MovieChat Forums > Strip Search (2004) Discussion > Despicable Comparisons

Despicable Comparisons

posted 20 years ago by neckert7
63 replies | jump to latest

The uneasy balance between civil liberties and security in the age of terrorism is an interesting topic. Yet I reject the idea that what the US has done in the wake of September 11 can be equated to what goes on in Chinese prisons.

These are the facts: in the wake of September 11, about one thousand mostly Arab men, most of them in the US illegally, were detained. Some were held too long and some suffered some abuse but not torture and not anything that was done as a matter of state policy.

Personally, I think that my country's response to September 11 has been anything but overdone. We are a long, long way from becoming a police state. We aren't even anywhere close to where Britain, buffeted by three decades of IRA terrorism, has gone (with jury-less trials, widespread surveillance, dubious confessions). And I don't hear many people call Britain a totalitarian state.

But where I get really offended is when people start dredging up the Hitler analogy. That comparison is so far out in the realm of stupidity, you can't even see it from here.

People like to quote Benjamin Franklin's statement, "Those who trade freedom for security will have neither." I like the quote from the Supreme Court justice "The Constitution is not a suicide pact." That translates to "clinging to formalities and rules when the existence of the nation is in danger is stupid."

The bottom line is that we do need to guard against excess in our response to terrorism. Yet some self-appointed defenders of civil liberties act like September 11 never happened and that there is no reason to change anything. So I'll give a corollary to Franklin, "Liberty is impossible without security."

Think about it.

[–] driver_8 20 years ago

I think you should check your facts. We have right now, an American citizen who was picked up on suspicion that has been held for two years now without right to counsel. We have something called a writ of habeas corpus in this country. It always frightens me when people are so understanding and obliging of their government when it commits unconstitutional acts.

Salvation is free

[–] neckert7 20 years ago

One American citizen does not a People's Republic of China make. Actually, it's two citizens (Padilla and Hamzi).

For the record, I think that Padilla and Hamzi should get access to a lawyer.

You told me what you're frightened of. I'll tell you what frightens me:

People who refuse to accept the fact that September 11 was not some sort of freak accident

People who refuse to accept that having a situation where hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens are able to roam this country at will is inherently dangerous to our national security

People who think that delayed notice search warrants in terrorist cases are some horrendous violation of the Constitution and ignore the fact that the FBI has been doing them in espionage and organized crime cases for years

People who scream about the Patriot Act giving the FBI the power to sub poena library records (never mind the fact that this would be necessary in a bomb case where the defendant pleads not guilty and obligates the government to prove each and every element of the crime --including the fact that the defendant checked books out about explosives from the library)(oh, yes and then there's the fact that the FBI has never used this power)

People who reject the idea of taking nationality and religion into account when screening people despite the fact that the enemy is overwhelmingly Arabic and Muslim (and by willfully ignoring this fact we are giving the enemy an advantage)

People like the American lawyer who apparently aided and abetted Omar Abdel Rahman, spiritual leader of the Egyptian Islamic Group (and currently serving a life prison sentence for terrorist offenses committed in the US) by facilitating communications between Rahman and his followers

A citizenship process that allows people with extremely tenuous connections to the US to claim citizenship (like Hamzi)

People who think that it would be a good idea to allow the detainees at Guantanamo to have full access to the US legal system despite the fact that it would essentially gridlock that system for the next century.

************************************************
Bottom line: Overreaction by the government is a source of concern in the post-911 world. But so is "underreaction" by ordinary American citizens who think that they can have security without making some adjustments.

I believe in protecting everyone's rights. But I firmly believe that the innocent have more rights than the guilty.

[–] lwenke 20 years ago

neckert7 wrote:
================
"People who think that it would be a good idea to allow the detainees at Guantanamo to have full access to the US legal system despite the fact that it would essentially gridlock that system for the next century."
================

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58702-2004May1.html
Consider these quotes from the Washington Post, Sunday, May 2, 2004:

"Six of the 600 have been designated to stand trial before military tribunals. Many of the detainees have been in custody for two years. Only a handful have seen a lawyer, and two have been formally charged."

So the US legal system would be gridlocked for the next century if a few hundred prisoners used it? That's not the only objection people have... a bigger objection is that they haven't been formally charged with anything and most haven't had contact with a lawyer (and perhaps not any friends either). It seems that the US doesn't consider those people to be prisoners of war (since they aren't a country) so the Geneva convention doesn't apply to them. So it seems that the US doesn't need to give the prisoners any rights at all. Apparently the second patriot act, which luckily wasn't passed, allowed US citizens to be declared enemy combatants and be stripped of their citizenship. They could be secretly captured and detained indefinitely, etc. I think if the person was a member of an organisation that did certain illegal activities, even without the member's knowledge, that member could be considered an enemy combatant (according to the second patriot act). And I think that South African anti-apartheid group (ANC?) did some illegal activities so if you supported that you could be an enemy combatant... I think the second patriot act also let the government work more in secret. Though those things would have some advantages as far as fighting terrorism goes, there can be a danger of these things being misused.
BTW, a related idea to the TV show is the Iraqi prisoner abuses. Like the Chinese prison story, it also involves foreign prisoners. Apparently a few Iraqi prisoners have even been raped and killed and those that were charged that appeared in the photos keep claiming that they were under orders - many believe that Rumsfield approved of the rough treatment (like sexual humiliation), at least in the past.
Maybe civil libertarians are a bit too worried, but without a certain amount of "checks and balances" on government processes (rather than too much secrecy), bad things can happen. I hope you don't think that no matter how much power is given to the government, we'll always enjoy the same freedoms. (i.e. no concentration camps for political enemies or jews or whatever the oppressive government likes to do)

[–] joshsureisgreat 17 years ago

1) Ok, if you've been in the military (which you obviously haven't), you'd understand a little more.
There is no way Rumsfeld had any idea about individual abuse cases going on in Gitmo prior to the media reporting them. There is no way that any military-guy you've ever heard of had known. Every country breeds a certain small percentage of sickos, and they are going to end up abusing a prisoner. Or if they aren't in the military, they'll beat their spouse. Something like that. The military definitely does the best it can to try to prevent it, but it's impossible to prevent. Rumsfeld might have visited Gitmo twice a year, and when he did, everyone would get their act straight and make the place look perfect for the day. If abuse happened, chances are reports of it wouldn't go very high; they'd be stamped out (though for the most part corrected) early. I'm not saying it's all done right, since it obviously isn't. But you can't really blame the higher-ups for that which they couldn't have known about. That's why we punish the individuals responsible for the crimes.
Think about it: If you were the Secretary of the Navy and heard about a few cases of abuse of prisoners, would you want to report them to the Secretary of Defense? Of course not. He wouldn't have heard about it at all for exactly that reason.

2) You've obviously never read the second Patriot Act.
Or, if you have... If you think that the military tribunal is that fallable that completely innocent American citizens would be jailed for long periods of time at the whim of one person, then you obviously can have no faith whatsoever in any American court system. That, or you believe officers in the military are simply far less trustworthy than the average American.
For that matter, it's obvious you didn't read it. It's not "enemy combatant", it's "unlawful combatant". A term which is supposed to mean the polar opposite. The kind of guy who will shoot at people wearing the Red Cross, or raise a white flag and then open fire on soldiers after they lower their guard. Or, well, those who commit acts of terrorism... Of course the Geneva Conventions don't apply to them. Not because they aren't citizens of this or that country, but because they DISOBEY the Geneva Conventions.

Wow. Well, there goes 5 minutes of my life. Probably not a single person will actually read this one true and valid argument and take anything away from it. You all will just believe what you want to believe. I guess that's just what we all do. Bye. <3

[–] cybertooth85 20 years ago

I certainly respect your viewpoint more than the raving lunatics who are more concrened with bashing this film than talking about the issues it questioned.

While I won't say the U.S. is "evil" in passing legislation to take stricter measures in protecting itself from insidious and covert threats, it's always prudent to question the limits of things. In passing (or maintaining as the case may be) things like the Patriot Act, are we throwing away certain rights citizens (obviously not all of us) of this country fought hard to earn? It's true that new legislation is required to aid the situation, but how far do we as a nation wish to go? With policies that can (if only theoretically) affect all of us, how strict or encompassing do we want them? And how much do they NEED to be?

It's a hard issue to look at, but one that can't go unscritinized for too long. Even if this stressful situation does climax and end in another 15 or 20 years, what new problem could the nation be dealing with in another 30 or 40, which the polucies might be used for? (Lets' not forget the short duration of political and military peace between WWI and WWII, which IS an allegory worth stating).

Mostly, I think it's a personal response when people ask how humane or inhumane we can be in enforcing laws to protect ourselves. Things can become very drastic, very quickly, and the current government structure (not necessarily every administration) is very capable of keeping things hidden for months or years afterwards.

Bottom line: scrutiny is not threatening (though people that scrutinize everything are paranoid - including myself) but indifference is. If there are a number of "innocent" (cause that's a loaded word for many) people harmed in some way be these policies and actions, it's up to each person to determine whether or not these things are going to far.

Of course, that may be asking for a level of political interaction that doesn't exist currently.

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TheMattMan 20 years ago

>Q: do we execute people and bill the families for the bullet?

A: Our courts force people into mental institutions and then bill families for the state-mandated care.

>Q: do we tank roll over protestors?

A: We shoot them (Kent State), turn police dogs and fire hoses on them (Birmingham), etc, etc.

>Q: do we detain people on reasonable cause?

A: How can you say the causes are reasonable when we can't even talk to the detainees? When their existence isn't even acknowledged?

>Q: did we lose some 2500+ citizens on 9/11 and get a little antsy?

A: There's nothing "antsy" about it. With each passing day it becomes more obvious that the President with cold, cold calculation used 9/11 as a convenient excuse to justify a pre-existing agenda.

>Q: do our losses equal the possible discomfort afew arabs face by being detained? NO!

A1: "Possible" "discomfort"? How about "documented evidence" of "torture"?

A2: You've watched Spock's death speech in "The Wrath of Khan" a few too many times. This is not a case of "the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few". When any one person is denied liberty, we all suffer.

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] neckert7 20 years ago

There is a big difference between isolated incidences of brutality and systematic torture. Also, just because the NYT prints claims by people that something happened in a particular way doesn't necessarily mean it's true. That's particulalry the case where politics and possibly lawsuits intersect.

Also, which would you prefer? Getting beaten in prison but ultimately released or
being hijacked by terrorists who use the plane you're riding on as a giant cruise missile? Personally, I'll take the former over the latter. Death is permanent.

I also won't weep any tears over people who were in this country illegally.

Finally, whatever happened in the wake of September 11 has to be understood in the context of the time. The US had suffered a monumental provocation. However, except for isolated incidents, the US response to Muslims and Arabs in this country was quite restrained (as it should have been). Given the magnitude of the atrocity committed on September 11, there are a lot of countries where there would have been massive pogroms against people identified as being part of the tribe of those responsible.

ps. I am still waiting for someone from the Arab world to "apologize" to the US for September 11 and more recently the ritualistic murder of the American contractor in Iraq. I bet I have a long wait.

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Dharkharon 20 years ago

Are you a member of the Klan by any chance?

You appear to have completely glossed over the fact that Islam is one of the most peaceful and equality teaching religions in the world and blamed it for the actions of a few muslims. Furthermore you have decided that just because a few people from the middle east have attacked your empire (and thats what america is making itself into) the entire region and everyone connected to it must pay.

Furthermore i resent your implication that Britain has some secretive policies of repression because we don't have jury trials at low levels and instead use apolitical judges who aren't elected and don't have personal agendas in the courtroom.

America is setting itself up as a dictatorial state, after all its elections have already been suborned to deny the winner of the election his rightful place. Its justice system has been circumvented so that all known conventions on human rights can be ignored. America is longer being run for the people, it's an empire looking to expand for greed, profit and cheaper oil(called the american way usually).

Get over yourselves, America has gone out of its way to piss off half the world and you act surprised when the rest of the world turns around and inflicts a fraction of the deaths back upon you. Your contry isn't as great as you seem to think and has more than its fair share of faults, quit bad mouthing the rest of the world just because you refuse to see that you brought this upon yourselves.

[–] Red_Rider 19 years ago

"Are you a member of the Klan by any chance?"

I was actually just going to ask if he's a Republican, but it's the same difference.

I respect you're opinion, neckert7, though I do not fully agree with it. I agree that there are many suspects who should remain detained for a while longer. But I think that the US needs to treat these detainees in the same manner that they would treat any other prisoners. If that means changing the laws so that these people are jailed for a longer period of time, sobeit. My only problem with the current situation is that there is no law that these people have been charged with violating.

Also, I wouldn't bring illegal immigrants into this argument if I were you. Do you honestly think that migrant workers from Mexico are a threat to America? These people flee from Mexico because of the brutal conditions in which they are forced to live. They come to the US and (for the most part) take jobs that no other American citizens would ever take and make very little money as a result. These aren't the people crashing into buildings.

And I do not think that racial profiling works either. Sure, you can arrest all of the Muslims in the world if you want to. 99% of them are peaceful, law-abiding citizens. It's the same with any race. There are some bad-apples everywhere; it's like listening to Mike Tyson and thinking that what he says reflects the views of all African Americans, or like listening to ohh, I don't know, George W. Bush and thinking that his thoughts reflect those of every white person. Judging people based solely on race and religion smacks of the Crusade, which was a very dark time in our history.

[–] jshealey 17 years ago

So, you think a Klansman and a Republican are the same thing? Ok, since we are comparing political parties, I guess you can say that the Nazi party and the Democrats are the same. The Nazi's were socialists, so are the Democrats.

[–] defcon7 19 years ago

I dare say you've been watching too much Michael Moore. Since when has Islam been a peaceful and equitable religion? When it's calling for the murder of infidels? When it advocates stoning adulterers, or how about cutting off the arms of thieves? Or perhaps it's peaceful in calling for Muslims not to take friends from among Christians or Jews?

Once again, society has brainwashed the masses into believing the "multiculti-at-all-costs" mantra of moral equivalence between religious groups. America has a huge security issue on its hands in trying to balance individual rights with those of the public. And because of a global leftist smear campaign designed to inflame passions against America for having the desire, ability, and necessity to stand up against terrorism, rather than buying into the appeasement campaign that has trademarked Europe's dealings with terrorism (see EU v. Iran nuclear program, Britain v. Nazi Germany).

"Those who appease the crocodile will simply be eaten last." -- Winston Churchill

[–] phenry-8 18 years ago

> Since when has Islam been a peaceful and equitable religion?

Q. Who was responsible for the Jewish Holocaust?

A. A nominally Christian country

Q. Who was responsible for the shipping of millions of Africans to the Americas where they lived the the rest of their life as slaves.

A. Various Christian countries.

Q. Which religion has caused the deaths of tens of millions of people in two World Wars?

A. The large majority were Christians.

Q. Should we blame Christianity for these atrocities.

A. I don't think so.

All I am saying is think about how other peoples see us. It reminds me of that scene in "Cry Freedom" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092804/) where Steve Biko is in a kangaroo court and the judge tries to belittle his race.

Judge: Look at all the tribal wars you used to have.

Biko: What do you call World War I and World War II?

[–] uberben 18 years ago

Slaves were, by and large purchased from Muslims who enslaved non Muslims as it was against the religion to enslave fellow Muslims.

The idea that white Europeans trekked into the continent to capture slaves is a complete lie. The slave trade existed, absolutely. Millions of people were enslaved by Europeans and Americans, absolutely. But, the point of purchase where it all began was generally the purchase of black Africans by Europeans from Muslim Africans. There is plenty of shame for whites and Christians for what happened, but that doesn't allow you to concoct history or "facts." Or, maybe you know the facts and were trying to hide them by using the term “shipping” instead of capturing or enslaving.

And, who is in charge of the majority of the modern slave trade.

As for who was responsible for the Holocaust…we know who. Go further, who was responsible for the Armenian Genocide…or the Assyrian Christians (both near contemporary of the Holocaust)? I believe Turkey is and was a Muslim country.

Who was responsible for hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of deaths in the partition and subsequent wars in the Indian subcontinent? At least 50% to Muslims. Who is responsible for the genocide of Christians in Darfur in the Sudan currently…not Christians. Anyone can play this game.

[–] uberben 18 years ago

You don't get a free pass on Islam as a peaceful religion.

It includes strategies for battles, discussion of killing outsiders and other intolerant but specific wording in its book. And I am not talking about for actions in the hereafter, but the here and now.

And, while I agree that most muslims are not terrorists, that in the same breath most sympathize at some level with what recently happened to American soldiers. That is the difference...on the other foot,I would not sympathize with those actions against muslims.

As an American and a Christian, I do not see Chechan attacks on, for example, fellow christian Russians as an attack on me. Is the same true for Muslims? No.

[–] chicken_eater 19 years ago

>>>>ps. I am still waiting for someone from the Arab world to "apologize" to the US for September 11 and more recently the ritualistic murder of the American contractor in Iraq. I bet I have a long wait.

yep, and i bet a whole bunch of iraqis are still waiting for someone (anyone!) from the united states government to apologise for invading their country two years ago, killing plenty of innocent civilians, and maintaining a military presence there to this day.

but then, those who commit atrocities tend not to apologise for their actions, usually because they think they're right in doing so.

[–] metyattdesign 18 years ago

"Also, which would you prefer? Getting beaten in prison but ultimately released or
being hijacked by terrorists who use the plane you're riding on as a giant cruise missile? Personally, I'll take the former over the latter. Death is permanent."

I'll not get into politics, but I need to point out a great mistake in this comment. I don't know what you think about the abusive treatment in prisons such as Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo, but it isn't something as confortable as a simple "beating". We are not talking about the supresion of one's freedom, but the supresion of one's dignity. And it's important to mention that every democracy guarantees both citizens and foreigners found on that country's territory their right to dignity. See, being beaten with sticks is not that bad, but being electrocuted in the more "sensitive" areas, being forced to simulate having sex with other detainees or sleeping in your own feces is really a B#$ch. Personaly, I WOULD rather die than living with that on my mind - Death is permanent (well, if you don't believe in afterlife :) ), but such trauma acompanies you to the grave.

[–] nomen_meltdown 12 years ago

"There is a big difference between isolated incidences of brutality and systematic torture."

Isolated incidences of brutality, once tolerated, pave the way to systematic torture. If The People allow The State to get away with it, The State will always look to expand its mandate to exercise that power, because The State always seeks to aggregate more power.

"Also, which would you prefer? Getting beaten in prison but ultimately released or being hijacked by terrorists who use the plane you're riding on as a giant cruise missile? Personally, I'll take the former over the latter."

Put another way, which would you prefer-- leading a life where you unwaveringly stand up for ideals you hold dear and possibly dying early as the victim or a crime, or dying of old age having silently consented to the gradual erosion of the freedoms you claim to hold dear? Because I'd also take the former.

"Death is permanent."

Ask a Hindu about that one. Or a Buddhist. Or ask a Christian-- there are lots of those around America-- who purportedly believes that dying (if you've lived properly) ushers you into an eternity spent in the kingdom of a benevolent deity. I don't buy any of it, but even as an atheist I don't believe that the ultimate imperative in life is merely "continuing to live for as long as possible." Which is ultimately futile anyway, because again, inevitably we all end up dead anyway.

"I also won't weep any tears over people who were in this country illegally."

Just curious-- are you a Native American? Because if you aren't pure-blooded 'Indian' then your own ancestors were immigrants. In which case, what were their 'ties' that legitimized their immigration? And are you sure they entered the country "legally?" Are you 100% sure? Have you recently asked someone who is Native American whether they consider the descendants of European immigrants "legal" or "illegal?" Because as I hear it, there are quite a few who wish they'd had stricter border enforcement a few centuries ago.

"Finally, whatever happened in the wake of September 11 has to be understood in the context of the time. The US had suffered a monumental provocation. However, except for isolated incidents, the US response to Muslims and Arabs in this country was quite restrained (as it should have been)."

And America's response to Muslims and Arabs in other countries? Iraq, for instance? Which factually had no part in the provocation of 9/11/01 (despite willful government fabrications to the contrary). And do you think that Iraqi Arab Muslims who'd immigrated to America before 9/11, who subsequently received word that their family members back home were being bombed into meat shrapnel would call the oblitteration of that country "restrained?" Al queda terrorists killed ~3000 American in the provocative event you reference; America then went on to kill ~100,000 Iraqis (the vast majority of whom had nothing to do with 9/11). Have the Iraqi people not, then, been "provoked?" If they HAD the means to retaliate effectively, would they not now be at least as "justified" in killing-- if we're being proportionate-- about 33x as many Americans (~3,300,000) in response to America's provocation against them?

These are just some questions I think you'd do well to mull over. Not just to reflexively defend yourself against, but to seriously consider, making some kind of attempt to transcend your rigid perspective and view events through the eyes of others. Others who are every bit as human as you are. Others who feel every bit as righteous in their rage against your country, or who love their national ideals every bit as much as you do, but who view things differently from you.

I'm an island- peopled by scientists, bards, judges, soldiers, artists, scholars, & warrior-poets.

[–] iburnedmyhousedown 20 years ago

I'll give a corollary to you: "Liberty is impossible with security". When we are not allowed to live our lives, we have no liberty. liberty does not exist. That is why I would never give up my freedom for anything. The day we give up our freedom for five minutes is the day we give it up forever.

[–] Autlan 20 years ago

Check out 12 angry men also directed by Sidney Lumet. You are Juror number three.

It's understandable that anyone should be insulted by digs at their country. But backing up your arguement by pointing blame at other countries and jabbering on about illegals in your country like they're the only ones drilling holes in the ship is negating it. What about Rupert Murdoch? He's a legal immigrant and he's cooking up his own fox brand of terror right now. He may not be flying planes into stuff or bombing federal buildings or shooting up schools or sending bombs through the mail, but he's still doing damage by purposely lying. CaesarC7 brought up the censorship of this movie by HBO in a sister topic. No doubt showing this movie would upset sponsors, because people don't need to see material that might make them question the decisions made by their representatives. :rolleyes: I'm sure just as much time is spent scared of being branded unpatriotic as is worrying about biting the dust in a terrorist attack. Sept the 11th did happen, 9-11 panel has spoken, take it as a warning to strengthen weaknesses in the defence instead of adopting an agenda that will only alienate your country further and increase the chance of it happening again.

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Autlan 20 years ago

"We should, rather eliminate them. If eliminating them means leaving no available host nations for them, then so be it."

Examine the morality of this statement -

If you mean killing all enemy combatants, every husband, uncle, cousin and even son will that work? You're battling an idea here not the people. Before the war on terror the only people that stood against you were the hardcore militants. The majority of people that have suicide bombed troops in Iraq or Israel are normal people who have been convinced that the other side is evil. Sounds to me like both sides have something in common. So the more of these people you accidentally kill while claiming self-defence, the more you demonize yourselves and the more willing people are to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country. Bush called it the war over minds, that's the part of the war you could have lost and did.

If you mean invading country after country making them colonies you'll run into a lot of opposition. There's plenty of people around the world don't want to be like you because of the false image they're given of your country. This won't happen anyway. Countries without a means of paying the captial back for reconstruction will be tossed away and left as vunerable as Afganistan is now. You'll only be helping the terrorists by giving them a cosy place to hang out in while the heat dies down, so they can "plot again another day".

The best defence is a good offensive, cute. The truth is your intelligence agencies that were playing defense were benched and ignored by the coach while he had his army on offence out in the other teams field just passing the ball. Now you're looking for someone else to blame for a man sneaking through the offense and scoring.

Take a bit of time each day to compare the headlines on www.foxnews.com to www.washingtonpost.com and www.cnn.com. Rupert Murdoch's newspapers don't completely make stuff up, that's not what I meant, but they twist and skew stories and take things out of context until they're almost a lie. I'm sure you can find this in most newspapers, but you'll find most of it on a regular basis from www.foxnews.com, http://www.nypost.com or http://www.thesun.co.uk. All of them owned by Murdoch incase you're wondering what my point is.

[–] Ritkor 20 years ago

This must be a pretty pathetic state of affairs indeed, when people justify the depravities of the American government by claiming, "Well, at least we're not as bad as the other guy."

Furthermore, the film didn't compare the SCOPE of Chinese interrogations with those of post 9-11 America, they were comparing the PROCESS. Thanks to the slew of photographs from Abu Gahraib, there's no denying that our government takes part in unethical interrogations (and then tries to cover them up).

You can try to justify this crap any way you want, but there is no underlying logic to using torture to stop terrorism. You want to stop terrorism, so you torture people. That pisses people off, who in turn become terrorists. There's no end to it.

[–] balls687 19 years ago

I find the lines islam is a peaceful and equality driven religion absurd. Ask the chicks in the bee keeper suits if they feel equal to their male counterparts. As far as peace goes im sure that the intent of islam is one of peace. However any religion that has "jihad" as one of its major tenants is clearly not grounded in peace. Peaceful people do not blow themselves up trying to take out innocents in the name of Allah.I know our *beep* stinks but to even suggest that radical and militant islam doesnt have skidmarks all over their tighty whities is outrageous.

[–] Pipoka 19 years ago

dude, christianity also had the word CRUSADE clearly witten in it, we just got over it... SOME muslims just haven't got over jihad, and i say some, becuse in the milions of muslims that are around the world, only a few hundreds are terrorists, and only a few other thousand support their course of action. this gives out a few thousands of terrorist supporters, in a good few MILLONS of muslims. jihad is not a main part of their religion, its a WAY OF INTERPRETATING THE CORAN, just as some christians interpreted the bible when we had the inquisition, and yet you don't say that inquisition is a main part of christianity... and do't say it was hundreds of years ago becuse yet today you still have violent christian fundamentalists; just look at all the sects, the para-military (militia) grups, the KKK, skinheads, and even nazis. all of these groups (some more than others) have manifesto-like connections with the christian ideology(altough obviously misinterpretating it, just as some muslims do misinterpretate the coran). yet, you do not say that christians are by their nature violent and terrorist-supporters, as you so-openly call muslims.

but there is another point that must be said:
don't confuse terrorism with the militias operating in iraq. terrorists are obviously fanatical people that are willig to blow themselves up in the name of their god. the militias are groups of people fighting for their country. let me explain this:

i live in portugal, in europe. i have a stable life: work, get paid in the end of the month, feed my family, etc. so did iraquis before coalition troops invaded their country. now lets draw a paralel situation in my country:

- i was able to, although opressed by a fascist government, to go on with my life, i worked, got paid, kids went to school, had food in the marketplace, went to coffee shops (yes, before the war iraqui people actually went to coffee shops). then the war begins, my country is in total caos, no schools for my kids (coalition forces actually took most of them as temporary military headquarters), all business is paralized so no work nor paiment, food is dissapiaring and forced to live on rations given by the invaders, etc, and the so called freedom, becuse of the marcial law imposed (still carring on today...), there isn't many to be found.

- during the invasion, bombings (either intentional or not) hit residential areas, and kill or wound some of my friends or family.

- after the invasion, incidents (again, either intentional or not) like the one that a lot of people were protesting against the fact that coalition forces had taken a school as headquarters (as i mentioned before), and despite the fact that it was a peacefull manifestation (similar to the ones that FREE COUNTRY living people are allowed to do) one soldier stresses out and opens fire (and i can sympathise with is, stress is something hard to deal, combined with the fear of someone pulling a weapon and shooting him (it was peacefull, but handguns are hard to spot, so even if it didn't happen, it WAS a possibility), and the fact that he was a soldier, trained to kill and warfare like situations, not crowd-control ones), killing may protesters, who once again could be my friends or family-members.

- also worthy of notice, is the fact that the invaders were a peapole whom to start they weren't very friendlt with (not necessary meaning that they wanted to kill them; portuguese people are peacefull, yet we are not-so-friendly with spannish people).

- awhile after the invasion (i mean several months, now years) the country is still in total chaos, and i find the safety of my family hard to manintain.

- the invading army sometimes makes serach-raids into houses (rightous or not), looking for possible suspects, who are then taken to interrogation-houses and prisons, and sometimes not seen again.

CONCLUSION: against this scenario, if there were a group of people that said they were gonna revolt and fight the invasors, and facing the rage caused by the deaths of friends and family-members, would i deny to join the revolt, or stop a friend family-member of mine from doing so ? HELL NO!!
the french "resistence" is still displayed as a group of heroes that were willing to throw away their lives to defend their way of life, and the right of one country to be free and to choose its own destiny. from a local iraqui point of view, their militias must look the same, so we should all think twice before calling them terrorists and arresting them for questioning, becuse during the french ocupation during WWII, the nazis also called the resistence of terrorists, and sent the gestapo after them.

and another thing: invading a country in order to bring democracy to it is against democracy itself: freedom means that you have the right to choose your own future. who are we to dictate that that country MUST have democracy ? that means we are IMPOSING democracy, and imposing something isn't the most most democratic way of doing things, isn't it ? if they really wnat freedom and democracy, let them fight for it, becuse you cannot fully apreciate and value something unless you fought for it. so we should let dictatorships fall on their own, let THE PEOPLE DECIDE to have democracy, and when they do, let's provide them with all they need to do so, so they can earn it by themselves.
we and all trully free countries of the world were able to fight their way (either violently or pacificly) out of opressive governments; why shouldent the ones that are still opressed be able to do the same ? we all did...

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Pipoka 19 years ago

truth, i know little of the methods and religious positions of the KKK. in you got me there =P.
still, christians have also commited horrible and brutal acts in the name of god throught the years. even recently, during WWII, the vatican supported the nazis. the pope actually apologised for that a few years ago. what i'm trying to say is that there are many interpretacions of the same saying and guidelines: if one reads the bible, it's obvious that it prays peacefullness and forgiveness. still, some people have been able to find justification for acts of violence in the bible. some people are making misinterpretacions of the coran as well, it's all i say.
obviously the nazi invasion doesn't compare to the one on iraq, but you can't deny some disturbing paralels.
still, you haven't said anything about the part of my post on the militias and why to revolt, or the part on democracy having to be fought, not given, in order for people to valor it.

sinceraly, a proud portuguese with a terrible hangover =P

[–] SCSICommando 19 years ago

Dialogue of both interrogations are the same. Therefore, the scope is also compared.

The filmakers are saying this is exactly what's happening right in New York.

[–] davidemartin 19 years ago

Ultra-conservatives and their dupes continually protest comparisons between themselves and Hitler. Maybe the reason is that the compasion is too close to the truth?

Fact is, American Conservatives openly embraced Hitler and his views in the 30s. Even after the war started, many American Conservatives still acted like it was all a misunderstanding.

Even in the modern day, the GOP is full of Hitler admirers. Nixon had one handling his personal security. And that guy still has a radio show on a Conservative radio network.