Close Topic Options

Fight Terrorism Legally - Page 2

The most effective means of fighting murder, rape, theft, and terrorism are all violent in nature. In fact, if you think about it, it is all violence, and terror.

We use incarceration as a means of terrorizing criminals into not committing violence against other people. I don't think it works, but we (society) try. If someone doesn't want to be imprisoned for their crimes, they are subdued by violence.

No, we don't punish rape with rape (well... it depends on the prison stories, right?) We don't punish robbery with robbery, right? (Well, again, aren't we robbing criminals of their freedoms?) We don't punish murderers with murder, do we? (Not enough anyway. Capital punishment, anyone?)

So, your analogy falls flat. We do punish, under all legal systems, violent behavior with violence of some kind, even if it is by incarceration at the threat of violence.

Most law abiding citizens of any country are "terrorized" to some extent of the potential consequences of violent illegal behavior. In places and circumstances where they are NOT, then violent crime run rampant (Columbia, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, etc.).

Why not use the threat, along with the actual prosecution of, violence against terrorist behavior?

Besides, what besides violence, has EVER worked against this type of behavior, in all of history?

Legally Terrorism Fight

My analogy is pure when you are saying that we fight terrorism with terrorism. Punishing criminals is not the same as responding in kind. Rules are set down and laws are created. Punishments for breaking those laws are also set down. These actions and reactions are known and they are known by everyone. When someone commits them, they are doing it knowing what the consequences are.

When they are caught, there is a specific body that governs these punishments and makes sure they aren't abuse and that the proper action is taken. What you are endorsing is that this "secret group" can do to the terrorists what we are doing to them. So who deems that they are doing the right thing? What is there check and balance to make sure that their power is not being abuse?

In short, there is no check and balance to a secret group of government officials. Things done under the table and in secret are done so that they won't have to deal with the annoying parts of our government like courts. So if they kidnap someone and torture them to get the "terrorist" information out of them, who is there to stop them? What if they find out its the wrong person? Then someone has been needlessly and horribly tortured without anyone to stand up and say that this is wrong. This is the type of thing that happens when you do everything secretly and out of the eye of anyone that can tell you other wise. In fact, there are already claims that it has happened. Who is there to stand up and say that this was wrong and someone was mistreated? If one person is wrongfully tortured and their human rights wrongfully violated, isn't that enough to call off this type of thing?

You see, if it were done legally like all the other laws, then he would have the right to be proven guilty first, then get to go back a couple more times before he was ever put in prison for life or executed. Its those checks and balances, flawed as they are, that are still much better than what we are talking about. I really don't want any group to have that kind of power, do you?

Fight Terrorism Legally History & Civil Business Politics

Aren't the terrorists that have been found in the US been taken through the whole criminal justice system?

So, what is the complaint? What legal system should we use to make sure that we don't end up with the Sears Tower in rubble? How do we make sure that no weapons of mass destruction get set off in New York City or Dallas? What exact laws do we use?

As it is, every tool that the US government uses to fight terrorism is trumpeted by traitors to the US on the front page of the NY Times. We have traitors in the Government giving the information to the NYT, then traitors in the newspaper who decide that they will work harder at getting a Pulitzer than at saving lives, so they publish any details that they can find out about any secret (Top Secret) programs that are in place to catch the terrorists.

So, once again, how are we supposed to fight terrorists?

Edited: Nighthawk on 26th Jun, 2006 - 10:40pm

Page 2 Legally Terrorism Fight

You fight terrorism with any tool you can conceive.

Offtopic but, Sorry I didn't answer your post Sunday. My e-mail provider was down.

I wish George would "bait" the Times with a bogus story and make them look like the fools they are.

Message Edited! Persephone: Learn how to use offtopic tags.

Legally Terrorism Fight

Alright guys, I was still addressing the main point of this thread. I'll re-post it for you.

Taking them through the justice system like we have done some, fine, great, perfect. Taking them to secret prisons, torturing them, not right. Since this is what I was referring to, your arguments must be that secret prisons, kidnapping, and torture is NEEDED and NECESSARY to convict terrorists? Why would that be if you had actual evidence? Again, the argument for this was that they do it so why not us, and again, that argument defys logic in a democratic society. And we are already discussing the NYT article in another thread so I won't address it, and we are addressing liberties in another thread, so I won't address it. Lets stay to what this is about, secret prisons and kidnappings and torture. Is there a better argument for why we need to do this besides they did it to us first?