Headline is funny
gets +1 for limerick
would +1 again

If the headline thing doesn't work out for you subby, you can get a job warming up the crowd at a burlesque house. Ah, who am I kidding, it's working out for you. But keep your options open (and invest in a spinning tie. Or a pimp cane, a'la Dolemite).

Bit of a stretch, but I'll still give a +1.

This should lead to a calm and rational discussion once it goes green.

Confessions given under torture wont hold up in court? Whodathunkit?

Eh +1 to follow the crowd. It's too bad we won't see a media shiat storm over this.

Only on Fark, (who am I kidding, not only here) would someone apply the hero tag in regard to captured terrorists getting treated well. The world truly is inside out and upside down.

I guess the moral of this story for future operations against irregulars and terrorists will be: Get what info you can out of them then summarily execute them.

Then you are spared all this hand wringing.

/the law of unintended consequences.

Look at that picture... I mean, who could really prosecute someone with a smile like that anyway?

Execute the worthless Farker and let's move on.

Impudent Domain:

Get what info you can out of them then summarily execute them.



/ agrees
// no trial, no reports to file

mattknows

What about all those people who were released that were not terrorists? I don't think, "oops sorry," will make them feel any better.

If only there were a way to label prisoners captured during a war so that they don't fall under the american legizlation.

/Hint, not "enemy combatant"

Well done subby, well done.

mattknows: Only on Fark, (who am I kidding, not only here) would someone apply the hero tag in regard to captured terrorists getting treated well. The world truly is inside out and upside down.

Yea, that's really F'd up. If someone is in Git'mo, there is probably a reason and they probably belong there.
This needs a Florida tag.

mattknows: Only on Fark, (who am I kidding, not only here) would someone apply the hero tag in regard to captured terrorists getting treated well. The world truly is inside out and upside down.

Actually, I can think of one other place.



/Those vile traitorous terrorists
//Wait, they're WHO?

that was pretty good
and i think it was Maxxlarge
i know it was you and your limericks!!!

mattknows: Only on Fark, (who am I kidding, not only here) would someone apply the hero tag in regard to captured terrorists getting treated well.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter.

Also, it is beholden on us - as The Good Guys - to behave better than they do.

I don't know why people get so upset over torture. As the government is the arbiter of morality, it means we get to do it, too. And haven't you ever wanted to extract the truth out of someone you don't like?

FTFA:

Also FTFA:

So the U.S. Government is asserting that someone with a 4th grade education was useful in outwitting our soldiers? Why does the Administration hate and insult the military?

aww the poor terrorists got roughed up....fark em

What about the former detainee that just blew himself up and killed the US soldiers? Or the other 50 that have been killed in combat with US troops?

funny right?

Subby you are a complete tool

mattknows: Only on Fark, (who am I kidding, not only here) would someone apply the hero tag in regard to captured terrorists getting treated well. The world truly is inside out and upside down.

Uh, I think the hero tag was for the Judge, not the accused. But you knew that and are just trolling, right?

Nice, you got his driver.

Who's next? His maid? Stableboy?

Seriously, after 7 years, you round up A DRIVER? Come on, people.

Reminds me of this news story from last week. The British government no longer trusts the US not to torture prisoners, which may mean we can no longer extradite certain prisoners there.

RubberFootMan: mattknows: Only on Fark, (who am I kidding, not only here) would someone apply the hero tag in regard to captured terrorists getting treated well.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter.

Also, it is beholden on us - as The Good Guys - to behave better than they do.
No. A freedom fighter aims at soldiers.
A terrorist aims as civilians.
Learn the difference.

Connan The Trollarian: It seems like every once in a while judges offer up reasonable rulings.
Too bad we didn't have one of those reasonable judges in this case.

i didnt realise that you americans still had trials for accused criminals.

Torture .... it's what Jesus would do!

You know, if the Bush administration wanted these courts to go smoothly they should have staffed them with ITGs instead of real jurists and advocates. Then the detainees would have had the evidence for and against them duly considered and a guilty verdict would have been rendered in due course.

AppleDane:
Seriously, after 7 years, you round up A DRIVER? Come on, people.

How 'bout the guy that eluded the FBI for years right here in the USA? Only had a GED and a couple semesters of college. His name is Eric Rudolph (new window)

I can't wait to hear the judge's comments when it's Omar Khadr's turn to get a trial...

AppleDane: Nice, you got his driver.

Who's next? His maid? Stableboy?

Seriously, after 7 years, you round up A DRIVER? Come on, people.

But he was the driver... OF DOOOOOM!!! (dramatic segue music here)

Connan The Trollarian: Biv: RubberFootMan: mattknows: Only on Fark, (who am I kidding, not only here) would someone apply the hero tag in regard to captured terrorists getting treated well.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter.

Also, it is beholden on us - as The Good Guys - to behave better than they do.
No. A freedom fighter aims at soldiers.
A terrorist aims as civilians.
Learn the difference.

Connan The Trollarian: It seems like every once in a while judges offer up reasonable rulings.
Too bad we didn't have one of those reasonable judges in this case.

Here is an idea, if we weren't over there killing them and burning their cities they may have not chosen to engage us in terrorists activities. Shocking, I know.

I guess they might have, out of bordem, decided to attack the leading super power out for no reason, but what do I know....

Keep listening to the monkey, and Israel.

How about if they didn't behave like savages we wouldn't have to?

Wonder if they gave him the cock meat sandwich

AppleDane: Nice, you got his driver.

Who's next? His maid? Stableboy?

A driver that happened to be carrying two surface to air missiles in his vehicle that was headed to the front when he was detained.

/Heard it on NPR

Biv: One man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter.

Also, it is beholden on us - as The Good Guys - to behave better than they do.

No. A freedom fighter aims at soldiers.
A terrorist aims as civilians.
Learn the difference.

Ok, so you addressed my remark about freedom-fighters, but what about us behaving like the good guys we pretend to be.

Klund: If only there were a way to label prisoners captured during a war so that they don't fall under the american legizlation.

/Hint, not "enemy combatant"

If it was really a war, you'd be right, but it ain't. It's simply a bunch of criminals. A la the Joker and his henchmen.

/Yes, I liked the new Batman movie.

Biv

How about if they didn't behave like savages we wouldn't have to?

I am sure you could find an excuse to behave like savages as always, even without their help.

The driver. No evidence that he even killed a single person, helped plan a single attack, nothing. Just the driver.

I guess he helped him escape? So did the US military in Tora Bora. Do we put them on trial for that?

This is our terrorist bogeyman? The person we choose to bring before the world as an example? One of the "bad guys"? Even Capone's accountant wasn't considered a mobster.

PATHETIC

veedeevadeevoodee: Impudent Domain:

Get what info you can out of them then summarily execute them.

/ agrees
// no trial, no reports to file

Yay let's summarily execute everyone accused of a crime yay!

Cause if they're in prison they must have done SOMETHING wrong, right?

Biv
No. A freedom fighter aims at soldiers.
A terrorist aims as civilians.
Learn the difference.

So Steven Green, PFC 101st Airborne was a terrorist, right?

RubberFootMan: mattknows: Only on Fark, (who am I kidding, not only here) would someone apply the hero tag in regard to captured terrorists getting treated well.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter.

Also, it is beholden on us - as The Good Guys - to behave better than they do.

Ronald Ray-gun's freedom fighter, to be precise. (new window)

Biv:

No. A freedom fighter aims at soldiers.
A terrorist aims as civilians.
Learn the difference.

Lol. You should be saying this to the torture supporter from earlier in the thread:

Ima10urin8: aww the poor terrorists got roughed up....fark em

What about the former detainee that just blew himself up and killed the US soldiers? Or the other 50 that have been killed in combat with US troops?

See Ima10urin8:, those guys are freedom fighters, not terrorists.

palandor: If someone is in Git'mo, there is probably a reason and they probably belong there.

Sorry, sarcasm meter must be broken...

What legal justification did the judge have? He can't be applying the fifth amendment because Miranda would require much broader suppression. Maybe it's just a subjective notion of what's fair to allow.

PC LOAD LETTER: The driver. No evidence that he even killed a single person, helped plan a single attack, nothing. Just the driver.

I guess he helped him escape? So did the US military in Tora Bora. Do we put them on trial for that?

This is our terrorist bogeyman? The person we choose to bring before the world as an example? One of the "bad guys"? Even Capone's accountant wasn't considered a mobster.

PATHETIC

My feelings exactly. You can't start prosecuting anybody remotely connected to a criminal.

At the moment we're just torturing suspected terrorists.

But in the future, who knows? It might lead to torturing American citizens who are suspected of "terrorism."

I sure hope that day comes.

Biv:
No. A freedom fighter aims at soldiers.
A terrorist aims as civilians.
Learn the difference.


please see the IRA.

fighting hostile invading troops in your own country is not terrorism. sorry guys.

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: Klund: If only there were a way to label prisoners captured during a war so that they don't fall under the american legizlation.

/Hint, not "enemy combatant"

If it was really a war, you'd be right, but it ain't. It's simply a bunch of criminals. A la the Joker and his henchmen.

/Yes, I liked the new Batman movie.

I partly agree with that ;)

I think it's ironic (call the irony police) that if they had labeled them POW's instead of , this charade would have not been necessery. But nooo they had to label them something odd so the Red Cross and the Geneva rules would not apply.

AppleDane: Seriously, after 7 years, you round up A DRIVER? Come on, people.

Really. After WWII we were rounding up and trying suspected war criminals. And now we can't find one scrawny guy with third-world technology at his disposal? How the mighty have fallen.

ZAZ: What legal justification did the judge have? He can't be applying the fifth amendment because Miranda would require much broader suppression. Maybe it's just a subjective notion of what's fair to allow.

Perhaps he, like any other right-thinking individual, decided that it is immoral to torture people.

Besides, if you torture someone until they tell you what you want to hear - how reliable is the evidence?

The hero tag disgusts me. You should brush up on your war history and see how spies and those falling under what is now described as an enemy combatant were treated during the days of our founding fathers. I used to think it was just confusion or idiocy but now I really think some are happy to see the terrorists win.

Whitewabbit: fighting hostile invading troops in your own country is not terrorism. sorry guys.

this.. x100

Rethorn: mattknows: Only on Fark, (who am I kidding, not only here) would someone apply the hero tag in regard to captured terrorists getting treated well. The world truly is inside out and upside down.

Actually, I can think of one other place.

/Those vile traitorous terrorists
//Wait, they're WHO?

That may not be as accurate as you would have hoped. After all that is the group that largely put in the constitution that you had to be a born citizen (after a cut off date) largely to stop a single specific person from ever being president. This is also just about 100 years after the salem witch trials, and there were 1700s trials of a similar nature.

And look at the 1778-1779 Philly treason trials, where 23 were tried, 4 convicted, and at a time when the jury largely did what they do today, "you wouldnt be charged if you werent really guilty", so it was amazing that only 4 got convicted. Some would argue that it was defence lawyer trickery that caused the acquital of the majority. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1108443

joe90: Biv:
No. A freedom fighter aims at soldiers.
A terrorist aims as civilians.
Learn the difference.

please see the IRA.

Thanks, I was waiting for someone to make the connection.

sepuku2:
A driver that happened to be carrying two surface to air missiles in his vehicle that was headed to the front when he was detained. /Heard it on NPR

Let's say that's true. How does that make him a war criminal or someone deserving of a life sentence? He sounds like a soldier carrying out his orders. I don't think we have ever prosecuted foreign soldiers for that kind of stuff.

\\\ I understand why we would hold this guy and even why we would torture him in the month's following his capture(because of his position and knowledge of OBL's actions).

I just don't understand why we would attempt to prosecture him.

Jeremy Bates: At the moment we're just torturing suspected terrorists.

But in the future, who knows? It might lead to torturing American citizens who are suspected of "terrorism."

I sure hope that day comes.

You think FISA and the Patriot Act are really for catching foreign terrorists? They are in place to get Americans who might want to band together and use their 2nd Amendment rights to overthrow a corrupt US Government.

mattknows: Only on Fark, (who am I kidding, not only here) would someone apply the hero tag in regard to captured terrorists getting treated well. The world truly is inside out and upside down.

Right, so we shouldn't expect to see your simpleton ass ranting and raving on Fark the next time a US soldier is captured, tortured, and executed by the "terrorists"?

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: You think FISA and the Patriot Act are really for catching foreign terrorists? They are in place to get Americans who might want to band together and use their 2nd Amendment rights to overthrow a corrupt US Government.

1. Only idiots believe they could actually overthrow the US Government with their puny little 2nd Amendment. If they weren't utterly and totally moronic, they would have realized that exercising their other rights before it got to the point they needed guns could have solved a lot of problems. But no, they're too short-sighted to comprehend something like that.

2. I hope it happens, because let's face it: Americans are farking retarded. Because of the dumbass choices they've made, they deserve to live in a fascist state for the next, oh, 40 years. fark Americans. I hope they suffer and die.

AndreMA: FTFA:Hamdan [has] a fourth-grade education [...]Also FTFA:They say he [...] helped bin Laden escape U.S. retribution following the Sept. 11 attacks.

So the U.S. Government is asserting that someone with a 4th grade education was useful in outwitting our soldiers? Why does the Administration hate and insult the military?

That isnt quite what they are saying, but it tells a lot about you to read it that way. A 4th grade education is an academic achievement, ok so the guy did not goto a formal school and learn reading, riting and rithmetic, or the "3 rs" as they are sometimes called. That does not mean that as a driver he did not know the lay of the land, useful in evading capture. Did not have the ability to help, an undefined term as to the extent of his help, evading capture, for all I know help was driving him away to a secret mountain location, something a person with a 4th grade education could certainly do.

How many get away drivers have low education levels but still manage to get away? How many drivers in drive by shootings have low education levels but still manage to operate the car well enough to participate in drive bys, and oh yeah evade capture? The fact that the driver wasnt college educated does not speak much about those chasing after him.

The fact that he got caught by the very military forces you are insulting and apparently hate, shows that they can capture him, and that much is something the government claims, despite your protests to the opposite.

JasonOfOrillia: Biv
No. A freedom fighter aims at soldiers.
A terrorist aims as civilians.
Learn the difference.

So Steven Green, PFC 101st Airborne was a terrorist, right?

Intent. Did he rape and murder the girl or her family to terrorize the Iraqi people, or to get his own sick jollies? The other difference is that the majority of Americans are sickened by such atrocities, and that we don't hold him up as a shining example of our culture, unlike what often happens with terrorists who martyr themselves.

Well, if you're all for torture of prisoners, then what the Vietnamese did to McCain is A-OK. And so is what happened to Nick Berg.

You can't be against torture when it's done to us, and then for it when it's convenient.

HomerButt: Well, if you're all for torture of prisoners, then what the Vietnamese did to McCain is A-OK. And so is what happened to Nick Berg.

You can't be against torture when it's done to us, and then for it when it's convenient.

actually, i think you'll find from looking around that some people can be.

HomerButt:
You can't be against torture when it's done to us, and then for it when it's convenient.

Why not?

joe90: Whitewabbit: fighting hostile invading troops in your own country is not terrorism. sorry guys.

this.. x100

so as a native american that gives me a green light on any pale faces in the US right? Or is this statement going to have a ton of clauses added to it to suggest that europeans were not hostile when going to north america, and that they were not invading.

==========break from political BS=============

Shiatmo is what happens when you eat here:



==========carry on with political BS============

RubberFootMan: joe90: Biv:
No. A freedom fighter aims at soldiers.
A terrorist aims as civilians.
Learn the difference.

please see the IRA.

Thanks, I was waiting for someone to make the connection.

some would consider the ira a proper army, after all there was a civil war that preceeded that. Armies are not even listed as a choice, so if you shoot at anyone you are either a freedom fighter or terrorist, there is no other option. That also requires backwards logic to say that if you shoot someone you must be one of those two, because those two shoot at people.

come on.

trixter_nl: so as a native american that gives me a green light on any pale faces in the US right? Or is this statement going to have a ton of clauses added to it to suggest that europeans were not hostile when going to north america, and that they were not invading.

Didn't you guys put up a fight at the time?

The Limerick Formula:

There once was a [person] from [place]
Whose [body part] was [special case].
When [event] would occur,
It would cause [him or her]
To violate [law of time/space].

Get with the program people.

I imagine the hero tag is for the judge but the jingoist idiots don't care about that ...

trixter_nl: joe90: Whitewabbit: fighting hostile invading troops in your own country is not terrorism. sorry guys.

this.. x100

so as a native american that gives me a green light on any pale faces in the US right?

no. that would be murder. im surprised and a little disappointed that you are having trouble telling the difference between say afghanistan and the us. i should point out that im not advocating letting known hostiles do whatever they want, but that calling them terrorists is a massive stretch of the word.

crapulence: The hero tag disgusts me. You should brush up on your war history and see how spies and those falling under what is now described as an enemy combatant were treated during the days of our founding fathers.

People also used to burn witches, keep slaves, and hunt Indians for sport. Not everything from back then was a good thing.

I used to think it was just confusion or idiocy but now I really think some are happy to see the terrorists win.

That's the most retarded thing I've ever read. I mean, why would a liberal who likes to drink and smoke and have sex want the terrorists to win? Why would a homosexual or a woman want to live under Sharia law?

I don't want "the terrorists" to "win" just like you. But I don't want to do it by denying their rights. It doesn't feel like a victory if we play dirty.

Malinki: How 'bout the guy that eluded the FBI for years right here in the USA? Only had a GED and a couple semesters of college. His name is Eric Rudolph (new window)

He wouldn't have lasted so long without sympathizing locals helping him, which only underscores the value of "enhanced" interrogation techniques in Iraq. Like those hiding insurgents, if we had waterboarded the fundamentalists in North Carolina, they would have sold him out in no time.

trixter_nl: joe90: Whitewabbit: fighting hostile invading troops in your own country is not terrorism. sorry guys.

this.. x100

so as a native american that gives me a green light on any pale faces in the US right? Or is this statement going to have a ton of clauses added to it to suggest that europeans were not hostile when going to north america, and that they were not invading.

what are you on about? No-one called Native Americans terrorists and then executed them.. They just executed them because they were farking idiots, and it was a slightly different time period. Why stop there, let go back to cave man tribes, fighting over fertile swamp land?

crapulence: The hero tag disgusts me. You should brush up on your war history and see how spies and those falling under what is now described as an enemy combatant were treated during the days of our founding fathers. I used to think it was just confusion or idiocy but now I really think some are happy to see the terrorists win.

Jingoist idiot #5 ...

joe90: Whitewabbit: fighting hostile invading troops in your own country is not terrorism. sorry guys.

this.. x100

That would be great if they were actually from the countries they are fighting in, the majority of them aren't. An they are currently attacking civilians at markets and police recruiting stations. I think that pretty much makes them terrorists. I also wouldn't dare to compare what was done by the North Vietnamese to what might be happening at gitmo. Hell most are gaining weight since they are finally getting a nutritionally balanced/islam friendly diet.

Molavian: JasonOfOrillia: Biv
No. A freedom fighter aims at soldiers.
A terrorist aims as civilians.
Learn the difference.

So Steven Green, PFC 101st Airborne was a terrorist, right?

Intent. Did he rape and murder the girl or her family to terrorize the Iraqi people, or to get his own sick jollies? The other difference is that the majority of Americans are sickened by such atrocities, and that we don't hold him up as a shining example of our culture, unlike what often happens with terrorists who martyr themselves.

This whole subthread is all based on false logic. If someone attacks someone else that does not make them either a freedom fighter or a terrorist. There are others that do these types of things, common criminals come to mind.

The fact that a difference between two groups was mentioned does not mean that everyone who does the actions those two do is a member.

to be a freedom fighter, you actually have to fight for freedom, just shooting a soldier is not enough. To be a terrorist you have to have to use terror as a weapon against whomever it is that you are against. Freedom fighters can be terrorists, terrorists can be freedom fighters, one is not noble while the other merely a villian.

And remember the founding fathers of the US were considered both freedom fighters and terrorists (they refused to follow the "rules of war" of the day, attacked people they werent supposed to, generally war criminals).

It's nice that the Bush legacy is being torn down before he's even out of office. We've got that going for us.

RubberFootMan 2008-07-22 07:42:37 AM
mattknows: Only on Fark, (who am I kidding, not only here) would someone apply the hero tag in regard to captured terrorists getting treated well.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter.

Also, it is beholden on us - as The Good Guys - to behave better than they do.

"tis the logic of these times,
no subject for immortal verse
That we who live by honest means
Defend the bad, against the worse"

trixter_nl: some would consider the ira a proper army, after all there was a civil war that preceeded that. Armies are not even listed as a choice, so if you shoot at anyone you are either a freedom fighter or terrorist, there is no other option.

The first use of Freedom Fighter in this thread was:

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter."

It wasn't an either/or option.

Man, look at the guy in the picture. He looks SO MUCH like he was just put in on the road to stall the pursuit.

"Right, the Americans will be here in 10 minutes. Mohammed, get the truck and load it up."
"Yes sir, Osama, Sir!"
"Mehmed, you scout ahead in the jeep"
"Will do, Osama!"
"Osman, you.. um.. You sit around here and give the Americans a good, honest fight!"
"Yes, I w... What?"
"Show them what the Mujahedin are made of! Here, have some rockets."
"But..."
"Best of luck. We out."
"Guys?! Hey! You forgot to give me a launcher! Guys?!"

crapulence: joe90: Whitewabbit: fighting hostile invading troops in your own country is not terrorism. sorry guys.

this.. x100

That would be great if they were actually from the countries they are fighting in, the majority of them aren't. An they are currently attacking civilians at markets and police recruiting stations. I think that pretty much makes them terrorists.

well then, they should be arrested and given a trial in the country in which they broke the laws. they break iraqi law, they should answer to iraqi courts. but that doesnt change my statement. defending your home is not terrorism, this is not an example of defending yourself.

I also wouldn't dare to compare what was done by the North Vietnamese to what might be happening at gitmo.

luckily nobody has.

Hell most are gaining weight since they are finally getting a nutritionally balanced/islam friendly diet.

*blink*

oh right, they're better off in gitmo. isnt america grand?

Jeremy Bates: 2. I hope it happens, because let's face it: Americans are farking retarded. Because of the dumbass choices they've made, they deserve to live in a fascist state for the next, oh, 40 years. fark Americans. I hope they suffer and die.

Puhleeze. Your nihilistic ravings are growing tiresome. Seek help from a professional, you unhinged turd cutter.

crapulence: joe90: Whitewabbit: fighting hostile invading troops in your own country is not terrorism. sorry guys.

this.. x100

That would be great if they were actually from the countries they are fighting in, the majority of them aren't. An they are currently attacking civilians at markets and police recruiting stations. I think that pretty much makes them terrorists. I also wouldn't dare to compare what was done by the North Vietnamese to what might be happening at gitmo. Hell most are gaining weight since they are finally getting a nutritionally balanced/islam friendly diet.

Ok, i see your point.. but thats not in every case, this guy may have been driving some rpgs to the 'front line' (to shoot at the US army) does that make him a terrorist? Its the sweeping generalization that pisses me off.

/Just look at his smiley face.. honestly, hes not a death at all kind of guy. Though i suspect this Gimto treatment has changed that.

RubberFootMan: trixter_nl: so as a native american that gives me a green light on any pale faces in the US right? Or is this statement going to have a ton of clauses added to it to suggest that europeans were not hostile when going to north america, and that they were not invading.

Didn't you guys put up a fight at the time?

I didnt, I am not nearly that old. But the question remains if, as the person I responded to indicated, an invading hostile force is all that it takes to make it so if you attack someone you are not a terrorist, does that not give me the right to attack any european type person I see fit to attack? Perhaps even anywhere on the globe.

And not all nations fought, some tried their luck in court, they were told they werent white so they didnt count (Cherokee nation, of which I am a citizen did this) they then were moved in a forced death march (trail of tears) to be relocated yet again after contract after contract entered into in good faith was broken. They tried the method through the courts, going as far as the supreme court in some cases, they tried the method of negotiation, ya know what obama is proposing, they tried the method of "yeah just do what they say they have guns" and many died. Many lost their ancestral lands, many ...

The tricks used like giving blankets infested with small pox just to kill off people faster, raping their women, burning their homes, having money paid for heads/scalps, these are the things that the government did, and I personally would consider that a "hostile force" and "invading".

So does this give me the right, or is the right to not be a terrorist if you attack a "hostile invading force" only apply to some and not to others?

useing viet nam as an example really doesn't help your arguement. unfortunately, the driver falls into the same category as police of america.... just doing his job. really these days it would amaze you how an interpretation of the patriot act and fisa would classify you as a terrorist. YOU may not think you are doing anything wrong.... but big brother is watching.... the trial of the driver is just a big dog and pony show- and this thread is a fine example of how its destractive power can take hold... now then, you righties and lefties can return to your namecalling.

Whitewabbit: trixter_nl: joe90: Whitewabbit: fighting hostile invading troops in your own country is not terrorism. sorry guys.

this.. x100

so as a native american that gives me a green light on any pale faces in the US right?

no. that would be murder. im surprised and a little disappointed that you are having trouble telling the difference between say afghanistan and the us. i should point out that im not advocating letting known hostiles do whatever they want, but that calling them terrorists is a massive stretch of the word.

so if I planned, caused or otherwise brought about the deaths of thousands of civilians over a 20 year period all over the globe, I wouldnt be a terrorist?

You seem to think that there is a difference between the two groups, and I am curious what that difference is. Is it race? Is it geography? Just what would make one a non-terrorist and the other a terrorist? Or is no one a terrorist ever?

trixter_nl: But the question remains if, as the person I responded to indicated, an invading hostile force is all that it takes to make it so if you attack someone you are not a terrorist, does that not give me the right to attack any european type person I see fit to attack? Perhaps even anywhere on the globe.

dont be so bloody stupid. just because someone is not a terrorist does not mean they have a right to do whatever they damn well please. it is also possible to be a terrorist and defend your home, but defending your home does not make you a terrorist.

the world is not black and white, there are more types of people than "terrorists" and "saints"

trixter_nl:
[shameful behaviour trimmed]

So does this give me the right, or is the right to not be a terrorist if you attack a "hostile invading force" only apply to some and not to others?

You have the 'right' to be a terrorist, just s they do in Iraq. You can even call yourself a freedom-fighter.

christ, i didnt think it would be that hard to understand the statement: "defending your home does not make you a terrorist" apparently i was wrong.

I also join the +1 crowd. I loves me a limerick.

/there once was a man from Nantucket...

I'm of two minds on this. On one hand, there's the drooling savage within me that says "treat them like they'd treat us, even if any one of them is totally innocent." On the other hand, the actual human being within me says "One of the reasons these animals can recruit so readily is because they have propagandized for years that a Muslim cannot get fair treatment from the USA. Let's prove them wrong and take the risk inherent in doing what is moral."

trixter_nl: And not all nations fought, some tried their luck in court, they were told they werent white so they didnt count (Cherokee nation, of which I am a citizen did this)

The Cherokee Nation won their Supreme Court case. Andrew Jackson said "Let the Supreme Court enforce it then". He defied the court and ordered the removal anyway. Read some history of your own people sometime. Their were plenty of whites that were on the side of the Cherokee and against removal. The governors of Alabama and Georgia wanted to seize their lands and at the time States were still a powerful force. Jackson knew that the Cherokee would be slaughtered by the State Militias and the Fedral Army at the time was too small to stop them. So he removed the tribes by force.

/1/8th Cherokee

Whitewabbit: christ, i didnt think it would be that hard to understand the statement: "defending your home does not make you a terrorist" apparently i was wrong.

You have to take into account you are dealing with people whose brains are the size of a peanut.

JasonOfOrillia: Biv
No. A freedom fighter aims at soldiers.
A terrorist aims as civilians.
Learn the difference.

So Steven Green, PFC 101st Airborne was a terrorist, right?

Dude raped a 14 year old girl and then killed her whole family. I wouldn't call him a terrorist, I'd call him a scumbag who deserves a bullet and an unmarked grave.

Klund: If only there were a way to label prisoners captured during a war so that they don't fall under the american legizlation.

/Hint, not "enemy combatant"

It's also not "Prisoner of War", given that someone designated "Prisoner of War" is actually granted more protections than is an ordinary arrestee in the USA, due to our signatory status in the Geneva Conventions. After 1949, even francs-tireur are granted POW status. The USA has also affirmed that lack of signatory status by the other side does not exempt a member state of the Conventions from its obligations and limits.

The reason that "enemy combatant" was chosen by the current administration is that it has no actual legal definition. "Prisoner of War" has a lot of legal follow-alongs. Taking them in as ordinary criminals would mean that they would have already entered the conventional justice system of either the USA or the country in which they were captured.

Silly_Sot: I'm of two minds on this. On one hand, there's the drooling savage within me that says "treat them like they'd treat us, even if any one of them is totally innocent." On the other hand, the actual human being within me says "One of the reasons these animals can recruit so readily is because they have propagandized for years that a Muslim cannot get fair treatment from the USA. Let's prove them wrong and take the risk inherent in doing what is moral."

Your first mind is the absolute cause of the problem. As long as people talk about "them", justice will never be served. The judicial system is designed to be exactly NOT about "them", but to judge individuals for their own personal actions.

It's the us vs them mentality which allows war to exist in the first place, and as long as there are some of us and some of them, it will pepetuate itself endlessly and pointlessly.

Treat everyone equally, allow everyone the dignity of being held responsible for their own actions. Who knows, one day the favor might be returned.

Biv: RubberFootMan: mattknows: Only on Fark, (who am I kidding, not only here) would someone apply the hero tag in regard to captured terrorists getting treated well.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter.

Also, it is beholden on us - as The Good Guys - to behave better than they do.
No. A freedom fighter aims at soldiers.
A terrorist aims as civilians.
Learn the difference.

And the guys at Gitmo were caught while aiming at soldiers...

what_now: Dude raped a 14 year old girl and then killed her whole family.

Other way around. He killed her family in front of her (including her 3 year old sister) then, after she saw all this and was totally alone in the world raped her. (Gang raped her, in fact) Then killed her, then burned her body.

The military has capital punishment, but *suprise* this guy didn't get it.

shiat, what DO you have to do to get it.

Persepolis: what_now: Dude raped a 14 year old girl and then killed her whole family.

Other way around. He killed her family in front of her (including her 3 year old sister) then, after she saw all this and was totally alone in the world raped her. (Gang raped her, in fact) Then killed her, then burned her body.

The military has capital punishment, but *suprise* this guy didn't get it.

shiat, what DO you have to do to get it.

Wear a pink tutu and prance around like a fairy? Be an atheist? I dunno.

Silly_Sot: Biv: RubberFootMan: mattknows: Only on Fark, (who am I kidding, not only here) would someone apply the hero tag in regard to captured terrorists getting treated well.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter.

Also, it is beholden on us - as The Good Guys - to behave better than they do.
No. A freedom fighter aims at soldiers.
A terrorist aims as civilians.
Learn the difference.

And the guys at Gitmo were caught while aiming at soldiers...

And you know this how?

/dude has a brain the size of a peanut

Wow
The level of moral relativism so far is startling. But I guess it's only wrong when liberals do it.

They guy is the enemy, not a mastermind, but he is the enemy.

Nuke him from orbit, it is the only way to be sure.

/so many losers and wussies in this thread defending this garbage.

It's often the judges who are first to officially say something is wrong. In this case, they know international law and they know they could be held complicit in previous torture regimens.

Radavan is the future cell-mate of guys like Rumsfeld, Miller, Cheney, Yoo, etc. It's too bad our laws won't be able to punish them but international law and courts can get our war criminals prosecuted and jailed.

palandor: Yea, that's really F'd up. If someone is in Git'mo, there is probably a reason and they probably belong there.

This. They eventually freed hundreds of innocent inmates after several years of internement, torture, etc. No other country would have treated them that well. They would have just kept them there indefinitely without trial to avoid embarrassment. America is the sole bastion of justice in this world.

This thread is stupid, we've had this discussion before. Let's do limericks instead.

I think these are going to be the most boring trial transcripts on the face of the planet and it angers me.

Who wants to read "Mr Hamdan (redacted) was (redacted) (redacted) on (redacted) within (redacted). Mr Hamdan then (redacted) (redacted) (redacted) goat herder."?

Mr Logo: palandor: Yea, that's really F'd up. If someone is in Git'mo, there is probably a reason and they probably belong there.

This. They eventually freed hundreds of innocent inmates after several years of internement, torture, etc. No other country would have treated them that well. They would have just kept them there indefinitely without trial to avoid embarrassment. America is the sole bastion of justice in this world.

Consider my gob well and truly smacked. 11/10, perfect troll. Would read again.

Persepolis: Other way around. He killed her family in front of her (including her 3 year old sister) then, after she saw all this and was totally alone in the world raped her. (Gang raped her, in fact) Then killed her, then burned her body.

The military has capital punishment, but *suprise* this guy didn't get it.

shiat, what DO you have to do to get it.

I think he's being prosecuted as a civilian, and they are seeking the death penalty.

joe90: trixter_nl: joe90: Whitewabbit: fighting hostile invading troops in your own country is not terrorism. sorry guys.

this.. x100

so as a native american that gives me a green light on any pale faces in the US right? Or is this statement going to have a ton of clauses added to it to suggest that europeans were not hostile when going to north america, and that they were not invading.

what are you on about? No-one called Native Americans terrorists and then executed them.. They just executed them because they were farking idiots, and it was a slightly different time period. Why stop there, let go back to cave man tribes, fighting over fertile swamp land?

You should do some reading, particularly in unbiased non-racist history. They werent idiots, and if I recall correctly it was the native americans that fed the pilgrims which ended up starting the thanksgiving tradition in america. Ya know cause the europeans couldnt find enough food and the natives helped em out trying to be a good sport.

They were executed first and foremost over money, secondary to that was their skin colour. They had the land, they had the resources, all the things that England wanted shipped back (and taxes paid locally on). Of great importance was timber and kerosene (obtained largely from cooking conifer trees and important in the tar mix used in ship building).

And to say it was a different time, I dont think that it was so different legally in the 1830s when the Cherokee nation petitioned the supreme court to honor land grant contracts and not have a forced death march to oklahoma from the eastern sea board. But ok maybe it was.

What about just after the civil war? Nope they were still hunted down because the civil war was not about making people equal, it was about money and power, and the north would have lost it if the crop production in the south was a foreign country. Course suspension of habeus corpus by lincoln and imprisonment of news paper editors who were critical of him and his policies without trial, without cause, and all for publishing would seem dubious. But I guess those are totally different times from today right? That would never happen today, what with those uneducated uncivilized people back then. Oh wait...

Hmm, lets go a little more recent, perhaps then we can see how different we are in recent times. World War II asians (mostly japanese, but anyone who might be japanese, know someone who is japanese, or whatever) was rounded up and sent to a concentration camp, er I mean detention center, where they were beaten, often to death, and during their internment all their possessions were taken. At the end of the war the gates were opened and they were told they could leave, but transportation, food, water, etc were not provided. Many of these people didnt even know where they were other than "not at home". But this is a totally different time right? I mean the japanese forces did attack pearl harbor prior to all of that so it was ok right?

What about today, as a native american I have to register with teh federal government, yeah cause I am so dangerous as a non european person or something. Bet you didnt know that to be a citizen of a tribal government you basically have to register with the federal government, sure you can drop your heritage, you can refuse to claim any of your birth rights, but if you want them, in any degree, you have to register. I even have my BIA issued ID card in my wallet as I type this.

Maybe the times arent that different between then and now. Maybe for the last oh I dont know as long as man has been around, people have been killing people. But that does not address the issue to which you agreed x100 that if someone hostile invades your country, you are not a terrorist for attacking them back. Does that hold for native americans attacking european types anywhere in the world simple because they, or someone they knew, or someone they were related to, or perhaps they just got in the way of someone who was one of these things, were a hostile invading force and occupied lands for the last few hundred years?

Are you ready to carve up an exception for one group, to which you have already stated was farking idiots even though its a factually wrong statement, appears racist on the surface, and generally does not support your claims.

Persepolis: what_now: Dude raped a 14 year old girl and then killed her whole family.

Other way around. He killed her family in front of her (including her 3 year old sister) then, after she saw all this and was totally alone in the world raped her. (Gang raped her, in fact) Then killed her, then burned her body.

The military has capital punishment, but *suprise* this guy didn't get it.

shiat, what DO you have to do to get it.

Refuse to fight.

dropdead: Wow
The level of moral relativism so far is startling. But I guess it's only wrong when liberals do it.

Nah, some people really enjoyed the "it depends on what your definition of is is" video. But we never saw the 1 whole hour of JOINT testimony by Bush and Cheney regarding the 9-11 attacks. We never will. And if an inserted cigar is worth a trial imagine how necessary a war crimes trial is for orders resulting in murder, rape, sodomy, torture, etc.

9-11 didn't change everything no matter how many times the bums say it. War criminals are war criminals no matter what and they will be tried either in US courts or in international war crimes tribunals. Bush, Cheney, Yoo, Gonzales, Geoffrey Miller, lots and losts of them are in danger of indictment and trial.

The necessity of putting them on trial in international courts is clear. If good old decent America can do these things, imagine what real despots can do. These trials will be one way to reassert international standards of treatment of prisoners, the illegallity of pre-emptive war, etc. before China and other nations decide they want to be a despotic super-power just like Bush Cheney was.

Wow. All the socio-political iconoclasts are out in force today.

I love a parade. All of them dressed alike in their Che t-shirts, shouting their slogans and waving their banners.

Kind of brings a tear to my eye [should have worn the gas mask].

RubberFootMan: trixter_nl: some would consider the ira a proper army, after all there was a civil war that preceeded that. Armies are not even listed as a choice, so if you shoot at anyone you are either a freedom fighter or terrorist, there is no other option.

The first use of Freedom Fighter in this thread was:

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter."

It wasn't an either/or option.

That may be, the first use of the word 'the' wasnt what I was commenting on either. I was commenting on the fact that it became an either/or situation and that others were basically trying to justify some point which logically was invalid by forcing an either/or situation.

Its amazing, this communication thing. How someone can say one thing, then someone says something else, then on the 2nd page of comments something else is said entirely. It would also suck if you could only comment on the first and only the first instance of any phrase, wording or sentence, and never on someone elses comments towards that thing.

At Bagram, the judge found Hamdan was kept in isolation 24 hours a day with his hands and feet restrained, and armed soldiers prompted him to talk by kneeing him in the back. His captors at Panshir repeatedly tied him up, put a bag over his head and knocked him the ground

That's what my high school teachers told me the Soviets and evil Commies did to people.

We've come a long way, haven't we?

RubberFootMan: Perhaps he, like any other right-thinking individual, decided that it is immoral to torture people.

Because people disagree over what right-thinking individuals are obligated to believe, the law prefers to have clearer standards than what a particular judge thinks is moral.

crapulence: joe90: Whitewabbit: fighting hostile invading troops in your own country is not terrorism. sorry guys.

this.. x100

That would be great if they were actually from the countries they are fighting in, the majority of them aren't.

Are you actually trying to say that the majority of attacks in Iraq are NOT being perpetrated by Iraqis? Your ignorance astounds me. Iraq is a hairsbreadth away from a Civil War and our troops are caught in the middle, trying to keep the peace without really understanding the underlying cause. Sunnis attack Shiites, Shiites retaliate, and our poor guys are stuck trying to keep the peace.

An they are currently attacking civilians at markets and police recruiting stations. I think that pretty much makes them terrorists.

See my above statement. They are no more terrorists than the Confederates were.

I also wouldn't dare to compare what was done by the North Vietnamese to what might be happening at gitmo. Hell most are gaining weight since they are finally getting a nutritionally balanced/islam friendly diet.

I have no clue what you're getting at here. We didn't torture any North Vietnamese POW's. In fact, we treated them BETTER than the prisoners currently at Gitmo because they were properly labeled as POW's. Bush & his cronies are side-stepping the Geneva Convention by creating a new term for the Gitmo prisoners: "Enemy Combatants".

Now stop watching Fox News & start broadening your horizons with the BBC. You'll get far more balanced & unfiltered information that way instead of regurgitating Sean Hannity.

if someone hostile invades your country, you are not a terrorist for attacking them back.

not automatically. its possible to be defending your home and to go out and become a terrorist; if the chinese invaded the states, you would be a resistance fighter if you shot at chinese soldiers. if you went to china and blew up a school you would be a terrorist.
either way the chinese would take you prisoner. in one situation they would call you a POW, and in another they would call you a terrorist.

actually no, the chinese would probably shoot you on sight, but we're better than them right?

Does that hold for native americans attacking european types anywhere in the world

explain to me how you bombing the london underground is defending your home.

Whitewabbit: if someone hostile invades your country, you are not a terrorist for attacking them back.

not automatically. its possible to be defending your home and to go out and become a terrorist; if the chinese invaded the states, you would be a resistance fighter if you shot at chinese soldiers. if you went to china and blew up a school you would be a terrorist.
either way the chinese would take you prisoner. in one situation they would call you a POW, and in another they would call you a terrorist.

actually no, the chinese would probably shoot you on sight, but we're better than them right?

Does that hold for native americans attacking european types anywhere in the world

explain to me how you bombing the london underground is defending your home.

Explain to me how bombing civilian power, water, and agricultural infrastructure is liberation.

trixter_nl:
How many get away drivers have low education levels but still manage to get away? How many drivers in drive by shootings have low education levels but still manage to operate the car well enough to participate in drive bys, and oh yeah evade capture? The fact that the driver wasnt college educated does not speak much about those chasing after him.

You're painting a picture of a simple thug, not a terrorist mastermind or "the worst of the worst" and I agree with you.

trixter_nl:
The fact that he got caught by the very military forces you are insulting and apparently hate, shows that they can capture him, and that much is something the government claims, despite your protests to the opposite.

Reading comprehension much? I'm not insulting the military, nor do I hate them. The work they did immediately post-9/11 in Afghanistan was justified and important. And often very competent. Their civilian leadership... not so much. My point is that if this is the guy they choose to prosecute among the first as a "real bad-ass", then someone has their priorities scrambled. Or maybe many of the other people at Gitmo are even less relevant than he is.

Should he have been captured and interrogated? Absolutely. Did he assist bin Laden as a driver? It sure looks that way. Would he be a danger to cut free? I doubt it; drivers familiar with the area (with or without more than a 4th grade education) who are willing to work for $200/mo in that region are likely a dime a dozen.

bin Laden is not an idiot and I'm sure he has a clue about maintaining security. His driver isn't going to know squat beyond where he's to drive right now... or possibly a briefing immediately before any such trip to inform him of known hazards. I seriously doubt he was involved in any planning beyond at most suggesting where to stop for lunch.

kramers_hair: Whitewabbit:

explain to me how you bombing the london underground is defending your home.

Explain to me how bombing civilian power, water, and agricultural infrastructure is liberation.

Explain to me how this conversation is going to change anything at all.

Trust your government.

kramers_hair: Explain to me how bombing civilian power, water, and agricultural infrastructure is liberation.

no. because thats not my position and i have no idea why you think it is.

Whitewabbit: trixter_nl: But the question remains if, as the person I responded to indicated, an invading hostile force is all that it takes to make it so if you attack someone you are not a terrorist, does that not give me the right to attack any european type person I see fit to attack? Perhaps even anywhere on the globe.

dont be so bloody stupid. just because someone is not a terrorist does not mean they have a right to do whatever they damn well please. it is also possible to be a terrorist and defend your home, but defending your home does not make you a terrorist.

the world is not black and white, there are more types of people than "terrorists" and "saints"

Lets refresh shall we?

Whitewabbit: fighting hostile invading troops in your own country is not terrorism. sorry guys.

You said that if you are fighting invading troops in your own country you arent a terrorist. You omitted that quote in your response, so I felt that it was important to readd it since it directly bears on this conversation.

You now say that its possible to be a terrorist and defend your home. This makes me think that your initial statement is retracted and that is why you ref