator to become the aggressor and the "suspect" to become the righteous defender.

As I hinted before, game the entire scenario out in a restaurant. When are you morally clear to start shooting? When someone whose looks you don't like enters the restaurant? When someone sets your hair on end and your teeth on edge for some undefinable reason you can't name? Or when someone produces a weapon and begins causing mayhem?

I have always and will always maintain that government is not an agent of sanctification. If I cannot morally do it in my private life, no badge or license or uniform issued by the government will make it moral.

 

[mettle]

The point I'm driving at is that government does NOT give us rights. The only relationship that governments -- or any other people, for that matter -- have to our rights are in either violating or respecting them. Our rights are included with the Standard Human Package (tm) that all of us receive at birth.

I don't give a flying fart at the moon about the legal intricacies of war. As far as I'm concerned, aggression is immoral, and causes the aggressor to temporarily forfeit his ability to duly expect having his rights respected. But it is not until the act of aggression actually happens, or is unquestionably imminent, that this occurs. Believing that someone may at some point in the undefined future decide to commit an act of aggression is insufficient cause to violate their rights, and so doing causes the violator to become the aggressor and the "suspect" to become the righteous defender.

As I hinted before, game the entire scenario out in a restaurant. When are you morally clear to start shooting? When someone whose looks you don't like enters the restaurant? When someone sets your hair on end and your teeth on edge for some undefinable reason you can't name? Or when someone produces a weapon and begins causing mayhem?

I have always and will always maintain that government is not an agent of sanctification. If I cannot morally do it in my private life, no badge or license or uniform issued by the government will make it moral.

I understand what you are saying; but, the topic is does the 'USA' have a right to torture suspected terrorists? It's not, 'does the USA have a right to give/take away rights'.

I understand your statements though; but, I find it a WHOLE 'nother topic of conversation about 'inalienable' rights vs. 'rights given by a Constitution'.

 

[Fletch]

I understand what you are saying; but, the topic is does the 'USA' have a right to torture suspected terrorists? It's not, 'does the USA have a right to give/take away rights'.

I understand your statements though; but, I find it a WHOLE 'nother topic of conversation about 'inalienable' rights vs. 'rights given by a Constitution'.

I think it's all part of the same conversation, and that you can't really discuss rights without understanding where they're coming from, and you can't really discuss the morality of government action with regard to rights unless you put it all in its proper context.

That said, it's your thread and I've pretty much said what I wanted to, so I'll leave you to it. Namaste.

 

[E5RANGER375]

I think you make a solid point. But, that still happens here in America to innocent men as well. What is to be done? There are volunteer agencies that work to get DNA submitted, and cases reopened for just this reason too.

I think every American deserves a trial too. But, the question still remains, what about illegal aliens? What about jidah oriented operators coming to America to function for terrorist cells?

Well i already have made post in other threads about illegal aliens, and have been critisized by few but suppported by most for my opinion on that issue. But here is my Humble opinion again.

I believe that Americans have a constitutional obligation and right to protect Our Country from foreign invaders and terrorist. Therefore if the border control and govt isnt getting the complete job done then i think its high time U.S. Citizens go down there and start aquiring and engaging targets!! put a few mines out there too and i bet within 1 month illegals entering through the desserts will be decreased by 1/3 just from fear, which is good. and another 1/3 will be reduced by 750 grains of American diplomacy! and thaaaatts about all i have to say about thaaaaat.

 

[E5RANGER375]

So you agree with the basic idea that the government gives us our rights?

NO, but i do believe that the American People have been the only country will the balls big enough to ensure our rights and by doing so with blood have established a governemnt to secure those rights. even though some scum sometimes trys to take them away, so we must never stop fighting. But sometimes other countries need to stand up for themselves. Americans have died protecting half the world from people who wish to take basic liberties away from people, its time some of these other countries citizens start growing their own pair and stop borrowing ours!!

 

[ihateiraq]

I think it's all part of the same conversation, and that you can't really discuss rights without understanding where they're coming from, and you can't really discuss the morality of government action with regard to rights unless you put it all in its proper context.

That said, it's your thread and I've pretty much said what I wanted to, so I'll leave you to it. Namaste.

i think talk of giving people the same rights they hate you for is the problem with america today. the american public does not have the stomach for things that need to be done that they do not understand. the real world is not a friendly place. get over it. foreign countries do not operate the same way we do, and terrorists are not your average mugger or even murderer. they are people that would literally chop of your head for no reason other than you are an american, and you want to extend them our constitutional rights. if so many people didnt think like this, the wars in iraq and afghanistan would have been done three or four years ago, and a couple thousand american service members would still be alive.

 

[Fletch]

i think talk of giving people the same rights they hate your for is the problem with america today... terrorists are not your average mugger or even murderer. they are people that would literally chop of your head for no reason other than you are an american, and you want to extend them our constitutional rights.

If that's what you think I'm arguing here, then you're just not paying attention.

 

[ihateiraq]

If that's what you think I'm arguing here, then you're just not paying attention.

ive read and reread your posts, and it seems to me that your saying we should give hajji the same rights as a joe mope down at the county courthouse. thats completely unrealistic. our rights come from god. if you are our enemy, your rights come from america. and they should be few.

 

[E5RANGER375]

ive read and reread your posts, and it seems to me that your saying we should give hajji the same rights as a joe mope down at the county courthouse. thats completely unrealistic. our rights come from god. if you are our enemy, your rights come from america. and they should be few.

out of rep or youd get it

 

[ihateiraq]

out of rep or youd get it

its the thought that counts.

 

[Fletch]

ive read and reread your posts, and it seems to me that your saying we should give hajji the same rights as a joe mope down at the county courthouse. thats completely unrealistic. our rights come from god. if you are our enemy, your rights come from america. and they should be few.

As soon as you talk about anyone "giving" rights to anyone else, you are not talking about my argument. You have skipped over my argument and substituted one that you attribute to me. I don't want to give anyone rights. I don't think anyone should be given rights. From my point of view, talk of giving people rights makes about as much sense as talk of flapping one's arms and flying to the moon. It's absurd on its face; it cannot be done.

My argument is completely summarized in your 3rd sentence, without the word "our". Rights come from God. Or, if you're atheist or agnostic, they come from virtue of the fact that one is human. They cannot be given or taken away by anyone any more than one's humanity can be given or taken away. The only thing that any person can do with regard to another person's rights are to respect them or violate them. Further, I hold that violating peoples' rights is immoral, except in those narrowly crafted circumstances where, through acts of aggression, they have temporarily and tacitly suspended their own right to expect others to respect their rights.

If we ever agree to the above, what you are arguing, in effect, is that it is moral to violate some people's rights simply because they are not our countrymen. If this were true, then the reverse must also be true: people of other nations may morally violate our rights simply because we are not their countrymen. And if this is so, then we have no moral grounds for protesting the various acts of terrorism -- we can only say that we didn't like it very much.

My argument is that rights transcend nationality, and that aggression is the only thing that can suspend rights. The individuals who perpetrated the various terror attacks are at fault for their acts of aggression, and morally could have been killed on the planes by one of the other passengers, but our own government is also at fault for its acts of aggression against our rights. Had our government not violated our rights to self-defense on airplanes, 9/11 may have turned out much differently.

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

ive read and reread your posts, and it seems to me that your saying we should give hajji the same rights as a joe mope down at the county courthouse. thats completely unrealistic. our rights come from god. if you are our enemy, your rights come from america. and they should be few.

I'm not taking a side in this discussion, but can you explain this statement a bit more?

If you have inherent rights given by God, not by simply being an American, why does "hajji" not have the same inherent rights, even if he is from another country? If you say, "Because he doesn't believe in God, he believes in Allah (or Muhammad, whomever)," doesn't hajji still have those rights, even if he believes that they were bestowed on him by another god?

Not looking for a fight, just want to understand exactly what you are writing.

 

[mettle]

I think it's all part of the same conversation, and that you can't really discuss rights without understanding where they're coming from, and you can't really discuss the morality of government action with regard to rights unless you put it all in its proper context.

That said, it's your thread and I've pretty much said what I wanted to, so I'll leave you to it. Namaste.

I'm not trying to run you off. I understand your points, and they are part of the whole. I also believe that our rights are God given. But, I also understand I live in a country where the articles that it operates by are it's binding force.

The problem is, I can scream and rant about 'my rights' while living in Iraq; but, if I live in that country I am bound to be subject to it's rules. I think that's where the separation of the 'origin of rights' arguments seems to drop off. I could scream at the local imam in Afghanistan that I am born with certain inalienable rights, but I don't think it matters if I'm looking down the barrel of their authority.

So, in a way, 'God given' rights are truthfully subject to the government's rights we are 'given'. It's a sad thought; and, maybe it will be a deciding factor in a future usurping of power, but it's a real fact. Right, wrong?

EDIT: It's not really my thread, it's the forum's! lol.

 

[ihateiraq]

I'm not taking a side in this discussion, but can you explain this statement a bit more?

If you have inherent rights given by God, not by simply being an American, why does "hajji" not have the same inherent rights, even if he is from another country? If you say, "Because he doesn't believe in God, he believes in Allah (or Muhammad, whomever)," doesn't hajji still have those rights, even if he believes that they were bestowed on him by another god?

Not looking for a fight, just want to understand exactly what you are writing.

hajji doesnt have said rights because war is war, and if youre on the receiving end of a beating, thats just how its going to be. theres no rhyme or reason, or deep seeded psychological response. no one enlisted into the military to ensure the rest of the world received their rights. they enlisted to destroy the enemies of america.

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

hajji doesnt have said rights because war is war, and if youre on the receiving end of a beating, thats just how its going to be. theres no rhyme or reason, or deep seeded psychological response. no one enlisted into the military to ensure the rest of the world received their rights. they enlisted to destroy the enemies of america.

Okay, thank you for what sounds like an honest answer.