From: "Antti Kurenniemi" 

"Geo."  wrote in message
news:3eaa845d$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> "Antti Kurenniemi" 
wrote in message
> news:3eaa23de$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>
> > > so then are these guys fair game?
> > > http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/terrorists/fugitives.htm
> >
> > Did they shoot at you?
>
> Yes if by "you" you mean americans. They bombed us too.

Did you read what that site says: "The alleged terrorists...". So
how do you know they did what they did? I am with you on that they very
likely are guilty, but that's not good enough IMO.


> > > I could use that same line of reasoning to argue against any type of
> > > war.
> >
> > Exactly.
>
> What happens to your line of reasoning when you discover someone, a group,
> is trying to kill you and members of your country. Do you stick with the
> same argument and let them do as they like to you or do you set the
argument
> aside as a peace time argument and practice war until the threat is gone?

No, I defend myself. As I said, defensive war when you are being attacked
is not wrong, but that has what to do with torturing individuals?


> Ok fictitious example time, so lets say tomorrow at noon a nuclear device
> goes off in a major city there. That's all you know about it at the time.
> Weeks later you find out it was OBL's doing and you find out that he is
> hiding in Syria.
>
> What do you do now?

Tell the Syrian government to surrender him. It's not Syria who did it, so
attacking Syria isn't right.



> > I think it's important for us to stay above that. I think it's important
> to
> > not only focus on the here and now, but to think of what sort of world
we
> > leave behind. I don't want a world where if I plant a bomb, and then
make
> an
> > anonymous call saying it was your son who did it, then your son might
end
> up
> > being tortured. Questioned, yes, and then found innocent, but not
tortured
> > and then found innocent and this close to being dead.
>
> I'm not talking about torturing everyone you capture who you suspect might
> have information. But I do believe there are times where the need and the
> expectations are such that it becomes a valid tool in the fight against
> terror.

So exactly where is the line drawn? And who gets to decide these things?
How do you make sure that that someone doesn't use his power wrong, or
isn't an idiot? How do you make sure that someone, who has this sort of
power, doesn't use it for their own purposes (corruption)? If torture is
allowed based on suspicion, then that suspicion must be defined beyond any
doubt - and that, I believe, is impossible, because we are talking about
humans here.


> As an example, lets say when they went to grab my son they found him in an
> apartment building in NYC with al Qaeda materials on bomb building and a
few
> bomb components all over his apartment, 15 empty sleeping bags and other
> signs that there were more people there than just him and he was covered
in
> radio active dust but you can't find the source. Oh and when you arrested
> him he smiled and told you that you infidels were too late..
>
> Talk or it's the comfy chair?

Student prank? Maybe the kid (feels strange talking about your son, so I'll
just kall him "the kid") is just on crack, and thinks he's being
funny?


> I mean lets get real here, when faced with the fight for survival
> there are no rules. That doesn't mean you live your life without
> rules but it does mean there are times when survival overrules
> everything else.

Exactly. You fight for survival in a war, when someone attacks you. The US
is not under any sort of attack, there is just a *possibility* that someone
*might* attack at some point - or then again that someone might not. Now how
is that fighting for your survival?


Antti Kurenniemi
(oh and these examples are silly, because they are too "easy".
Think about real life: you'll never find someone covererd with radioactive
dust with al qaeda handbooks, calling you an infidel... those people are
crazy as hell but even they are not *that* stupid (unfortunately))

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4