War, the USA, the Geneva Conventions and Patriot Act

[JerrySeinfeld]

Let's start with my question:

Do you think it's fair that we (ie. the west - including Canada in it's fight against the inherently evil Taliban, the US in it's improving fight against Al Qaeda in Iraq etc.) engage in this fight with one hand tied behind our backs?

Let me explain a bit.

In a world where the Pakistani President is killed because an Islamic militant strapped a bomb to an infant baby and invited the President to come over and kiss the little one, will "fighting fair" (as it were, on a battlefield, with enemies identified by uniforms, a la world war II) ever actually work?

In a world where, out of the goodness of our hearts, we invite people from all corners of the world - even ass-backward midevil corners - with open arms and treat them as equals, only to (rarely mind you) find that those very same newcomers have chosen not to embrace our society, but rather to create their own society and destroy ours (see third generation UK citizen London tube bombers), is this struggle between radical Islam and our fundamental values of freedom subject to new rules of the game?

In times of war, is it possible for societies to "temporarily" shift individual liberties to protect the masses? Or is this simply an admission of defeat - ie. by suspnding some individual privacies / liberties we're curtailing the very freedoms we intend to protect.

Personally I side with the patriot act. We all give up some individual liberties when we get on board an airplane. The only ones that really mind (aside from the idea of mere inconvenience) are those that are trying to getb something illegal onto an airplane anyway. We accept the inconvenience for the greater good - and for our own saftey. This is my own opinion.

This might sound callous, but I also don't really care about the Taliban getting tortured. Seriously. I heard something vaguely on the news the other day about the "scandal" of Canada handing over Talabin combatants to Afghani forces and being tortured. I mean, Canada is so g*damned worried about our image we are more concerned with that than with winning. Even our money has pictures of soldiers walking around with no guns. GIVE ME A BREAK. OK I digress....haha

Given things like the Canadian Islamic Congress Versus Maclean Magazine (via Canadian Human Rights Council), or the Toronto terrorist plotters claims of police abuse, or Islamic UK MPs stating that "bombing plots could easily be avoided if we changed our foreign poliy re: Islreal / Iraq", or Taliban being "tortured", it seems really obvious that radical Islamists have figured out the be st way to defeat our societies is to use our own ego (ie. our need to feel like wer'e a great, gentle, tolerant society) against us while they continue their own barbaric style of warfare unchecked.

It should be noted, by the way, that page 1A of the Jihadi handbook (figure o speech obviously) advises that captured combattants complain about abuse by the authorities, which in and of itself is and indicator that they've figured out our key weakenss in thsi struggle but again I digress.

The point is, things like the Taliban being tortured (even if that were the case), or the Guantanamo bay detainees, or the CIA monitoring Khomeini Mohammed Jihadi's email under the protection of the patriot act (ie. violating a "U.S. Citizen's" rights) (by the way is this th same kind of citizen as the "Canadian Citizens" who demanded Canadian action to evacuate them from Lebanon only to return back to Lebanon after Israel pulled back a couple of summers ago?)...none of these things really bother me.

Following old school "rules of war" seems obsolete in a world where jihadis can use our own laws to destroy us.

So again the question fo debate:

Do you think it's fair that we (ie. the west - including Canada in it's fight against the inherently evil Taliban, the US in it's improving fight against Al Qaeda in Iraq etc.) engage in this fight with one hand tied behind our backs?

Edited February 3, 2008 by JerrySeinfeld

[Ergonomic]

The Patriot Act has nothing to do with the Geneva Conventions. The Patriot Act is a local matter, the Geneva Conventions are a international matter, to which almost every nation including the US, have agreed.

Comparing the Patriot Act to the Geneva Conventions is like comparing apples to elephants.

You want to discuss the Patriot Act, talk local. You want to discuss the Geneva Conventions, go International.

If you are thinking of opting out of the Geneva Conventions, the US no longer has a choice. You are in and it's permanent. Sort of like the Nuclear (that's NOO-KLEE-ARR) Non-Proliferation Agreement.

Get over it.

Edited February 3, 2008 by Ergonomic

[Peter F]

Let's start with my question:

Do you think it's fair that we (ie. the west ...) engage in this fight with one hand tied behind our backs?

How is the West's hand tied? Is the West with-holding some weapon or other? How is the West holding back? What is the West not doing that it could be doing - but isn't in order to be 'fair'?

Your question is extremely vague.

If I answer 'Yes' that means that I think its fair that we fight with one hand tied behind our backs

If I answer 'No' that means that I think its unfair that we fight with one hand tied behind our backs\

...but I don't believe any of the Wests hands are tied behind our backs. Therefore answering your question is impossible.

Edited February 4, 2008 by Peter F

[JerrySeinfeld]

The Patriot Act has nothing to do with the Geneva Conventions. The Patriot Act is a local matter, the Geneva Conventions are a international matter, to which almost every nation including the US, have agreed.

Comparing the Patriot Act to the Geneva Conventions is like comparing apples to elephants.

You want to discuss the Patriot Act, talk local. You want to discuss the Geneva Conventions, go International.

If you are thinking of opting out of the Geneva Conventions, the US no longer has a choice. You are in and it's permanent. Sort of like the Nuclear (that's NOO-KLEE-ARR) Non-Proliferation Agreement.

Get over it.

No kidding - I'm aware of the difference between the PA and the GCs. You missed the common thre between the two. In each case it's a question of our side following (or choosing to suspend) traditional rules to be on an even playing field with the other side, which plays by NO rules. THAT's what I'm referring to when I talk about "fighting with one hand tied behind our backs".

Edited February 4, 2008 by JerrySeinfeld

[BubberMiley]

No kidding - I'm aware of the difference between the PA and the GCs. You missed the common thre between the two. In each case it's a question of our side following (or choosing to suspend) traditional rules to be on an even playing field with the other side, which plays by NO rules. THAT's what I'm referring to when I talk about "fighting with one hand tied behind our backs".

Righteousness always wins in the end. Those who would have us stoop to their level are already at their level and want the rest of us there too. But once we've lost the moral highground, we've lost the war.

[Moonlight Graham]

Do you think it's fair that we (ie. the west - including Canada in it's fight against the inherently evil Taliban, the US in it's improving fight against Al Qaeda in Iraq etc.) engage in this fight with one hand tied behind our backs?

The hand you say we have tied behind our backs is that of human rights and moral consciousness. To stoop to their levels & partake in the very acts we are trying to prevent from happening would be a major defeat in itself.

And there is a fine line between protecting our liberties and giving them up for the sake of protecting them. Having the U.S. gov't wiretap anyone without warrant is unconstitutional, according to the Bill of Rights:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[Moonlight Graham]

In a world where the Pakistani President is killed because an Islamic militant strapped a bomb to an infant baby and invited the President to come over and kiss the little one...

When did that happen?

[bush_cheney2004]

...And there is a fine line between protecting our liberties and giving them up for the sake of protecting them. Having the U.S. gov't wiretap anyone without warrant is unconstitutional, according to the Bill of Rights:

Wrong....the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to just anyone. So sue 'em.....