Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ChairmanPoo]

It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death. -Maimonides

[Virex]

.... Are you so, let's call it ill-informed, to think that acquitting a thousand guilty people isn't going to cause far more grief then convicting one innocent? We are talking about delusional mass-murderers here, not jaywalking old ladies.

On a different level; consider what would happen if someone accused you of being a terrorist. You would be captured, throw in jail, and then kept there for a decade. No trial, no attempt to prove your guilt.

And the problem with that is? I would not like it, of course, but I wouldn't like it if I was guilty of being a terrorist as well, so that doesn't fly. You're probably trying to point out that it is unjustified. I'll tell you what is unjustified: Letting someone who is likely to blow up dozens of people run free because there is a small chance that you may be mistaken. You can never justify that towards the victims, towards society. Locking up someone who may be innocent can be justified because then you can be sure that there won't be hundred of deaths to bemoan next month, but letting a possible terrorist run free?*


*Note that I am not advocating locking away everyone at random, that'd be lunacy. But I do think that if there is good reason to expect someone to be a danger to society, then something has to be done.

[RedKing]

A single terrorist is capable of killing somewhere between 10 and 1.000 people if left to his devices.

I...what? Has this been experimentally tested? That has to be the single most bizarre thing I've read in this thread so far.


Look...Guantanamo comes to down to a problem of doing what is practical versus doing what (by our own moral and legal foundation) is right. Guantanamo was an attempt to find a compromise, and it didn't work all that well. So Obama came in with the intent of fixing it by doing what we should be doing in the first place, which is putting them through the legal system.

But the opposition to that was intense enough, and the potential political fallout severe enough that the administration caved and went back to the status quo. Which is a necessary evil, and certainly a lesser evil compared to what they could be doing. (although under Bush, I think we were leaning towards the greater evils like rendition to places like Egypt's secret prisons we're hearing about now).

If they can't close it, they need to reform the tribunal process to be much faster and fairer, so that at least detainees could have their day to answer charges.

[Virex]

I...what? Has this been experimentally tested? That has to be the single most bizarre thing I've read in this thread so far.

Iraq Laboratories is working on it, but competition with the Afghanistan University of Mobile and Sentient Explosives means they're waiting with releasing the information until they're certain.

[RedKing]

I...what? Has this been experimentally tested? That has to be the single most bizarre thing I've read in this thread so far.

Iraq Laboratories is working on it, but competition with the Afghanistan University of Mobile and Sentient Explosives means they're waiting with releasing the information until they're certain.

So if a terrorist only manages to kill four people in an attack, does he lose his license? Or if he brings down a plane with 1,100 people onboard, does that mean that there must have been an accomplice? Is the roll a straight 10d100, or is it open-ended?

[Leafsnail]

A single terrorist is capable of killing somewhere between 10 and 1.000 people if left to his devices. The people in Guatanamo aren't even dead, so even if only 1 in 10 people in Guatanamo would be a terrorist, then that is still a positive balance in the amount of lives saved.
It's also often quite hard to prove that a terrorist is a terrorist, because that kind of information relies on things like phone taps and informants, which is information that is inadmissible in court. Furthermore you do realize that trying to prove someone was planning to do something is inherently impossible? We haven't got mind-reading devices and ownership of guns isn't illegal in many countries. For all you know, those guys could just have been planning on setting up a shooting gallery. And you can't use the phone taps in court...

I agree.  It would be much safer if we just arrested everyone completely at random.

Incidentally, there's quite a good practical case for not detaining people who haven't been proven guilty - Guantanamo Bay is basically God's gift to terrorists who want to recruit people to the cause.

[PTTG??]

Who said anything about letting them go?

I've said from the very start that they should be tried in a court of law, because that's the only legitimate way to punish anyone. Not to show them mercy, or to be nice, or any of the simpering things you seem to think I want. I am simply demanding the strength to adhere to our morals under all circumstances.

And, if we do find that one of these suspects has no evidence against them, then we will conclude that they were wrongly imprisoned. They won't get away with anything, because they will have been proven to have not done anything.

Your statements would have us lock up everyone who could possibly be a terrorist. That group includes everyone. I don't want to live in your country.

[Nadaka]

I think the best solution is to imprison everyone, including the guards. That way we would be sure that all the criminals and terrorists get punished.

[Criptfeind]

Who said anything about letting them go?

I've said from the very start that they should be tried in a court of law, because that's the only legitimate way to punish anyone. Not to show them mercy, or to be nice, or any of the simpering things you seem to think I want. I am simply demanding the strength to adhere to our morals under all circumstances.

And, if we do find that one of these suspects has no evidence against them, then we will conclude that they were wrongly imprisoned. They won't get away with anything, because they will have been proven to have not done anything.

Your statements would have us lock up everyone who could possibly be a terrorist. That group includes everyone. I don't want to live in your country.

Evidence that they have most likely is not allowed in court and is really old now anyway.

I typed it slowly. I hope it helps.

I think the best solution is to imprison everyone, including the guards. That way we would be sure that all the criminals and terrorists get punished.

A full investigation of the people who run it is a good idea. Something that is most likely already have happened but eh.

[Earthquake Damage]

The trouble with injustice for security's sake is that only the authorities are safe.

[Leafsnail]

Evidence that they have most likely is not allowed in court and is really old now anyway.

So uh... the kind of evidence we have to take on trust, and which doesn't actually stand up?  Ah, but who cares, we just know they're guilty.

[Criptfeind]

Evidence that they have most likely is not allowed in court and is really old now anyway.

So uh... the kind of evidence we have to take on trust, and which doesn't actually stand up?  Ah, but who cares, we just know they're guilty.

Yeah sure. Good enough for me. If you don't trust it, don't let them just go via giving them to a court that can not convect them but rather have someone higher in the bureaucracy review it.

[Virex]

Who said anything about letting them go?

I've said from the very start that they should be tried in a court of law, because that's the only legitimate way to punish anyone. Not to show them mercy, or to be nice, or any of the simpering things you seem to think I want. I am simply demanding the strength to adhere to our morals under all circumstances.

And, if we do find that one of these suspects has no evidence against them, then we will conclude that they were wrongly imprisoned. They won't get away with anything, because they will have been proven to have not done anything.

Your statements would have us lock up everyone who could possibly be a terrorist. That group includes everyone. I don't want to live in your country.

the problem is that to prove someone is a terrorist one very often needs evidence that can't be used in court. The court system isn't built to handle cases that rely on state secrets. So handling them in court would amount to releasing the bulk of them scot-free.

Evidence that they have most likely is not allowed in court and is really old now anyway.

So uh... the kind of evidence we have to take on trust, and which doesn't actually stand up?  Ah, but who cares, we just know they're guilty.

That pretty much sums it up, but without the sarcasm. Catching terrorists is often a matter of infiltration and unauthorized phone taps, neither of which can be used in court. The evidence itself isn't lying, but the court system just doesn't allow it because it's not obtained in the normal ways (which usually don't work in cases like this)

[Leafsnail]

Yeah sure. Good enough for me. If you don't trust it, don't let them just go via giving them to a court that can not convect them but rather have someone higher in the bureaucracy review it.

If this evidence doesn't stand up or is just nonexistant. it doesn't really matter how high up the chain of bureaucracy you go...

[Virex]

The evidence is not non-existent, but it often contains sensitive information that you can't give to a public jury or is gathered (often necessarily) in a way that would be inadmissible under normal circumstances. Then there is still the case of the crimes not being committed on American soil because they were planned somewhere else and luckily not executed yet, which complicates persecution further.