Quote:

---

I agree we should make the ones that are not dangerious and that are not going to be tried free. My point is the President does not have that power. Again I would ask if you think he does, cite that law.

---

Quote:

---

I'm not saying it is a model of action, or defending any single event such as Japanese internment. What I am saying is that to expect ideals stay inplace when bullets and bombs start flying is to expect something unreal.

---

Quote:

---

There are many more dangerous places on the earth than the US. So saying that you make the choice I discribed every day by living here is a strech.

---

Quote:

---

If they were trying to do you harm I might.

---

Quote:

---

The issue is the difference between a persived threat and a real one.

---

Quote:

---

Don't think for a second that all the people that have been detained or killed where not looking to harm us.

---

Quote:

---

Yes we created the problem. Picking up and leaving would just be leaving our mess.

---

Quote:

---

As far as us exerting pressure to stay if asked to leave, why? What is the benifit? What do we get out of it?

---

Quote:

---

What would you have done? Pack up and leave totally. Do you think violence will stop? Look at Syria they are killing people by the thousands with no help from us. How right do you think it is that we sit on the sidelines and watch this when we could do something? War and conflict has always existed, and it always will.

---

Quote:

---

I sleep pretty well, and so do many others.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
Can you cite the law that says he doesn't have the power to free them? The Judicial only has anything to do with them if they are charged with crimes. They are entirely under the power of the Executive.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
I agree it is an unreal expectation if people such as yourself are willing to shrug your shoulders about it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
Oh? So a place where even criminals are given rights and people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law... this is one of the less dangerous places on Earth? Then you agree with me that we do not need to violate the rights of people in order to feel safe.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
But your family isn't looking to harm me. They are charged with no crime. I just want them arrested and detained indefinitely to make me feel better. Isn't that all right with you?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
This I agree with. Because of some ambiguous undefined sense of being threatened, we are willing to strip human rights away from people.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
You are a big proponent for not assuming things that are not in evidence. You chastise Chris for his scenario of the napkin with the threat on it. Yet you are entirely willing to invent a scenario based on no evidence whatsoever. Doesn't it bother you that a serial killer who murders 100 people will have more rights than the perpetual prisoners, not charged with any crime, who reside at Guantanamo Bay?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
But you do not factor in the mess we cause by staying? Why can you stretch your imagination to encompass the mess of leaving a country to its own devices, but not encompass it to think of the mess caused by eternal occupation and unceasing war?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:You want to know what we gain by keeping a foothold in a country with vast mineral resources and strategically valuable territory? Let me think about it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
Yes, war will always exist. But we don't always have to be the chief butchers in the slaughterhouse. It is an argument akin to saying, "People will always die, so let's go kill them!"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
Do you? You need a quantity of strangers killed every day in order to feel safe. You need the eternal occupation of foreign lands in order to feel safe. You won't stop doing these things to them because you are afraid of what they might do after. You are daily willing to sacrifice the human rights of others because you feel unsafe.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
Do you? You need a quantity of strangers killed every day in order to feel safe. You need the eternal occupation of foreign lands in order to feel safe. You won't stop doing these things to them because you are afraid of what they might do after. You are daily willing to sacrifice the human rights of others because you feel unsafe.

---

No I need to know that the people who would kill me and others simply because of who we are and what we believe are kept at bay.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

---

Quote:

---

National Defence Authorisation Act 2011 barred moving any detainees into the United States for any reason, and even limited the executive power on when countried they coudl be moved to.

---

Quote:

---

There will always be people who are willing to use violence to achieve their goals.

---

Quote:

---

Violating some peoples rights. Plus we know we have done this to people for a long time. Perhaps that also has something to do with why we are so safe.

---

Quote:

---

Thing is for the most part we are not locking up people like that.

---

Quote:

---

911 was not ambiguous, nor other attacks. Those threats are very real.

---

Quote:

---

You can't say there is no evidence that members of certain groups want to kill Americans.

---

Quote:

---

If we leave the war is not going to stop. Insurgents want power, they will keep killing to get it and keep killing to maintain it. The US forces pulling out does not end the fighting, it just changes the targets.

---

Quote:

---

Sure, how much oil are we getting directly for Iraq? Or how much of the metals in Afganistan? The Afghan governement has been signing resource contracts with China, not us.

---

Quote:

---

Would you rather have our Troops killing insurgents and visa versa or insugents killing inocent people in those places? That is the question.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
I don't think we should ahve gone into Iraq. Afganistan was a different issue. Both situations where handled badly.

---

[First line deleted because I read more...]
I just go nuts when it seems people aren't taking into account that the inmates run the asylum, and that no one is really that much more intelligent or capable than anyone else- drive and/or compulsion gets you farther than intelligence or empathy.
Unless you're a Companion.

Chrisisall, wearing a frilly Mal thing on his head, and ready to shoot unarmed, full-body armoured Operatives

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
we are having a discussion about the US doing just that. Violating some peoples rights. Plus we know we have done this to people for a long time. Perhaps that also has something to do with why we are so safe.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
Hello,

Apparently any act of violation can be justified on the premise of your safety. Any assumption can be made in the service of your safety. Death and imprisonment eternal for the service of your safety. It astounds me that you credit your safety to violating other human beings.

Has it occurred to you that the United States' greatest production is 'inspiring people to want to kill us?'

Eternal war, endless human rights violations. This is your answer to the problem we are making by creating war and human rights violations.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
What a terrible idea. It's too bad the President has no power whatsoever to oppose such boneheaded acts.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
Yes, there always are. You, for instance, who are supporting the slaughter of hundreds of thousands, and the eternal occupation of foreign lands, because a handful of people crashed some planes into buildings 11 years ago.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
I don't even know how to respond to this. You believe we are safer violating people's rights. Well, what can be said? It is monstrous logic and does nothing to approach a moral world. It is the antithesis of civilization.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
Really, the thing is you have no idea who we are locking up and why. But since you don't mind violating people just in case, it does not matter.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
If 9-11 happened every year you'd have more chance of being run over by a car than being killed by a terrorist.

9-11-01 Death Toll 2,996
2001 Car accident Death Toll 42,196

The actions we take in order to assuage our cowardly hearts are completely out of proportion to any threat posed by terrorism.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
Sure. There is evidence that members of certain groups want to kill Americans. Hell, I've seen messages right here on this forum from people who wish death on various Americans. So what? Hey, I have an idea. Let's make sure MORE people want to kill Americans! Let's make sure they want it so bad it's not just a hatred in their hearts, but a goal of their daily lives.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
Yes, we have the power to stop being killed and to stop killing, and you want to stay. Is it a game you enjoy playing?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
You don't seem to understand that Afghanistan has strategic value and that Iraq has economic AND strategic value, and that we have interests in both places, and that we have an interest in remaining there. Our mercenary army in Iraq, an army of thousands, is providing security for an army of a different kind. An army of U.S. corporate employees in Iraq. I wonder what all those Americans are doing over there. I wonder if Iraq could expel us tomorrow, seize our business interests in their country, kick out our security forces, and close our embassy? I wonder if they could refuse to sell their oil without suffering at our hands? Since we already took over their country once when they defied us, I am thinking no.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
Would I rather not be doing the killing and dying in a foreign land? Yes. I'd rather not be doing that. Let that be an occupation for others. Next question?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
Are you pretending to be altruistic? I already know you want us to be killing and violating whoever it takes to make you feel safe. I know this is not about compassion for foreigners. If you were motivated by mere compassion you could be advocating the investment of U.S. resources to save lives in places where no one would have to be killed. Places without Muslims. Instead you want people killed and people violated as the cost of your security. You don't even seem to dwell on the moral corruption of this stance. It is merely the price others have to pay so that you can feel safe.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
As a moral human being, I do not want others to be sacrificed at the altar of my safety. I do not want civil rights violated in supposed service to my safety. I do not dream of a land of moral corruption which is supported by heinous activities. I'd rather take the chance, a very SMALL chance, of getting blown up by a terrorist. And maybe if we can stop fucking with foreigners for a long enough period of time, we will find that fewer of them are compelled to kill us. 'Blowback.' It's a term used by the government you have so much faith in. It means they are doing this to us because of what we did to them. Another name for it is righteous anger.

Did innocent people die and suffer at the hands of terrorists? Sure. But according to your own morality, that's acceptable. At least, it's okay when we do it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
"Yea tho I walk through the Valley of the Shadow of Death, I shall fear no evil;
For I am the baddest motherfucker in the Valley." -Nickerson Bible

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
Hello Mr Nickerson,

You seem to be of the impression that we have only killed people who are trying to kill us, and that we have only imprisoned people who are trying to kill us, and that everyone in indefinite detention belongs there. You certainly aren't concerned that these prisoners have not received the speedy trial that we ourselves consider a basic right. Nor have most of them ever been charged with a crime period. That's fine, you tell me. An expediency to be accepted in favor of your security.

You are comforting yourself with facts that are not in evidence. How can you be a rational skeptic most of the time, and yet be prepared to assume the righteousness of a war and human rights violations without evidence? You seem to be a skeptic of convenience.

To my knowledge there is simply no reliable figure for enemy combatants killed in Afghanistan. Note that 'enemy combatants' includes people trying to repel an invading army. That would be us, the invaders.

No kill count means we don't know how many we've killed, and we certainly don't know who they are. The vast majority of our 'enemy' are not trying to kill you, Nick. They are trying to retake their country. Of those who are not our enemy? Between Twelve and Fifteen THOUSAND civilians have died in service of our safety. At least we keep rough track of those. More or less.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
They are the ones that stepped this up to violence. They are the ones that can also stop it.

---

Quote:

---

He could have vetoed it, of course that would have also vetoed the spending to the rest of the military operations. Plus the act had enough support to override the veto I believe.

---

Quote:

---

Most of the civilian casualties in both wars have been cause by insurgence, not the US. As I stated, even if we leave the killing will not stop.

---

Quote:

---

Morals are subjective. What would you do if someone told you they were going to kill your family and the law would not protect you?

---

Quote:

---

It takes but a few minutes to find out who is being held and for what.

---

Quote:

---

We even charge people when they are guity of negligence and cause a death.

---

Quote:

---

That does happen, but what is the alternative? Do nothing? Appeasment has worked so well thoughtout history.

---

Quote:

---

The only reason we were able to hold the country in the first place is because a large portion of the people wanted us there.

---

Quote:

---

Thing is the killing in those places will not stop.

---

Quote:

---

...and doing nothing while others are hurt is just as immoral, perhaps even more so then trying to help.

---

Quote:

---

If that means attacking and destroying the Syrian army to protect civilians and protesters so be it.

---

Quote:

---

it is not innocent people, but the people who seek to harm others.

---

Quote:

---

We were not in Afgahnistan killing anyone before 911. In fact we were the ones providing them weapons to defend agaisnt the USSR.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
So, no effort to stop it. That puts him in favor of it, to my mind.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:I'd very much like your information on how many casualties were caused by 'insurgents.' I'd like to know how many of the thousands of dead civilians are because of my country so I know exactly how guilty of slaughter we are.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:I've been in this situation before. I have been threatened with just such a thing and it took weeks for the law to make an effective response. (One that removes the antagonist.) Meanwhile, I armed myself and remained vigilant. I did not go next door and murder my neighbors. If I lived in the absence of police, I would not proceed to wholesale slaughter. I favor a measured and precise response designed to stop the attacker.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:Only a few minutes? Then would you do me the courtesy of identifying the entire contingent of prisoners at Gitmo and the charges against them?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:Yes. In fact, even a serial murderer who kills 100 people gets more rights than anyone we call a terrorist. Statement of Charges, speedy trial, presumption of innocence, presentation of evidence, etc.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:If we wanted to seek out the criminals who were harming people, we have agencies who specialize in infiltration and extraction. We chose war, instead. We chose massacre on a scale entirely disproportionate to our injury. You scoff, but doing nothing would have cost less in lives and money. Defending ourselves would have cost less in lives and money. Going out and occupying foreign nations and committing wholesale slaughter was not really Choice #1 for me.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:Do you think that's the case? Do you think the majority of the population wants us there? Did most of them want Saddam there? How could they want both us and Saddam at the same time? If they did not want Saddam there, how could he hold the country? If they did want Saddam there, then how are we holding the country?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:No, it won't stop. Won't stop with or without us. So why again do you want to be there, breeding enemies?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:What? We did not go over there for any altruistic reason. We went there for revenge. We stay there for strategic advantage and control. There are many places full of people getting hurt that we are content to stand idly by. You can not pretend to me that we are kind caretakers defending the poor people of Afghanistan. Think of all the people we could help, if that was our goal, without firing a shot. We are not saviours or protectors, Nick. We are warlords.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:So you really seem to see the U.S. as world policemen who should invade every bad country and enforce peace and justice through military might.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:No innocent people? You presume much not in evidence. In my country we hold as an ideal to presume the opposite condition. For instance, that a jail full of un-charged and un-tried prisoners are innocent.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:And tell me you really believe that all the people we kill in our wars are people who want to harm you? Do you think, before we arrived, that they all sat in their bedrolls at night, staring at the stars and thinking, "I can't wait to go kill some Americans?"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:These two observations very astutely prove the LIE that we are in Afghanistan to help people.

When we needed to oppose the USSR, we were there. We had people there, materiel there, and we helped them.

When that was over, we withdrew. We cared nothing for their strife. Their suffering. Their social injustice. Their deaths and pain.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:We did not go there to help people. We went there for revenge. We stay there for strategic reasons. If we wanted to oppose injustice and stop suffering we would have to attack the current replacement government while also resisting the 'insurgents.' We would have to impose ourselves entirely on a country that doesn't want us there, and make them a U.S. protectorate under U.S. law. That's what 'saving the world via war' would mean. It would mean taking over every 'evil' place on Earth and imposing our system of government upon them. It means we become an Empire. Is that what you want?

They are the ones that can also stop it.
How?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
They are the ones that stepped this up to violence. They are the ones that can also stop it.

---

"Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia"
-Princess Bride

Chrisisall, wearing a frilly Mal thing on his head, and ready to shoot unarmed, full-body armoured Operatives

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
You total misunderstand my arguments. I think because you want to. I believe in human rights and laws, but acknowledge that both have limitation. If you take someone to court that you know is dangerous and they are set free and than kill people we would both call that a failure of the system. In you experience, had it been different and the police not interceded and a member of your family killed you would have called it a failure. The laws and human rights have limits unless you want them used against you.

In the end the number one job of the government is to protect it's people.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:

Hello,

I understand your arguments very well. Civil Liberties are fine until they become inconvenient, and then they must be set aside for the good of the citizenry.

Do you know who is at fault if a criminal escapes justice by virtue of a legal technicality?

The fault lies not with the law. The law is there to protect all people from abuse.

The fault rather lies with the investigators and prosecutors who bungled their jobs.

I live and breathe in this country every day under the assumption that the country is full of dangerous people who couldn't be incarcerated because they are protected from unjust incarceration and harassment by authorities.

But I also live and breathe hoping that those same laws which protect the villains will ALSO protect me and all good people from unjust incarceration and harassment by authorities.

I don't believe that civil liberties are for 'most of the time.' I believe they are for 'all of the time.' I also don't believe that revenge is a valid principle of government or a good reason for war.

---

Quote:

---

Change those laws and make things legal and you think we would not have these discussions?

---

Quote:

---

would also ask how are people protected when a dangerous person is get go because of a technical mistake?

---

Quote:

---

Civil liberties are taken away from people every day when they are convicted of crimes, so they are not absolute, or all of the time.

---

Quote:

---

You would take someone's life to protect yours or your families if you needed to. That is take everything from them. We are not on the opposite side of the spectrum, just different points of the same side.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
OK, I'm just a conspiracy idiot. I know nothing. Please disregard my posts. I am not the droid you're looking for.
Move along. Move along.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

I'm not saying that Chris...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

I'm not saying that Chris...

---

I know, I was just bowing out for a moment. I was expanding too much, and I felt I needed to contract a bit.

I *AM* an idiot, but then again aren't we all?


Chrisisall, wearing a frilly Mal thing on his head, and ready to shoot unarmed, full-body armoured Operatives

---

Cool.... I just was surprised at your response. I don't want to feel responsible for just shutting somebody down like that.

Contracting is a good thing occasionally. I think I was gone from this site for 2 or 3 years before I began posting here again. I know I still can make people here pretty pissed off at me and I can act pretty immature sometimes, but overall I think I did a lot of growing in that time off.

Don't let the Obama thing get you down man. We gotta think of ways to get a REAL candidate in the office again. Either way this race goes, we're not going to see that until at least 2016.

.... That is assuming that 2012 isn't really the end of the world

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
We gotta think of ways to get a REAL candidate in the office again. Either way this race goes, we're not going to see that until at least 2016.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
Hello,

Of course we would be having these discussions. Do you remember the discussions about the US conducting 'legal' torture?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:They are protected from unjust treatment by the government and legal authorities. That's the point. I'm not sure how you do not see it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:The laws regarding civil liberties include defining exactly when specific rights are and are not to be suspended. 'Convicted of Crime' is one of those specific criteria, and a basic protection against unjust treatment by government forces.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:I see you are trying to equivocate immediate self defense to preserve life to the concept of warfare and violating people's rights. I think you are confusing offense with defense, and I think you are playing fast and loose with the concept of 'if you needed to.'

The reason we are on opposite sides of this issue is not because only one of us wants to live and be free. The reason we are on opposite sides of this issue is because I think everyone deserves the exact same considerations I expect to receive myself. Even if I think they might be bad guys.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:Heck, I am not even content with the rights I have already, with government working hard to reduce them through terrible policies like the 'Patriot Act' under the premise of increasing Security. To deprive others of even that much consideration seems criminal to me.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Nick, I'm a little less hot-headed at the moment, let me make my case if you would.
I'm a long-term martial artist- been in it since Bruce Lee died. Bullied in grade school & Jr. High. Been in a few fights in my teens and early twenties (won them all after training), been threatened with violence many times since (a sincere yet provocative smile goes a long way I have found), so confrontation (on an admittedly small time scale) is no theory to me (but the basic principals apply when you magnify them IMO). If you bluster & brag, threaten & posture, you are a bully, plain & simple.
In matters of violence, you do AS LITTLE as necessary, AS RARELY as possible.
And say you're sorry after.

But the American Military Industrial Complex does what it wants to, when it wants to, and apologizes to no one.

Humility must have a place in confrontation, otherwise it's just the work of thugs. I have been a verbal thug on this thread. See how well it's worked?

Some people can be turned around, others are like mad dogs that need to be put down. Without compassion in either case, we become the puppets of the power junkies. Us vs. THEM. When in reality all through history it's been us vs. us, with a small minority at the top making out (a literal 'killing' you might say).

Yes, Saddam dead is a good thing. But how he got that way, the innocents that went with him in the cause, and the glee with which it was all received disgusts me.

In the end of Jr. High, I kicked the ass of the wrestling club bully who attacked me. I didn't HURT him, but I beat him. It's not always necessary to go 100% when 50 will do. And I didn't push it in his face later.

"Avoid, rather than check. Check, rather than hurt. Hurt, rather than maim. Maim, rather than kill. For all life is precious, nor can any be replaced."

Peace.

---

Quote:

---

It seems as if you are standing by the law as an absolute.

---

Quote:

---

Even if the police conduct a unlawful search and find evidence that brings them to catch a serial killer it is hard for me to say that person should go free because the police failed. Which is more right at that point, upholding the law to the letter or prventing another person from being killed.

---

Quote:

---

In the situations we are talking there is no thinking they are bad guys. They are, they will tell you that. Once they do and you are sure it is not rehtoric the best defence may very well be offence.

---

Quote:

---

There is always a fine line between rights and freedom, and saftey. As far as things like the patriot act we agree. The war in Afghanistan is just that, a war. That is a different ball game.

---

Quote:

---

In the end war should be a last resort.

---

Quote:

---

The thing is when it comes to that we can't ingore what it is or try and change it's nature.

---

Quote:

---

Well it is not because of the Military Industral Complex. They do fine with or without war. Even in peace time we still turn out new military equipment.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

War is not like talking on and beating a bully.
War is about winning, about achieving your goals.

---

Quote:

---

3 words for you. "Wulf for President"

---

Quote:

---

He that hath wife and children hath given hostages to fortune [or TPTB]..

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
CHRIS- I have this for you:

Quote:

---

He that hath wife and children hath given hostages to fortune [or TPTB]..

---

Francis Bacon

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
CHRIS- I have this for you:

Quote:

---

He that hath wife and children hath given hostages to fortune [or TPTB]..

---

Francis Bacon

---

That's why heroes have secret identities, I guess...

Chrisisall, wearing a frilly Mal thing on his head, and ready to shoot unarmed, full-body armoured Operatives

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:

Quote:

---

It seems as if you are standing by the law as an absolute.

---

Quote:

---

Even if the police conduct a unlawful search and find evidence that brings them to catch a serial killer it is hard for me to say that person should go free because the police failed. Which is more right at that point, upholding the law to the letter or prventing another person from being killed.

---

Hello,

You keep thinking of the law as some separate organism. The law exists because of the principles behind it. It is the principles of justice upon which I refuse to compromise. The law merely articulates those principles. A failed law is a law which fails to articulate our ideals. The laws you are describing are laws which successfully articulate our ideals.

Ignoring the law in these cases is ignoring the ideals on which they were founded. The ideals exist for a reason. Grasping up the murderer now, despite a violation of his rights, is a very short-sighted view. By doing so, you have enabled widespread abuses in the name of the 'greater good.' You have stopped one bad man and created countless more- in a position to abuse you and your rights.

Quote:

---

In the situations we are talking there is no thinking they are bad guys. They are, they will tell you that. Once they do and you are sure it is not rehtoric the best defence may very well be offence.

---

Amongst the certified bad guys we have in prison are included people who were wearing a digital watch I owned in High School. That is the evidence against them. Amongst the certified bad guys we had in prison are people who do not even have that much evidence against them. These are the ones we arrested and brought over. I leave you to speculate on those who reside below ground and in the company of worms.

After 9/11 there were people in the United States who would gladly tell you that we should reduce the mideast nations to glass. These are people telling you they are bad guys. Should they all be dead or in prison? Or is that the case only if they carry a firearm, defend their country from invasion, or buy Casio?

Quote:

---

There is always a fine line between rights and freedom, and saftey. As far as things like the patriot act we agree. The war in Afghanistan is just that, a war. That is a different ball game.

---

You only agree that the Patriot Act is a bad thing because it applies to you. You do not seem to mind the violations of rights that apply to others. I am not capable of separating my conception of personal rights from my conception of other people's rights. We are all people.

---

Quote:

---

So when the principles of justice are in conflict with the laws what do you do? That is what it comes down to. If you know that a person is guilty but can't prove that within the letter of the law what do you do? Does letting that person go serve the principles of justice?

---

Quote:

---

How the previous administration decided to detain people was crappy at best.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
Unfortunately, war has been our first response.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
What a terrible stance. If we were to give up on changing the nature of war, then our soldiers would take part in fully condoned rape, looting, open torture, and genocide. If we were to give up on changing the nature of war, then our enemies would be sitting on spikes on the roadside.

We must always try to change the nature of war and we must always strive to eliminate war.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
[Okay, I give up. I see your points and even agree with a few to a degree, but you seem fixated on the 'enemy' thing without consideration that had you been born there & not here, YOU'D BE one of those 'enemies' of which you now speak. Compartmentalization is a key element of denial.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
I wanted to comment on this. I encourage you to study military production of materiel in 1934 versus 1944 and tell me that the military industrial complex doesn't benefit a great deal more during a time of war.

I don't understand how you can even make such a statement. Our own leadership has commented on the danger of the military industrial complex and its hunger.

---

Quote:

---

With the current wars we did not see a ramping up of military major military equipment,

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
Yes, absolutely, letting them go serves the principles of justice.

You see, the principles of justice also exist to protect us from people who just 'know' that we are guilty of something... but have no way of proving it.

The principles of justice may *appear* to be at odds with the law when you can't get enough evidence to convict, but in reality they are well served. It is simply frustrating when the principles of justice and the law fail to serve our strong *feelings* on a matter.

The only time a law is a bad law is when it fails to serve the principles and ideals upon which it is based. Being able to incarcerate or convict people merely because you 'know' (without sufficient evidence) that they are bad would be a terrible law.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
Hello,

What a remarkable statement. Are you unaware of the massive procurement of vehicles to move infantry? Are you unaware of the massive procurement of additional armor for the battlefield? Are you unaware of orders for equipment that have been so large that manufacturers have sometimes struggled to keep up with demand? Can you really be unaware that the military industrial complex feeds off of every product of war, and not merely the icons of WWII?

Do you think because we are not building huge numbers of battleships and heavy cruisers that we are not feeding the military industrial complex?

---

Quote:

---

Yes we did need more armor and other things, but in the grand scale of what the military spends normally on procurement that is small potatoes.

---