scott said: Oh no, we have no P.O.W's. That's where your poster is mistaken. We have "enemy combatants", many of whom are terrorists.
Well.... they are held against their wills in facilities that look, feel and function like prisons... I'd say that makes them prisoners. Also we are constantly informed by your President & my Prime Minister that we are at War with these people. After all it *is* The WAR on Terror is it not? To my mind that makes them 'prisoners of war'. Calling them 'enemy combatants' is just linguistic slight of hand to get around The Geneva Conventions.
scott asked: Do you want terrorists getting the same rights as me and you?
In a word: Yes. For a start they are *suspected* terrorists as many of them have been neither charged with anything nor have they been put on trial or convicted. Some of the detainees have been released (after years in jail) and are now free to live their lives. Presumably they are innocent of any charges they may have been accused of? The only way we'll know if these people are guilty of what they have yet to be accused of is by putting them on trial.
Or are you saying that merely being accused of being a terrorist is enough? Do you trust the State enough to let them make that determination - especially as the accused cannot clear their name in court? Is an accusation *really* enough for you?
Also - because these people (some of whom may well be innocent) have been accused of being terrorists you think that this allows us to torture them? That an accusation of this particular crime (and presumably no other) allows us to refuse them the Rights we give to murderers, rapists and various other scum bags? How do you justify that?
indeed scott. Sarcasm or any type of humour does not translate well over plain text - *so* much is lost in transmission.
I'm glad you were joking though - for a few shocking moments I thought that you agreed that the State had a right to classify people as 'terrorists' and treat them accordingly.
It actually didn't 'sound' like you at all. I'm relieved!
Poster Time.
4 comments:
Oh no, we have no P.O.W's. That's where your poster is mistaken. We have "enemy combatants", many of whom are terrorists.
Do you want terrorists getting the same rights as me and you?
Terrorists?
scott said: Oh no, we have no P.O.W's. That's where your poster is mistaken. We have "enemy combatants", many of whom are terrorists.
Well.... they are held against their wills in facilities that look, feel and function like prisons... I'd say that makes them prisoners. Also we are constantly informed by your President & my Prime Minister that we are at War with these people. After all it *is* The WAR on Terror is it not? To my mind that makes them 'prisoners of war'. Calling them 'enemy combatants' is just linguistic slight of hand to get around The Geneva Conventions.
scott asked: Do you want terrorists getting the same rights as me and you?
In a word: Yes. For a start they are *suspected* terrorists as many of them have been neither charged with anything nor have they been put on trial or convicted. Some of the detainees have been released (after years in jail) and are now free to live their lives. Presumably they are innocent of any charges they may have been accused of? The only way we'll know if these people are guilty of what they have yet to be accused of is by putting them on trial.
Or are you saying that merely being accused of being a terrorist is enough? Do you trust the State enough to let them make that determination - especially as the accused cannot clear their name in court? Is an accusation *really* enough for you?
Also - because these people (some of whom may well be innocent) have been accused of being terrorists you think that this allows us to torture them? That an accusation of this particular crime (and presumably no other) allows us to refuse them the Rights we give to murderers, rapists and various other scum bags? How do you justify that?
I.... was kidding. Satirical humor doesn't always translate well over the Internets.
But really, you made a good argument. You've got me convinced! :)
indeed scott. Sarcasm or any type of humour does not translate well over plain text - *so* much is lost in transmission.
I'm glad you were joking though - for a few shocking moments I thought that you agreed that the State had a right to classify people as 'terrorists' and treat them accordingly.
It actually didn't 'sound' like you at all. I'm relieved!
Post a Comment