<b>FranchiseBlade They probably should have been tried in a civilian court or possibly held as prisoners of war.</b> Enemy combatants, my friend. <b>I disagree that this war on terrorism is more bloody. WWII was definitely more bloody in the cost of human lives, and the consistency of combat. It isn't even close.</b> I think the enemy is more bloody because they are so eager and willing to die. Only the Japanese Karmizaze would be comparable. Certainly WWII was overall a more bloody war. <b>The enemy in this war is indeed cowardly, horrible, and immoral. They aren't following any conventions of war, or code of behavior. The difference is that you see their examples and think we should follow it. I see their examples and believe we should strive harder to preserve our way. Let's make this a war of ideals. I would rather the U.S. be engaged in a war of good vs. evil instead of evil vs. someone else who just became evil. Our strength doesn't increase because we lower our standards. That isn't the case, and it isn't the American thing to do. </b> Do you really think that I am encouraging us to follow their example? 99% of the time our soldiers fight with grit and dignity. I'm willing to discipline the other 1% (and so is the US military by the way) but it doesn't need to be made a spectacle for the world and held up as a misrepresentative representation of how our military forces operate.
Enemy combatants is the whole problem. It is a made designation that isn't inkeeping with American ideals, at least as it is being applied to American citizens. I know the military isn't happy about instances of torture, etc. There was an article on this very website in which military leadership called it stupid, and a THREAT TO OUR TROOPS. Yet many who claim to support the troops have defended those practices. The funny thing is that people have actually complained that those of us who oppose the torture of being guilty of not supporting our military.
There's that since you're major justification for going to Iraq and staying in Iraq is very utopian and you've criticised others for overlooking ideals for practical solutions. In your many bashes on those defending, or at least regarding Islam in a sympathetic light, has primarily been an attack on cultural relativism. Your arguments regarding abortion is almost completely idealistic and you've rejected any compromise position on the subject. From what I've seen of your positions and views on Clutch BBS they seem far very idealistic and critical of pragmatic or relative views.
okay, let's start here: ideals and practicality are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Can you show me one post where I have in any way bashed Islam in a general way? I have nothing to say about these suicidal freaks but I have no disdain for peace-loving Muslims. Ironically, I consider my position on abortion to be very pragmatic: you might be killing a human so better not... it's just that simple... and pragmatic. prag·ma·tism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prgm-tzm) n. Philosophy. A movement consisting of varying but associated theories, originally developed by Charles S. Peirce and William James and distinguished by the doctrine that the meaning of an idea or a proposition lies in its observable practical consequences. A practical, matter-of-fact way of approaching or assessing situations or of solving problems.
I have no inclination or time to go through and look through all of your posts and anyway I was saying that you've criticized others for taking a relativistic view of Islam not criticizing Islam in a general way. I would say this is an example of where your views in regard to human life. are in conflict because you've stated you feel like being pragmatic about engaging in policies that detain and even execute US citizens without due process. I would say that's compromising an ideal for protecting human life when given the possibility of executing someone who hasn't even been given of even the chance to go through the US Justice system. At the sametime if I recall you're one of those who are unwilling to consider abortion in the case of incest or rape where the birth might cause severe physical or mental trauma to the mother. Further you make no argument and even consider it irrellevent regarding considerations regarding bringing up a child. Your view is once the child is born tough luck. In that sense your view on abortion is anything but pragmatic but idealistic in terms that it is solely focussed on bringing fetus to term with no considerations of consequences. And I agree with this but the key word is practical which would mean the most expedient way to obtain a desired result based on observable knowledge. I would say support of invading Iraq for democracy and freedom is anything but pragmatic given the amount of costs involved in such an endeavor versus the speculative nature of benefits or consideration of other options.
giddy, please... it's a mad, mad, mad, mad world! (geez... like he hasn't seen the flick six times!) Keep D&D Evil!!
<b>Sishir Chang I have no inclination or time to go through and look through all of your posts and anyway I was saying that you've criticized others for taking a relativistic view of Islam not criticizing Islam in a general way.</b> I don't blame you but I would also suggest you hold back on this kind of general characterization unless you can demonstrate its accuracy. <b>I would say this is an example of where your views in regard to human life. are in conflict because you've stated you feel like being pragmatic about engaging in policies that detain and even execute US citizens without due process. I would say that's compromising an ideal for protecting human life when given the possibility of executing someone who hasn't even been given of even the chance to go through the US Justice system. </b> Idealism is at the other end of the spectrum. BTW, who have we executed? <b>At the sametime if I recall you're one of those who are unwilling to consider abortion in the case of incest or rape where the birth might cause severe physical or mental trauma to the mother.</b> Not me. <b>Further you make no argument and even consider it irrellevent regarding considerations regarding bringing up a child. Your view is once the child is born tough luck. In that sense your view on abortion is anything but pragmatic but idealistic in terms that it is solely focussed on bringing fetus to term with no considerations of consequences.</b> Child is born: someone will celebrate! There is no worse consequence than abortion. The most ordinary life of any human being is a zillion times better than the life of an aborted child. But that's not the issue really. The issue is that we as parents have no right to snuff a child because we change our mind or we weren't on board with parenthood in the first place. I agree that that is pragmatic but it's values are ugly and evil. I guess not every kind of pragmatism is good. <b>And I agree with this but the key word is practical which would mean the most expedient way to obtain a desired result based on observable knowledge. I would say support of invading Iraq for democracy and freedom is anything but pragmatic given the amount of costs involved in such an endeavor versus the speculative nature of benefits or consideration of other options.</b> Hindsight is a beautiful thing. I'm more of an isolationist myself but once the gauntlet is down it's full throttle.
My concern was not a literal one, more of an expected sentiment... that never showed really. People here seem to want the US to exceed the letter of the law and to be beyond reproach even when the enemy is blatantlly ignoring any conventional civilized limits. By those standards, most of these guys just arrested in London should be dead by Halloween. Some at Gitmo are long overdue...
If we have the evidence to try anyone in a court of law then we should do so, and if the penalty for what they have done is death, so be it. If we don't have the evidence to try them in a court of law, they should be held as prisoners of war, or shouldn't be in prison in the first place. The claim is that they are terrorists. If they are terrorists then there is surely proof. If there is proof let's try these guys and see that justice is swift. If there isn't proof then we need to ask why we are holding them in a prison, and possibly subjecting them to inhumane conditions or torture.
I don't know about that. It didn't seem like the appeals process has kept those responsible of the '93 WTC bombing from spending their time in prison. I have no problem with appeals either. That can be a part of our legal process. If a defendent is entitled to an appeal then so be it. Our legal system is supposed to work the same for all. But anyway whatever the consequences would have been, it would have been fine. Again if there is proof, then prosecute the folks to the fullest extent of the law. If there isn't proof then why are they being held indefinitely?
