Who said anything about charging them for being terrorists? Is that even a crime? People here were objecting to even describing them as terrorists, which strikes me as an utterly ridiculous position to take. We all know that they were almost certainly terrorists, and it doesn't take more than a cursory evaluation of the situation to see that.
Is it bad because of the ramifications of the Patriot Act? Sure, but that's a problem with the Patriot Act, not a problem with the use of the word "terrorist". In a sensible society, the word "terrorist" does not suddenly remove a criminal suspect's right to a fair trial.
Texas Couple found with Arsenal...
Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
-
Darth Wong
- Sith Lord
- Posts: 70028
- Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
- Location: Toronto, Canada
- Contact:
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
-
Stuart Mackey
- Drunken Kiwi Editor of the ASVS Press
- Posts: 5946
- Joined: 2002-07-04 12:28am
- Location: New Zealand
- Contact:
To whom are you replying Mike?Darth Wong wrote:snip.
Via money Europe could become political in five years" "... the current communities should be completed by a Finance Common Market which would lead us to European economic unity. Only then would ... the mutual commitments make it fairly easy to produce the political union which is the goal"
Jean Omer Marie Gabriel Monnet
--------------
Jean Omer Marie Gabriel Monnet
--------------
If the US government classifies someone as a terrorist a whole slew of crap comes into effect that is otherwise absent. The problem is not when private individuals call them terrorists, it is when the government does and on what basis the government does. This isn't like the choice between calling me a moron or an idiot, where both have the same effect; but like the difference between calling someone "a criminal" and "a threat to national security".Who said anything about charging them for being terrorists? Is that even a crime? People here were objecting to even describing them as terrorists, which strikes me as an utterly ridiculous position to take. We all know that they were almost certainly terrorists, and it doesn't take more than a cursory evaluation of the situation to see that.
Yes but we are talking about the current American legal system administered by the current executive.Is it bad because of the ramifications of the Patriot Act? Sure, but that's a problem with the Patriot Act, not a problem with the use of the word "terrorist". In a sensible society, the word "terrorist" does not suddenly remove a criminal suspect's right to a fair trial.
Wether or not such should be the case, when the government classifies someone as a "terrorist" it does have real implications. I couldn't really care less what the government does to these bastards, so long as they are removed from society for a good long while, what matters is the effects of how the government classifies them and wether those are worth the bother. If the government can classify someone as a terrorist on overly broad grounds then bad things can happen, especially under the current setup. So what good comes from saying, "Anyone caught with terrorist weapons is a terrorist?
Very funny, Scotty. Now beam down my clothes.