CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Should terrorists and suspected terrorists be represented in the american judicial system?
I have heard from a number of people the argument that these people (terrorists, prisoners of war, suspected terrorist, terrorist suportors exetera) deserve their day in our court system and I find it hard to believe that the majority of Americans believe this. I think its an absolutly ridiculous idea that couldn't possibly work, but if you dont agree then lets debate it.
If they are being held on American soil convicted of a crime against the United States (or it's citizens), they must be given due process. However I don't believe they need to be flown back to the States to sit in an American Courthouse, there is no requirement as to where they must be tried.
Most Americans believe they should be Given Due Process:
"If they are being held on American soil convicted of a crime against the United States (or it's citizens), they must be given due process"
If a terrorist attacks Americans in America I could understand a trial in our public court system, though I think it would be more appropriate to give them a military trial, I could still understand the argument. What about prisoners being held at Guantanamo, captured in another country during a war?
The link you posted is in my opinion is biased in your favor I went through their references and found very little if anything to make their claim true.
If a terrorist attacks Americans in America I could understand a trial in our public court system, though I think it would be more appropriate to give them a military trial
Often they aren't even given that. Many of these suspects are being held indefinitely without trial and without charges, which is unconstitutional.
What about prisoners being held at Guantanamo, captured in another country during a war?
American military bases are still considered U.S. soil. How we treat EPWs (Enemy Prisoners of War) and how we treat suspected terrorists is very different. If you are captured in a firefight with U.S. forces you will be treated as an EPW, however if based on some Intel we find where you live and take you into custody you will be treated like a suspected criminal and if that crime is "terrorism" you will be treated like a suspected terrorist.
What you mean those people who were captured and imprison for years without trial and subjected to torture from which some died? Don't forget all the other torutre chambers, the US has them all over the world, Egypt was a hot spot for US torture victims for years before it became widely known, Omar Suleiman, Mubarak's right hand man oversaw the whole the thing at the behest of the US.
"captured in another country during a war?"
I'm sorry, did another country wage war on the US? Oh wait, no, the US did, with no legal or moral justification, you decide to invade impoverished countries in order to secure mankinds greatest material asset and ended committing genocide, and then think you can preach morality to the world, we really do live in a fucked up world.
"The link you posted is in my opinion is biased in your favor"
I don't think I've ever seen you post a link from a non mainstream US source, and mostly from the right wing media which is even worse again. You clearly aren't aware of just how worthless and corrupt your own media is so i don't think you are in any position to criticise an online polling organisation. The results are quite clear, the sample size used to represent US public opinion is 1059, how the hell if that biased in anyone's favour?
The key difference between you and me, you search for information that tells you what you want to hear, I try find the truth.
You use links and information taken from just as biased source as I do and have on several occasions quoted major American media story to make your point, but when you do it its truth finding and when I do it its just finding something that I want to hear? If thats not hypocritical its self righteous.
I think all information is subject to opinion. I think I am right and you think that your right we can find information to support and contradict either of our claims so who's right? Neither of us will ever "win" an argument against the other but we may be able to propose ideas and information to the other that would encourage a different train of thought.
"You use links and information taken from just as biased source"
I can assure you that on average my sources are far more reliable than your's, but if you'd like to cite some examples, and compare this and that I'd be happy to do so.
"and have on several occasions quoted major American media story to make your point,"
I have in the past quoted american news media to highlight how corrupt it is, and have very rarely used the US media to make my own point unless it was in relation to something that cannot be twisted or misconstrued too much. I'm not claiming my views or links are bulletproof, I have in the past posted links that are very opinionated simply because it's the kind of opinion rarely heard, but I think there's a perceptible difference between what you do and what I do, although I don't expect you to be able to perceive it.
"If thats not hypocritical its self righteous."
If what you are saying was true it would be both.
"I think all information is subject to opinion."
You're entirely correct, to quote Nietzsche; "there are no facts, only interpretatoins", this is true up to a point, but if the actual truth cannot be ignored you can simply metamorphose your position to a more extreme one that is more tolerant of that truth, which is incidently how far right facist groups gain momentum.
"I think I am right and you think that your right we can find information to support and contradict either of our claims so who's right?"
Well, you see, I don't think you're right, and I think if you gleaned the truth of what you are saying you would be forced to admit the many holes in your point of view, not that there are none in mine, but I don't think they are nearly as blatant and obvious. For instance, your perverse interpretation of the Geneva accords which you used to justify the internment and torture (and posiible killing) of people who are essentially innocent civilians (remember innocent until proven guilty) by big government agencies who answer to noone but themselves, this is one the most perverted things I have seen in a while, and is nothing short of facism.
Your comparison is so obviously false, the fact that you are too indoctrinated to see that really troubles me. You the simple fact of the matter is this, the US illegally invaded Iraq, and much of the dead and destruction is has wrought on the middle east has been compltely illegal by all standards of international law. You used the example of WW2 as a justification of torture, but the irony is what your country has done is more related to what Hitler did in WW2 e.g. Hitler invaded Poland, Saddam inavaded Kuwait, the US invaded Iraq, whats the common factor???????
They were all illegal.#
What you have written is equivalent to saying; if Iran waged a war on terror against all those terrorist elements that have tried to destroy their society, and subsequently invaded Isreal, and France, and started flying drones into British soveriegn territory bombing villages and killing civilians, if they did this (assuming they had the power) they would have the right (based on the Geneva accords) to detain anyone they suspected as being a so called terrorist, and they would also have the right (legal and moral) to torture them.
I have better things to do with my time then to go through all the crap you write and find links and claims you have posted. The ones I can remember off hand is the corporation video and a few links and videos you posted throughout all the OWLs debates. I honestly don't care that their biased, almost all information is. I know the information I reference could be considered biased, I never claimed otherwise, and most of them do give my argument and ideas support and I find them for those reasons but you do the same thing, the difference between us is you find truth and I create it.
I never ment to quote Nietzsche (though he was obviously a genius to agree with me =))I only spoke the truth, but if you need someone (who you have more respect for) to say it first then so be it.
You know what I think, I think you don't want to debate at all, with me or anyone else. You want to find people who agree with you and call anyone who doesn't wrong. I don't blame you to want to find people who pat your back and tell you that your right its very human. to do this and then think your ideas are original and special is also a very human need its one thing you have in common with the owl people.
BTW I'm am only this mean when I talk to you, that should make you feel special. Your welcome.
"I have better things to do with my time then to go through all the crap you write and find links and claims you have posted."
It was meant as an option not a demand, but take it whatever way you wish.
"the difference between us is you find truth and I create it."
I'm not sure how to interpret this, are you saying you make shit up?
"I never ment to quote Nietzsche"
You didn't, I did.
"but if you need someone (who you have more respect for"
This really has very little to do with respect, I might agree with the views are person espouses but it doesn't necessarily mean I will respect them as a person, the converse is also true, I will conceed that it has an effect.
"I only spoke the truth,"
Beleiving something is true and it being true are two very different things.
"You know what I think, I think you don't want to debate at all, with me or anyone else."
I contested your perverse interpretation of the Geneva accords, now your supposed to tell me why I'm wrong, that's called debating.
"You want to find people who agree with you and call anyone who doesn't wrong."
Your actually very wrong about that, I don't want to find only people I agree with, I to find people who disagree with everywhere, in fact I much prefer people I disagree with, and yes I will call them wrong when I beleive they are wrong.
"I don't blame you to want to find people who pat your back and tell you that your right its very human"
Are you basing this on your own prejudice against, or is it based on actual observations of my debating style, because as far as I'm aware I have since the very first day I began debating on this site I have conducted myself in accordance with (more or less) the opposite of what you are currently trying to claim.
I've never once made a enemy or an ally, sure people have made me their enemy (most notably you), and ally, I have refrained from it. I was tempted to make enemies with people just ot get them riled up, but chose against antagoniing them in that way.
What I'm saying is, are you just talking out your ass, or are you basing this on something tangible?
"BTW I'm am only this mean when I talk to you, that should make you feel special. Your welcome."
You have just written a considerable response, now don't me wrong my previous one was longish, and this is sizeable as well, but at least i addressed some of the issue, you just typed all of that and conveniently left out everything to do with the debate, or any substative issue I raised, incidentally this is also what your media does i.e. avoid substantive issues instead choosing to focus on fluff (i.e. celebs etc.) or on the personal lives of politicians, character assassination of those who occasionally try to speak the truth etc.
Why not try to defend your disgusting and completely backward interpretation of the Geneva accords?
Of course they deserve their day in court. How could anyone believe that anyone who is suspected of anyone would not get their day in court. What would you think if you were suspected and simply punished with no trial?
If a terrorist is detained in Iraq or Iran or wherever during a war and is accused of building bombs or spying or murdering children or whatever how is our court system going to confirm or deny any of the claims considering the complexity of gathering information in a country that wont let us gather that information? How do you expect a country to detain a crime scene or paper trail or even to agree that the accused did wrong.
When a country doesn't have the same standards as us or the same or similar judicial system as us how can there be a fair trial? The best course of action is to have a military trial, the other option (of which i don't agree with) is to make the whole world have the same judicial system and laws.
If a terrorist is detained in Iraq or Iran or wherever during a war and is accused of building bombs or spying or murdering children or whatever how is our court system going to confirm or deny any of the claims considering the complexity of gathering information in a country that wont let us gather that information?
ISAF will work with local governments, and conduct an investigation. That has been the case in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Nearly everything the U.S. armed forces do in Afghanistan is done either with Afghan Police or Afghan Military present.
How do you expect a country to detain a crime scene or paper trail
The same way we do in the States.
When a country doesn't have the same standards as us or the same or similar judicial system as us how can there be a fair trial?
I don't care what someone is accused of they deserve a fair trial. if you can prove them a criminal then treat them as a prisoner of war if tat is clear.
Again you show your own willingness to discard the very principles your country has sworn to uphold. Let me ask you a question, how do you someone is guilty if they are never tried in a free and fair court of law?
Who is to decide if someone is a so called "terrorist"? Yes, thats right the government, and they are not capable of doing wrong, right? They won't abuse that power, they are just looking out for you the average american.
You want to know what american defintion of terrorist is, anyone who get's in the way of US domination and hegemony. There are no bad gusy or good guys, from the perspective of most muslims in the ME you are the bad, and they have a hell of lot more justification for holding that opinion, a hell of lot more.
GO BACK TO BED AMERICA YOUR GOVERNMENT IS IN CONTROL, HERE'S AMERICAN GLADIATORS, GO BACK TO BED AMERICAN YOUR GOVERNMENT IS IN CONTROL, YOU ARE FREE TO DO AS WE TELL YOU, YOU ARE FREE TO DO AS WE TELL YOU!!!!!
The ultimate insult to our war enemies is to treat them like normal criminals that we arrest for domestic battery. Therefore, I vote for terrorists to receive equal treatment in our court system, both for the purpose of fairness and the purpose of adding insult to injury. They deserve both.
"No terrorist group is a party to the Geneva Conventions. They have not signed, much less ratified, those treaties. Moreover, it is evident that Hamas, Hezbollah, and members of the global Al-Qaeda network spurn both the spirit and the letter of international treaties designed to ameliorate the cruelty of war. Bloody attacks in New York, Jerusalem, Bali, Madrid, and Beslan are testament to the fact that these groups seek to kill civilians rather than to take captives. And when Islamist terrorists do seize hostages, brutality rather than protection appears to be the rule."
"By violating every tenet of international law regarding treatment of prisoners, terrorist groups forfeit any entitlement to protection under the Geneva Conventions. U.S. forces would be within their legal rights to treat captured Al-Qaeda members as they did Nazi saboteurs during World War IIātrial by military commission and execution by firing squad.[18]"
"The U.S. government is not only within its rights but is also wise to hold Al-Qaeda members incommunicado. A prisoner's military value does not solely consist of the information that a captive carries in his head. By holding Al-Qaeda members incommunicado, the U.S. military can sow the seeds of confusion and uncertainty in terrorist ranks. If bin Laden's followers do not know whether one of their comrades has been captured, then they also do not know whether any of their operations have been compromised. This is at the heart of the controversy about whether U.S. officials prematurely revealed that they had captured an Al-Qaeda computer specialist named Muhammad Naim Nur Khan who had assisted authorities in entrapping other Al-Qaeda operatives who were unaware of his capture.[33] Yet, if the Third Geneva Convention were applied to terrorists, the treaty's strict rules on reporting the capture of enemy POWs would make such a ruse de guerre impossible and would lead to the death of more civilians."
These quotes are from the last link I posted. You may come up with a different conclusion but I don't believe that terrorists should be treated the same as anyone else.
You are an incredibly twisted person if you beleive the Geneva conventions apply to your countries illegal operations overseas. Your desire to compare the Iraq, Afghan, Pakistan invasions to WW2 is frankly laughable. The Iraq war has already been proven to be an illegal agressive invasion. I'm not even going to bother expending the energy to show you how stupid this is, that fact that you can hold such an incredibly twisted opinion speaks volumes of you.
You're the kind of person that actively seeks out the kind of nationalistic bullshit that wouldn't hold up for a second when subjected to an objective critical analysis of the facts.
Jesus Christ garry here you go not that its going to matter.
""You are an incredibly twisted person if you beleive the Geneva conventions apply to your countries illegal operations overseas."
We have, I believe, exhausted the argument of whether it was legal or not. On the Geneva convention topic I don't think it applies to the war we are fighting (even if I agreed with it at all which I do not). The most appropriate place to give these people a trial is in a military tribunal not in regular court system.
All wars could be considered illegal by your standards but it doesn't mean there not worth fighting.
"I'm not even going to bother expending the energy to show you how stupid this is, that fact that you can hold such an incredibly twisted opinion speaks volumes of you."
I sorry, do you really expect me to respond to this?
"You're the kind of person that actively seeks out the kind of nationalistic bullshit that wouldn't hold up for a second when subjected to an objective critical analysis of the facts."
I do love my country but I try to look at all my arguments from different angles. Like for example, if my country was occupied what by what I believed was an oppressive foreign power I would defiantly be angry and want to kill them but I would not fly a plain into a building filled with innocent people. Would you? My opinion comes from a point of view that terrorists are extremest who cannot be reasoned with and would kill their own people just as easily as they would kill any American solder. Would you do that?
The best place for these people to receive justice is in a military trial. If an American soldier was captured by them they would not give them any trial ever. These people new what could happen to them if they got into this war and they did it anyway.
If you let people stay in your house who you Knew where killers ( and where planning to kill again) would you really think that you went involved in their activities? what if you gave them money or drove the car or helped commit the actual act. Would you actually be surprised if someone showed up at your door and threw you in jail?
I'm quite preapred to listen to a reasonable argument.
"We have, I believe, exhausted the argument of whether it was legal or not."
There is no argument on whether it was legal or not, there never was, the US invaded without UN approval, it acted unilaterally because it felt it could whatever the fuck it wanted to, just like Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait, and just like Hitler when he invaded Poland. The fact that you think there is even in argument about the war legality shows just how out of touch with reality you are.
"All wars could be considered illegal by your standards"
Please stop, I don't employ some crazy standard, there are legal wars and there are illegal wars. Legal wars are fought to help prevent devastation and death, and are approved by the worlds highest judical bodies, illegal wars are when one country invades another for self interest reason's, adn they cause incredible devastation and death, guess which one Iraq is?
This isn't some far left crazy opinion, or some special standard, this is international law, the international law the US swore to uphold.
"but it doesn't mean there not worth fighting."
Really, please tell why you are fighting them?,For your safety, is it? Give me a break, I think you may have been right when you said:"not that its going to matter", you can't talk to people as indoctrinated as you.
"I sorry, do you really expect me to respond to this?"
No, just something I wanted to get off me chest.
"I do love my country but I try to look at all my arguments from different angles."
The problem is, instead of the news coverage you receive providing you with a panoramic view of each side of the spectrum all your media conforms to the same line of bullshit on any issue that really matters, when you see this pundit talk smack about democrats, and this pundit talks smack about republicans your intentionally provided with the illusion of receiving both of ends of the spectrum when in reality you've recevied a narrow sliver of it, i.e.
Far Left<---------------------------------------------------(US Mainstream Discourse)------------>Far Right
-Notice how it's closer to the right
"I would defiantly be angry and want to kill them but I would not fly a plain into a building filled with innocent people. Would you?"
I don't how to answer a question like this, there are so many things I could say in response but I don't think you'll like any of them. Firstly, the question is just too vague for any kind of a proper answer so I'll just say this, what does 9/11 have to do Iraq or Afghanistan?
"My opinion comes from a point of view that terrorists are extremest who cannot be reasoned with and would kill their own people just as easily as they would kill any American solder.Would you do that?"
Firslty, the overwhelming majority of people can be reasoned with, I dare say even Osama Bin Laden could have been reasoned with if the US ever intended to do so, but that isn't what you do even though it looks like you may have to with the Taliban. You dominate the middle at the expense of it's inhabitants in order to gain unparalleled access to it's oil, in order to do this you install puppet dictators, corrupt kings, etc., who are willing to sell out their own people for your benefit, a whole mode of tactics can be employed to any country that refuses to abide by your rules, and any resistance that emerges must be stomped out so as not to set a bad example.
Secondly, don't ever underestimate what you are capable of, every man women and kind has the capacity to commit a holocaust, and don't doubt it, we all have a shadow (see Jungian Psychology), our perception in the West that we are morally superior to these people is the very reason we have allowed ourselves to slaughter so many of them. The West has painted a false image of a battle between good and evil, black and white, terrorist vs. USA and Britain who represent democracy and free speech and all those other things that are supposed to make us go weak at the knees. I shouldn't need to tell you how much of a fallacy this is.
"These people new what could happen to them if they got into this war and they did it anyway."
Who are these people?
"If you let people stay in your house who you Knew where killers ( and where planning to kill again) would you really think that you went involved in their activities?"
So what are you trying to say, the Middle East is the house of the USA, is it? Or perhaps the world is your house, and we're all just guest's, and if we behave rudely in what we think is our country but is in fact your house, then we deserve to be punished accordingly, right?
Do have any idea how crazy you sound?
"Would you actually be surprised if someone showed up at your door and threw you in jail?"
If america continues it slow descent into facism I have no doubt that opinions like mine will warrant being thrown into jail or some new form of concentration camp.
"Hitler lost world war two but facism won it, don't doubt what I'm saying people, when facism comes to this country they won't be wearing brown shirts, they'll be wearing Nike sneekers and they'll have t-shirts with great big smiley faces on them"
-George Carlin RIP
Supporting Evidence:
The Shadow
(en.wikipedia.org)