Suspected Terrorist Faisal Shahzad

[fitzley]

I am sure some of you have heard about the recent bombing attempt in New York City. Faisal Shahzad was a naturalized U.S. citizen, but many are complaining that he should not have be read is Miranda Rights.

Clicky

There has been a long debate both here in America and abroad about what kind of rights terrorists should receive. Bush declared them to be "Illegal Enemy Combatants" and are therefore not afforded protections under the Geneva Convention, and since they are not U.S. citizens they are not afforded any guarantee of rights under the U.S. constitution.

I have always been opposed to this because of my belief that certain rights and protections are universal and therefore even foreign suspected terrorists should be afforded the right to due process, trial, etc...

And then this...is different. A large proportion of people calling for the denial of basic rights for a naturalized U.S. citizen. My argument has been that previous policy has opened the door for this.

Thoughts?

[Neltharion]

Regardless of what he did, he is a US citizen so he must be treated with the same rights as the others.

If you do not, then you are just as bad as he is.

[Nev]

If you do not, then you are just as bad as he is.

This method of thinking of you lefties I've never been able to comprehend. There's a world of difference between giving a hard hand to someone who attempted to slaughter a shitload of innocent civilians, and attempting to slaughter that shitload of innocent civilians. The fucker we are talking about is everything else but innocent.

Then again, I'd take all rights away from all criminals above a certain level if I was the one calling the shots.

[Neltharion]

This method of thinking of you lefties I've never been able to comprehend.

Its your method of thinking that I've never been able to comprehend.


We are all humans, we are not savages. I'd rather have the moral high ground than fall to his level.

[Nev]

We are all humans, we are not savages.

Some of us are. Why not treat them as the savages they are?

Should he have succeeded, and should his target been in your hometown, and should one or more of your loved ones died, I bet you'd flip-flop faster than murderers get out of jail in my country.

I'd rather have the moral high ground than fall to his level.

Again, there's a world of difference between giving a hard hand to someone who attempted to slaughter a shitload of innocent civilians, and attempting to slaughter that shitload of innocent civilians. The fucker we are talking about is everything else but innocent.

[SiL]

Some of us are. Why not treat them as the savages they are?

They're still human.

Should he have succeeded, and should his target been in your hometown, and should one or more of your loved ones died, I bet you'd flip-flop faster than murderers get out of jail in my country.

But then he wouldn't be thinking rationally.

Again, there's a world of difference between giving a hard hand to someone who attempted to slaughter a shitload of innocent civilians, and attempting to slaughter that shitload of innocent civilians.

What do you mean by this, exactly?

Of course there's a difference, who's saying there isn't?

[Nev]

They're still human.

So? It's like saying we shouldn't put down a rabid dog because it's a mammal too.

But then he wouldn't be thinking rationally.

What's so rational about lifting mass-murdering psychopaths on the same level as their innocent victims?
 

What do you mean by this, exactly?

Of course there's a difference, who's saying there isn't?

I'm saying you can only stoop down to his level if you attempt to do exactly what he attempted to do. You don't need to claim moral high ground by granting him rights he denies from others; you already have the moral high ground.

Treating a scumbag who tried to murder a shitload of civilians harshly does not make you the same as that scumbag who tried to murder a shitload of civilians.

[SiL]

What's so rational about lifting mass-murdering psychopaths on the same level as their innocent victims?

It's impartiality.

[Nev]

It's impartiality.

So it's rational to be a sociopath? Why the hell would you need or want to be impartial on something like this? Are you saying that mass murderers and their victims are equally worthy as people?

[Neltharion]

I bet you'd flip-flop faster than murderers get out of jail in my country.

I'd bet you would flip-flop faster than the murderers get out of jail in my country if you were accused of such things and you had your rights taken away from you.


Its all fine and dandy when its someone else who has his rights taken away from him, you are not going to go through what he is if he had them taken away.

Neither am I, but that does not mean I am going to stoop down to his level because I have the upper hand.

Thats plain barbaric.

Are you saying that mass murderers and their victims are equally worthy as people?

No. No one is suggesting that.

They are still human.

If you take away their basic human rights you might as well defect and join them in mass murder.



An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

[SiL]

Are you saying that mass murderers and their victims are equally worthy as people?

No, I'm saying that if you're going to lock someone up for the rest of their life you need to do it based on inarguable, objective fact, not emotion.

There is enough evidence to put this guy away. We don't need to treat him like an animal to do it.

[Nev]

I'd bet you would flip-flop faster than the murderers get out of jail in my country if you were accused of such things and you had your rights taken away from you.

It's hard to imagine how I could be accused of such things, since I'm not planning any mass-murdering anytime soon.

Its all fine and dandy when its someone else who has his rights taken away from him,

...And it's all fine and dandy when it's someone else who has his loved ones taken away from him.

you are not going to go through what he is if he had them taken away.

...And you are not going to go through what the families of the victims of shitbirds like him are going through.

Also, I have not attempted to mass-murder civilians. Unlike this asshole.

Neither am I, but that does not mean I am going to stoop down to his level because I have the upper hand.

Thats plain barbaric.

Read my earlier post about this. If you took his rights away, it wouldn't stoop you anywhere near his level.

No. No one is suggesting that.

Except you and SiL.

They are still human.

Read my earlier post about this.

If you take away their basic human rights you might as well defect and join them in mass murder.

Read my earlier post about this.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

When did I say this was about revenge?

[beckmen]

What does taking away somebody's rights and then executing them accomplish? Besides Martyrdom in the eyes of their ilk.

Refusing to take away somebody's rights tells the terrorists that their tactics don't work. We are not going to change what we believe in and what we do because of your dumb ass. When fear and vengeance are allowed to prevail, they sit in their caves and cheer. They're chipping away at us. Won't be long before we crack.

[Nev]

No, I'm saying that if you're going to lock someone up for the rest of their life you need to do it based on inarguable, objective fact, not emotion.

There is enough evidence to put this guy away. We don't need to treat him like an animal to do it.

And that method of thinking is exactly why Finland has a sick joke for a justice system.

Convicted murderers have regular leaves from jails. Not too long ago one had been driving an illegal taxi on his leaves, and when he got caught of it he stole a car and tried to make a break for it. He was eventually arrested again, and he didn't face any consequences of driving the illegal taxi, the car theft or his escape.

"He's suffered enough" and "We're not animals" were popular phrases that week in the media.

I could give plenty other examples, but I trust you get the idea. If I have to choose between "ruthless" and "sloppy" when it comes to handling murderers, I sure as hell go with "ruthless".

I do admit Finland's penal system is not comparable to America's, though.

[SiL]

This is gonna piss Nev off plenty, but, sure.

In the eyes of the law, everyone should be given equal rights. Even the most heinous, despicable animals.

Yes, if someone I loved was murdered, I'd be screaming for the murderer's blood. If I got my hands on them I'd try and fucking kill them. I'd want them to rot, to die, to be thrown into a cell and never let out with no food or water until they died and rotted to dust.

But I am not the law.

Finland seems to have taken a ridiculous extreme on what I'm saying - Once they're in, they're in, that's what I think. They get their sentence, they fuckin' do it. No regular leaves, no 'Aw, the poor baby' unless it can be proved that their punishment was excessive. I don't condone that level of lenience - I'm talking about the initial trial and prosecution.