Terrorist 9/11 Attack - Discussion - Thread Full &amp; Closed

Top 1992. Oct 18, 2001 1:22 PM

» JenL_2 - Re: Verdicts.

In response to message posted by walkerman:

....or once we have these convicted terrorists in jail for life....we can use them to get essential information one way or another.....maybe physical torture isn't the American way....but how about using whatever means we have .... truth serum, psychological interrogation, etc. to get what we want out of them? They're no good to us dead - other than for the satisfaction of revenge..... but if we can use these trapped rats to catch the bigger rats, and maybe to thwart future attacks.....then they have more value to us alive in jail for life......Jen

-- posted by JenL_2

Top 1993. Oct 18, 2001 1:31 PM

» QQQless - Re: Re: Re: Verdicts.

In response to message posted by Kirk:

This discussion of pigs and prison rape is all pretty funny, in a ghoulish way. The problem is that prisoners have rights in our country. Yep, it's a fact. Has something to do with "due process of law," or some hair-brained Anglo-American idea like that. It seems that, according to constitutional standards of due process, a rather elaborate set of laws has been developed to guarantee minimum standards of treatment for even the most despicable criminals. Yep, there's a right to decent food (those peanut butter packets we are dropping in Afghanistan probably wouldn't meet the standard). Medical treatment (for anthrax, too). Personal security (no gang rapes, permitted, at least not while jailers are watching). Of course, there's a right to appeal, and appeal, and appeal--and then appeal again. And a right to have access to law books. And even the right, from time to time (and with the help of a sympathetic judge or two), to cut a record, give an interview, or publish a book. Think about Charlie Manson and Sirhan Sirhan, both of whom could fill you in our all of these rights much more minutely than I. Timothy McVeigh, in contrast, has severely restricted rights, wherever he may be now. It does little good to say, well to hell with all of those rights. They're in the decisions of our state and federal courts at all levels, and it would take decades and a major overhaul of the constitution to put any serious dent in them, even if the public believed it was a good idea to do so.

Of course, the death penalty is there too. But it has to be enforced before it has any real bite.

-- posted by QQQless

Top 1994. Oct 18, 2001 1:53 PM

» QQQless - Re: Re: Re: Re: Verdicts.

In response to message posted by Erik75:

A further thought. Terrorists have been known to take innocent hostages and threaten to hold them until "political prisoners" are released--or even to kill the hostages if the "political prisoners" aren't released. I understand that this has been done in Palestine. There's no doubt that bin Laden and his band would regard the embassy murderers as "political prisoners." I fervently hope this doesn't happen. But what would we do if it does? These are not nice people.

-- posted by QQQless

Top 1995. Oct 18, 2001 2:58 PM

» Erik75 - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Verdicts.

In response to message posted by QQQless:

Unfortunately there is only one effective way to deal with a kidnapping blackmailer. Tell them to f*ck off. Then kill them when you find them.

When properly motivated, Americans aren't nice people either. We have been motivated.

I suspect President Bush has surprised the Taliban a bit with his no negotiations stance. that will make hostage demands a bit less likely, but you do have a good argument for killing them instead of life in prison.

-- posted by Erik75

Top 1996. Oct 18, 2001 4:59 PM

» Lawhawk - Verdicts Redux

QQQless,

The Judge in the case, Leonard Sand, already declared that the terrorists would be required to pay restitution in the amount of 33 million bucks to the families of those who lost loved ones in the embassy attacks. That money would be garnished in full from any potential books, movies or other sources of income present or developed in the future. Even though the case was tried in federal court, NY's Son of Sam laws would prevent the terrorists from profiting from books or other sources.

One of the things that puts the US at a disadvantage is the knowledge by the terrorists that the US and other European nations have talked the talk, but never walked the walk. Sure, they can say they wont negotiate, but they all know that the countries all find ways to negotiate, since it's far easier to bribe and cajole than deal with the root issues.

Arms for hostages? Not a problem.

Shoot a few missiles to make the country forget for a while? Sure Thing.

Bury your head in the sand for 30 years? Absolutely.

There's no time like the present to deal with these terrorists once and for all. We've had the opportunities to do this before but shrank away. Now, it's possible they may have weapons of mass destruction at their disposal. How can we wait when we know this is possible? They've shown their willingness to die.

The line must be drawn.

-- posted by Lawhawk

Top 1997. Oct 18, 2001 5:19 PM

» QQQless - Re: Verdicts Redux

In response to message posted by Politics_Manager:

"NY's Son of Sam laws would prevent the terrorists from profiting from books or other sources."

Most jurisdictions have similar laws. While they prevent the criminals from profiting from their publications, they do not prevent the publications. A terrorist who wants to make his case in print or in an electronic format may still be able to do so if he doesn't expect to get rich by doing it. Manson gave interviews from his prison cell years after his victims were dead. A ghastly performance. Of course, there were journalists only too eager to help him tell his story. There would be others eager to help the terrorists tell theirs. It is easy to say "to hell with ransom demands" before they are made, much harder after. I just heard that Osama has already been demanding the release of one of the defendants sentenced today. It is unclear what he will do if the demand is denied. (Osama's demand may be a bit old. I understand there is a possibility he is already in paradise with the 73 virgins. This is not an established fact, just a rumor, though it may eventually be established.)

-- posted by QQQless

Top 1998. Oct 18, 2001 5:35 PM

» JenL_2 - Re: Verdicts Redux

In response to message posted by Politics_Manager:

so Michael - what do you suggest we do?

-- posted by JenL_2

Top 1999. Oct 18, 2001 5:49 PM

» BPyles - Osama/paradise

QQQ: Don't tease us now...what can you tell about it? Haven't seen anything anywhere and been all around the world tonight. Would think the head honcho would get more than 72 - shouldn't he?

Jen: Prepare to be upset. Just read an article about the credit cards of the terrorists still being used as recent as two weeks ago. Knew that would upset you.

-- posted by BPyles

http://www.suite101.com/discussion.cfm/i...

Top 2000. Oct 19, 2001 8:57 AM

» Kirk - Please no discussion here

Please post new thoughts on the new thread here:

Thread is FULL!

Closing threads at 2,000 seems to make the site load faster for those without broadband modems.

Thanks!

-- posted by Kirk