Mr. Trump, They would be boiling fingers in oil if they needed information; if not they would behead their victim. If this suspect had information on nuclear facilities or dirty bombs they're not inclined to violate his so-called rights? Once a terrorist: You have no rights. You cease to exist as member of the human race therefore any treatment is acceptable! Go Trump
21 comments
Universal Human Rights. I even capitalize them.
Of course I'd appreciate someone giving a terrorist or sufficiently terrible criminal a thumping. But! I know that it would not be right. So it should not be supported or done, even if it would feel right. It isn't. Everyone has rights, even if they deny them others.
Right, and who decides who's a terrorist?
US soldiers have killed a lot of civilians in the middle east in pursuit of political goals. Does that mean that every US soldier has forfeited all human rights, as far as anyone from that region is concerned?
So Robert Dear, Eric Rudolph, Timothy McVeigh, the Army of God, Christian Identity don't get rights.
Okay so think about it this way. If a terrorist is being tortured and the only way you'll stop is if they give information, then what prevents them from giving you a load of crap?
What are they supposed to say if they actually don't know anything?
Also even if they gave you information sure the torture would stop, but they would still be in prison or slated to be executed, so why would they care?
How do you tell the difference between a terrorist and an innocent Arabic person who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and, due to racism disguised as a "war on a specific religion" (which, in and of itself, is already a ludicrous statement) meant he was targetted far more easily than if he had been a white, anglo-saxon Muslim?
@Doubting Thomas
Where is that in the Constitution?
Not that I support this interpretation, but since you asked, Article I, section 9 of the US Constitution reads as follows:
I.9. The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
This is the reasoning behind Guantanamo Bay, but the interpretation is highly disputed among constitutional scholars, of which Buddy Rider is not one.
And who gets to decide if someone is a terrorist?
@checkmate
You know, IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that there's some obscure document in US history that describes such 'so-called rights' as 'inalienable'. Can't quite think what it is, though...
Once a terrorist: You have no rights
Well, yeah. But we're not talking about terrorists - we're talking about people who might be terrorists.
I do agree that murderers, terrorists, etc., lose all moral rights and I would gladly take a chainsaw to them. But the reason I oppose torture is the same reason I oppose the death penalty; the chance of using it on someone innocent.
@Thanos6:
"Terrorist" is the new "commie."
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
