Terrorists Should Be Treated As Enemy Combatants

You know absolutely nothing about me. Please don’t make assumptions based on ... nothing.

__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.

I hate political correctness.

The point is what do lone wolves have to give up in interrogation, it's very likely no one else knew what they were planning.

So you are going to stop cars/trucks mowing folk down by open carrying? Good luck with that dude

__________________

You said you’re wasting your time with me. That’s somewhat rude & gives me the impression that you are getting upset.

I know that you are a liberal oriented older lady. I apologize if it turns out you were M of MI6.

As far as I know, till their acts have been proved in trial and they are officially convicted, they can't be called terrorists. What you are doing here is justifying the systematic torture of suspects. Newsflash: it's already happening. And it's disgusting.

Glad you still have a sense of humor.

Ok, let's retrace. You said that a skilled interrogator is funny. Should I call that trolling or am I just trying to be rude?
I am cool as a cucumber and know what needs to be done. Why should I be the one getting upset?

Do you even know when the phrase " Lone Wolf " was first coined?

I never said anything of the kind. I laughed at your suggestion that “A skilled interrogator does not suggest an answer.” Do you really believe that?

Does that even matter in relation to this discussion?

Prove what? A guy getting caught mowing down people in a truck is not self evident proof of a crime? The same guy later claiming ties to ISIS and feeling proud that he just killed all those people? Not proof enough?
Should we just let him go or feed him for the next 60 years as he watches TV in a federal prison?
What we need is proof of others involved so that we can prevent those individuals from committing same crime.
If you don't get that, you never will.

So you want the prisoner to give up the names of other terrorists? Is that your point?

Sure it does. You keep using the phrase, so I simply asked you to tell me if you know when it was first used in the context of a killing, or should I say a pretext to avoid insight into a conspiracy.
Lately, many have stretched the meaning to avoid breaking an 8 year silence.

No, it's not proof enough. Whether it is proof enough or not should be decided in trial, not in a random internet discussion.

Claiming ties to ISIS and feeling proud, for instance, doesn't hold water in terms of proving the material responsibility of the act.

Sure, because convicted terrorists and even suspects of terrorism usually have a great time in jail. And I kindly remind that you are justifying torture to suspects, not to terrorists.

I get that you are not worth my further attention because you have no regard for civil rights and guarantees and you have zero respect for fair trial procedures. You don't deserve to live in a democracy.

Sure, otherwise I would just shoot him dead and save the tax payers some money.
However, I would not be opposed to seeing him suffer, especially someone that gloats over an act of mass killing.
Even liberals concede that it's not the certainty of getting caught but the severity of punishment that acts as a deterrent.
Just compare the death penalty states to the non death penalty states and see who has the more violent crimes.

So you’d murder someone to ease the burden of American taxpayers?

Ha, ha, ha. Really? But you do? The democracy you so eagerly quote, very easily turns into anarchy and then you would be the first running to get my help.
And you know what? I'd probably give it to you because I am a compassionate guy ( just not for terrorists ).

States without the Death Penalty have had consistently lower murder rates:

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterre...r-murder-rates

Lol okay, better end this exchange in a comedic note. Have a good day.

I would not call it murder. It would be justifiable homicide.