Terrorists Should Be Treated As Enemy Combatants

Haste? Innocent?
I am merely suggesting that an act of terrorism, which claims multiple lives on American soil gives the President the right to declare state of emergency.
If terrorism becomes an everyday thing, than an amendment to the constitution could be made to specifically deal with terrorists.
In situations where terrorists are caught in the act, and only in those situations, there would be no need for a criminal trial.
It would be handled by the military, as the perpetrators would be considered enemy combatants.
In situations of state emergency, constitutional rights clearly do not apply.
What part of that didn't you understand?

It really does not matter who the president is.
If America is to survive, those that govern should make sure that acts of terrorism will not be tolerated and will be dealt with severely.
Democrats and Republicans should unite in this matter.
When will they realize that terrorism is an act of war?
Too many people are concerned about democracy and rights and they stated that on this thread.
A few of them are not even American.
The majority of Americans do not want open borders and do not want to find themselves in the situation that most European countries are in right now.
Some one from Spain was preaching to me about democracy.
Is that the same democracy that allowed Catalonia to secede from Spain.
We fought our civil war all ready to keep that from happening.
All these little parceled out countries are nothing now.
Independence and separation does not equal prosperity.
Only unity does that.
Germany could not rule the word but they found a way to still rule a significant part of it,
They created the European Union but first they had to destabilize and allow for other European countries to fragmentize..
Former Checkoslovakia and Yugoslavia are just such examples.
Of course, The Soviet Union was first to fall apart.
While everybody else was separating, Germany became united and then they took over the European Union.
They consolidated power, but now those same open borders have come back to haunt them.
Americans should learn something from all of this and seal their borders before diversity devours us from within.

I do understand it, which is why my objection still stands. You've said that a state of emerency allows the president to override constitutional rights, yet how many people does it take to justify setting the entire country on high alert? One person getting stabbed? Or a plane flying into a high-profile building?

Also, "catching someone in the act" is precisely the grounds on which innocent people can be executed. What are you talking about, one alleged witness? That's enough to justify foregoing a court trial, casting the entire country into a state of emergency and condemning someone to interrogation, torture, and/or execution? You're talking about handing judicial control to the military and suspending due process based on fallible evidence. Of course I would object. That's just one rationalization away from a police state.

It never fails to amaze me that certain people are so eager to reduce themselves to the level of terrorists any opportunity they get. Someone commits a terrorist attack? Torture them and kill them! Nevermind that torture doesnt work. And nevermind that killing them is EXACTLY what the attacker wants. Do you think he ran around the street after he hit that bus brandishing a paint gun because he figured he would paint his way out of the situation and get away? No he was wondering where the heck is a cop so he can shoot me. Look I have a gun! But much to his annoyance he survived the shooting. No martyrdom. No going out in a blaze of glory like ISIS instructs their followers to do. And you want to kill him AFTER hes caught and in custody? AND you want to have martial law put in place after a terrorist attack? ISIS loves people like you. You play right into their hands. They want to inspire us to fear and overreaction. They want to limit our freedoms. They want to create a divide between muslims and non-muslims. And you play right into that with this kind of reaction. Want to know how to defeat terrorist ideology? Prove yourself better then them. Dont torture or kill for revenge. Maintain freedoms. Embrace citizens of all faiths including Islam. And go about your life just as you had yesterday. Thats how you dry up support for a group like ISIS who thrives on division and feels they have achieved victory when they force us to get rid of our own freedoms just like they would if they were in power. Dont be an agent for ISIS.

__________________
Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies...

The first is an attempt to press a political ideology onto a populace through fear of violence.
The second is killing the first because they have violated the social contract ensuring peace in your society.

If shooting up a strip mall isn't a sufficient justification to stop someone with lethal force, you might as well disarm cops and arm the military with plastic ties.

And if your immediate response to this is to say "but they're already in custody, there's no need to stop them with lethal force", then ask I you to pay for their prison term in full because no one guilty of that sort of atrocity deserves a penny of my hard-earned money to give them food and shelter when I have to pay for rent and necessities out of my own pocket.


Obi-Wan was bluffing too.

You act like dead people care that they're dead.

__________________
Movie Reviews | Anime Reviews
Top 100 Action Movie Countdown (2015): List | Thread
"Well, at least your intentions behind the UTTERLY DEVASTATING FAULTS IN YOUR LOGIC are good." - Captain Steel

Are you wanting to have a debate about capital punishment or about killing terrorists in police custody? Because they are two different things. Will gladly have the capital punishment discussion with you in another thread if you like but I wasn’t even addressing it here. Im addressing the concept of endorsing the killing of people in custody who are no longer an immediate threat to the public. Do you really want to do that? Do you really want to give the government that kind of power? Not capital punishment after full trial and proper representation, but signing off on the state killing citizens completely at their own discretion. That’s really a good idea to you? Because theres no chance at all at any kind of slippery slope with that at all right?

Ah the old kill them because it costs me money argument. Well you do know that our current death penalty system is far more expensive per prisoner then the average cost of keeping a prisoner in jail for life right? So if you are just worried about saving yourself a few pennies then you should be all FOR keeping him alive. But my guess is its not about that after all. Its about revenge for you and Des in the end. It doesn’t matter if it costs more money. It doesn’t matter if it plays into the hands of the terrorists. At least you get to feel smug about having him die. Because smugness is how we measure our success in dealing with enemies in the world right?

I’d say it worked out pretty well for Obi-Wan. His death inspired a young gifted kid from a backwater part of the galaxy to join up with rebel terrorists and engage in attacks against the mighty Empire and, despite all odds, overthrow them in put their own government in its place. But eh, at least Darth could feel good about killing Obi right?

Come again?

98% of what you say is baloney.

des why do you type what you say like a poem?

__________________

"You're talking about handing judicial control to the military and suspending due process based on fallible evidence. Of course I would object. That's just one rationalization away from a police state."

Please refute it.

Much of our government is in dire need of reform.

It only costs a bullet to kill someone. If you wanted to be frugal you could hang them or drown them instead. Death is cheap. That the United States' bureaucracy might inexplicably manage to blow away so much money that killing someone is more expensive that sustaining them for several dozen years is only a testament to it's abysmal failure.

Revenge isn't implicitly practical, though it can be. Acknowledging that much should be enough to dismiss your psycho-analysis. Leaving the threat of death as a deterrent to others, you're talking about an active and present threat to your society. If you refuse to remove them from your society then you burden that society with your moral qualms with killing a man who's shown no such consideration in turn. My position is just pragmatic: There are some people society would simply be better off without.

That obviously does matter to me.

If a terrorist wants to die then it's win-win. Honestly, this is one of the funniest arguments I've ever heard against killing someone. If you care about their lives so much, why don't you care about their interests? What, it isn't ethical to kill them, but it's ethical to keep them alive against their will? A literal punishment worse than death? I thought you were against torture.

It's so strange having people talk down to me about ethics when it comes to the death penalty when they almost certainly endorse an industry that slaughters animals by the billions. Suddenly I'm like some sort of merchant of death, sitting over here with my hummus and soymilk goin' "they killed like 500 people, bro, why do you care?"

Maybe if Darth built a bigger shield the Jedi would take their crummy old religion and go back to sand planet they came from.

Ha ha. You just proved you are no statistics major. Troll comment, most likely.

It's my soul shining through, bro!

I can see in your debate with another that you agree with some of my talking points.
I clearly stated that a state of emergency should be invoked after " mass " terrorist killings.
To a large degree, after 9/11 through out the USA all law enforcement agencies were placed on high alert, to the point were guys off duty and on vacation were being recalled to duty and were on stand by.
I understand your concern for "due process".
There is no doubt that multiple witnesses saw the NY truck-batterer mow down a number of cyclists and pedestrians. More than one person saw him get out of his truck, after collision with school bus, and shout " Allahu Agbar ", the cry of Islamic Jihadists, meaning God Is Greater ( Our God is greater, enabling us to kill you).
That same Uzbeki Jihadist proudly confessed that he enjoyed killing infidels.
He is a perfect example of a militant person caught in the act of killing and not deserving of a civilian constitutional trial.
By trying to ignore and minimizing terrorists ( other than a few symbolic gestures) during his 8 years, Obama brought about the escalation of terrorism in the USA.
Roughly, they are occurring once every 2 to 3 months, now
Soon, they will be about 1 every month and by the time they start occurring once every week, unless extraordinary measures are taken now, our way of life will have become very altered.
The need for extra-ordinary measures was required YESTERDAY!
Those of you who live in your little protected bubbles will soon change your tune when those bubbles burst.

So you appear to be under several misconceptions here. The first being that I have a problem with someone committing a murderous act being taken out with lethal force DURING the confrontation between authorities and said individual. Wont catch me losing any sleep there. What I do have a problem with is your notion that they should die AFTER they are no longer an immediate threat and in the hands of the authorities. These are two FUNDEMENTALLY different things of course. The first I can live with, the second is a terrible terrible idea.

Second, you cant make arguments about how you oppose a “police state” and then turn around and say we should kill these people once they are in custody. And that the current way we handle capital punishment is too costly and we should strip people of their rights to eliminate all that costly trial stuff to save money. Could you explain to me how you can manage to hold both opinions at once please?

Which doesn’t work of course. Especially not on suicidal terrorists. But ok, that aside…

Ignoring, of course, that they are no longer a part of society once they are imprisoned away FROM society, if what you say is how you feel then get on board with the long costly process of applying the death penalty to its citizens. Because its all you got right now. Then of course youll need to decide if the state killing them because we would be "better off" somehow is more important then the extra money it costs you to do it. And no its not just the cost of the bullet... its the cost of many trials,constitutional representation and the construction, staffing and operating the separate facilities needed to deal with the hand full of folks who make it onto death row.Then there is, of course, the incalculable cost of killing innocent people which this guy ISNT but is a statistical guarantee if you have a policy where the state gets to decide which of its citizens gets to live or die. But, again, thats getting into a capital punishment discussion which Im not trying to have here.

Its funny not to kill someone who may have knowledge of other criminal activity? Im sure the FBI would disagree. Its funny not to kill someone when killing them would make the organization they are serving stronger which would in turn lead to more killing? Sorry. Don’t see the humor in any of that.

I don’t care about their lives. I care about MY life and the lives of my loved ones and all the great innocent citizens I share this country with and don’t want to allow the act of one terrible person to give the government the impetus and the unchecked power to dispose of people THEY deem deserving of death. Careful what you wish for.

Not my problem if their particular brain washing isn’t compatible with an act of compassion and rationality. But then if you really believed living was torture then youd be for it in this case. But we both know you dont. You want them dead no matter what the consequences.

Your vegetarianism has zero to do with endorsing the state killing people in custody (and certainly doesnt give you the moral authority to!). It makes you look like an enormous hypocrite, sure, (unless you are actually a pig or a cow. THEN your stance would be consistent and understandable!) but its got nothing to do with it. So set aside the straw man.

Let me try to simplify this:

Persuade me that this person you claim deserves to die did what they did.

If you can do that without securing and presenting publicly a preponderance of evidence as a prerequsite to kill/torture them and without asking me to put blind faith in the military to carry out justice on captives, then I'll concede the argument.

If you argue a point, you need to keep up with what came out in the media.
There is film footage of him running over innocent civilians and exiting the truck, while brandishing fake weapons and yelling Alluah Agbar.
The proof is not even an issue.
He killed 8 innocent civilians in the name of ISIS, all the while bragging to authorities how good it felt ( upon being successfully treated for his wounds, in the hospital ).
Of course he deserves to die. Had I been the cop that shot him, it would have been a head shot.
Center mass first and up into the head.
People talking about life imprisonment???
Why should he be rewarded with life, after taking eight lives himself?
Hell, it's not even an eye for an eye.
You just keep giving the other cheek and I'll just keep erasing them.

By all means, tell me why.

I sure can. You've already affording law enforcement the right to kill, we're just quibbling over when it's justified.

No one has a positive right to life. If you have a philosphical argument in defense of one then make it.

It's very simple: Prisons subsist on taxes, to authorize the state to run a prison complex is to give the state the power to take from you and give to people who have already taken from you.

Even provided a libertarian tax reform which eliminates infringement on an individual's entitlement to the product of their labor, it remains unjust, because as I've explained, a prison system entails affording food and shelter to people who haven't earned it, functionally rewarding crime on some level.

Like prison.

False, they subsist on taxpayers and there exist peoples' whose job it is to interact with prisoners. They are an objective presence in society with a tangible effect on other people directly as well as the economy indirectly.

You're mistaken if you believe any given thing I advocate must be of utmost priority and isolated entirely from any legal predicates. I told you already; much of the gov is in need of reform.


[quote=I. Rex]Then of course youll need to decide if the state killing them because we would be "better off" somehow is more important then the extra money it costs you to do it.

If that's your way of saying "I'm not going to make any moral arguments", then you've effectively handicapped yourself.

You accuse me of strawmanning you later in this post after you've given me this? Security-critical knowledge was never specified in your argument until now.

No, I think it's funny that "what the terrorist wants" is in and of itself a justification not to kill them.


Mmmm, yes, we wouldn't want to encourage criminals by punishing criminals. Dude, anyone persuaded to become a suicide bomber because another dumbass was caught and executed was already an unstable threat to your society.

Pardon?

Or life.

I wish for due process of law to quickly, efficiently, accurately, and transparently remove threats to society from society, not sequester them away in a cozy cell to spend the rest of contemptable lives leeching off the blood, sweat, and tears of hardworking peaceful people. What part of that is objectionable?

Then your compassion is wasted on them, turn some of that concern on your fellow taxpayers who you burden with feeding and sheltering terrorists.

Further evidence that revenge is not a motivating factor in my decision.

Don't backpedal now.

I've just given you a laundry list of consequentialist arguments, you're the one stuck up on the cost of excution for no reason whatsoever. If you were hoping to nail me for a partisan you're out of luck.

*flips table* WHAT'D YOU CALL ME!?

Of course it doesn't.


I have no idea what you're talking about now.

Funny how one person here thinks I'm "turning the other cheek" and the other thinks I want revenge and damn the consequences.

Des, I don't put blind faith in the media either, I don't even put it in our justice system. But at least the state justice system is required on part of the citizens it exists to serve to catalog all available information, cross-examine it, and reach a verdict via a method as relatively close to our collective ability to ascertain absolute truth as possible.

I've seen the media spread fake terror attacks, it got a couple missiles shot at Syria for it's efforts, I don't trust the media to carry out justice any more than the military.

If you have virtually infallible video evidence of the perpetrator committing the crime then great, you should have a speedy prosecution.

@Des I should also draw your attention to the fact that you acknowledge that the media will turn lies into truth in the eyes of the public conciousness:

If the media says X is a racist, he must be.
If the media says X is a terrorist, he must be.

You are advocating that we kill people on these grounds.

Let's start with this:

No, you are. But you are just debating for the sake of debate. What's your point?
You don't need to teach me about misinformation and the media's role in it.
Goebel's Nazi Germany is proof enough.
But, you should have some common sense and be able to read between the lines.
I am talking about this particular case and other similar cases where it's clear that nothing is fabricated, as all the differing media's agree on that in their reports.
This is a case of our democracy at work.
Now, go back to reversing your position, and argue some more with I, Rex. I am tired and sleepy.