V
vern_humphrey
Guest
And who says it will stay quiet?
Letting them live is mercy.
I continue to be fascinated by your insistance that reality be changed to make you comfortable.
As Gitmo Hunger Strike Continues, Lawyers Step Up Fight for Access
- Status
M
MikeWM
Guest
vern humphrey:
Or alternatively maybe you would like us in a stage of perpetual war. 1984, anyone?
You may argue that if they were on the battlefield bearing arms then killing them at that point would be justified - but that’s a big if…
Now that they are captured and in custody, letting them live is required by us, as Catholics.
Mike
So, you want us to declare victory in the ‘War on Terror’ and then start it again when it is no longer ‘quiet’? You want us yo-yoing back and forth for the rest of time?
Or alternatively maybe you would like us in a stage of perpetual war. 1984, anyone?
Nonsense. They are alive now, letting them live is our Christian duty.
You may argue that if they were on the battlefield bearing arms then killing them at that point would be justified - but that’s a big if…
Now that they are captured and in custody, letting them live is required by us, as Catholics.
Sorry, President Bush (and Reagan before him) beat me to that, by pretending you can have a ‘war’ on terrorism.
Mike
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Once again, you want to warp reality to make you more comfortable.
Do you think that if we ignore terrorism it will go away?
Nonsense yourself. These are the most dangerous and deadly men we’ve ever dealt with – fully as murderous as the Nazis.
Nope. As Catholics we are not precluded from using the death penalty. That we do not impose it on these people is a mercy – a mercy they do not grant to those they capture.
And like most on your side, you rant and rail – but offer no solutions.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
S
SamCA
Guest
vern humphrey:
This leaked report was published in the Wall Street Journal, a traditionally right-leaning paper. I haven’t linked, for the simple reason that the WSJ doesn’t offer its stories online for free. Here’s an article that followed that publication, though:
msnbc.msn.com/id/4944094/
No, I think it’s probably aimed more at the non-combatant civilians who make up somewhere between 70% and 90% of our detainees. That’s according to leaked communications between the Red Cross and the Pentagon, which contained interviews with our own intelligence people on the ground in Iraq. According to the assessments of the people running the prisons, somewhere between 7 and 9 out of 10 of these detainees are just civilians who were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
This leaked report was published in the Wall Street Journal, a traditionally right-leaning paper. I haven’t linked, for the simple reason that the WSJ doesn’t offer its stories online for free. Here’s an article that followed that publication, though:
msnbc.msn.com/id/4944094/
S
SamCA
Guest
Of course, at the very same time the White House has begun its “we do not torture” press offensive, Dick Cheney has been working in Washington to stop the passage of an ammendment in Senate which would ban torture, threatening everything up to and including a Presidential veto.
M
MikeWM
Guest
vern humphrey:
Mike
Nope. Now how about answering my question, as to the criteria as to when we can say the ‘war on terror’ has been won? Can you recall any other war without clear, achieveable objectives? If so, did they go well?
What, these two-bit amateurs, and that is being generous to them? What about John Walker Lindh? Was he ‘as murderous as a Nazi’? You seem to have some ideas about who these people are that no-one else credible seems to share.
I don’t care less what they do, that is relativism. We cannot use the death penalty unless it is absolutely necessary for the sake of society. There is no role for ‘mercy’ - we either do what absolutely HAS to be done, or we don’t do it.
Often doing something just for the sake of being seen to be doing something is no answer.
Mike
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
the objectives are quite clear – the fact that you don’t like them doesn’t make them any less clear.
The war is over when they stop attacking us.
You seem to think that if you can find one person in such a murderous organization that is a bit less murderous than the others, it makes them all altar boys.
And what paragraph of the Catechism assigns to you the authortiy to make those decisions?
And opposition for the sake of opposition is no answer.
M
MikeWM
Guest
vern humphrey:
So, please set out how you will judge ‘they have stopped attacking us’ and we can have a ‘Victory over Terrorism’ day.
Mike
So I ask you again - how are we to determine that? So far you have offered ‘when it gets quiet’ but then you said that you weren’t saying it would stay quiet.
So, please set out how you will judge ‘they have stopped attacking us’ and we can have a ‘Victory over Terrorism’ day.
Nope. I think they should be fairly tried, so we can see if they are altar boys, Nazis, or most likely somewhere inbetween.
2267, as has been quoted ad nauseam on these forums.
Also true. Fortunate that that isn’t what I do.
Mike
T
thestickman
Guest
**2267 **Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”
Seems cut and dry to me. Based on everything I read here, keeping the enemy combatants in Gitmo till the War on Terrorism is over is a good thing to do.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”
Seems cut and dry to me. Based on everything I read here, keeping the enemy combatants in Gitmo till the War on Terrorism is over is a good thing to do.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Oh, it’s a parade you want? Thanksgiving and the Fourth of July aren’t enough for you?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif
The war will be over when they stop attacking us. Naturally, we will be on watch-and-ward for a long time afterwards. But so what? If they’re not shooting at us, nor planting IEDs or committing suicide attacks, that’s good enough for me.
During WWII, we took hundreds of thousands of prisoners who were never tried.
I said:
And you replied:
What part of 2267 gives you the authority to make these decisions?
What part of 2267 says evey person captured in war has to be tried?
If you’ve offered any alternatives, I sure haven’t seen them.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
M
MikeWM
Guest
It’s better than executing them, yes. It would be rather better again if we ‘determined the guilty party’s identity and responsibility.’ That sounds like a fair trial to me.
Mike
M
MikeWM
Guest
vern humphrey:
Mike
I live in Britain. We don’t have those
So, say a year after the last terrorist attack, will be good enough? Or whatever time frame you have in mind. Then, tell me, has that timeframe, whatever it is, ever passed in the history of say the last 100 years without a terrorist attack somewhere?
What use is the Catechism at all if it doesn’t give me the authority to say certain actions are right, and certain actions are wrong?
You moved the topic onto capital punishment. 2267 is quite clear on that. ‘Mercy’ is nothing to do with it, it is our duty.
Doing nothing at all would be a better alternative to some of the things we are doing. I say again, doing something just for the sake of being seen to do something isn’t necessarily productive.
Mike
A
AJC
Guest
And if you force feed these Taliban and Al Quaida fanatics the loony left in the US and especially the Church will call it “torture.”
AJC
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Someone once said:
I’m sorry you hate the idea that we must remain on watch and ward for a long time – but that’s the way it is.
In your opinion, then, the Catechism makes you the final authority in everything?
(Have you told the Pope?)http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
What is our duty? Where does the Catechism denounce the Allies, for example, for not trying the prisoners we took in WWII?
So your alternative is “do nothing?” That’s the only one I’ve seen you post here.
M
MikeWM
Guest
vern humphrey:
We’ve reached that part of the discussion again where you just twist my words around to mean what you’d like them to mean, something familiar to me from every past discussion with you. Like those discussions, I think this one has now come to a dead stop.
Mike
I don’t and never said I did.
Nope, I never said that either.
I didn’t say it said that either.
We’ve reached that part of the discussion again where you just twist my words around to mean what you’d like them to mean, something familiar to me from every past discussion with you. Like those discussions, I think this one has now come to a dead stop.
Mike
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Then what was your point in all that blather about how will we know when the last attack occurs?
Then what was your point in all that blather about how will we know when the last attack occurs?
Then what was your point in saying:
Actually, we’ve reached the point in the discussion where your own twists are coming back to bite you.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
R
Rob_s_Wife
Guest
argh. got to be a bit of a devil’s advocate here and note some points.
**1. The U.S.A. has never declared official war - which would have to go through congressional vote. A vote that it is highly doubtfull would be passed at this time. The point of declaring war is not just to name a target. **
2. This is supposedly a reaction to 9/11, however we have yet to see any group related to that act targeted and caught. It seems that the main goal was Hussien, which is odd because there is much more proof of terrorism activity in many other countries in Asia and even Europe. No, I don’t think he’s a good guy! But that doesn’t mean that what’s going on had anything to do with 9/11 - which was supposed to be why were there.
**3. I will never understand the rather scary theory that the only way to ensure the safety of our freedoms and democracy is to give them up. **
I don’t care if they are called P.O.W’s or detainees or if what or if they are US citizens or foreigners - there should be a fair trial with proof given of guilt or innocence in a reasonable amount of time. These people have basicly been sent to prison with no one knowing anything or even presenting proof of any wrong doing. If we really want respect, we must admit that there is NO WAY we would tolorate another country doing this to our citizens or even our soldiers. You can’t cry foul when others do it, say it’s justified when you do it, and then expect anyone to believe you are principled person or country.
**1. The U.S.A. has never declared official war - which would have to go through congressional vote. A vote that it is highly doubtfull would be passed at this time. The point of declaring war is not just to name a target. **
2. This is supposedly a reaction to 9/11, however we have yet to see any group related to that act targeted and caught. It seems that the main goal was Hussien, which is odd because there is much more proof of terrorism activity in many other countries in Asia and even Europe. No, I don’t think he’s a good guy! But that doesn’t mean that what’s going on had anything to do with 9/11 - which was supposed to be why were there.
**3. I will never understand the rather scary theory that the only way to ensure the safety of our freedoms and democracy is to give them up. **
I don’t care if they are called P.O.W’s or detainees or if what or if they are US citizens or foreigners - there should be a fair trial with proof given of guilt or innocence in a reasonable amount of time. These people have basicly been sent to prison with no one knowing anything or even presenting proof of any wrong doing. If we really want respect, we must admit that there is NO WAY we would tolorate another country doing this to our citizens or even our soldiers. You can’t cry foul when others do it, say it’s justified when you do it, and then expect anyone to believe you are principled person or country.
M
MikeWM
Guest
vern humphrey:
Mike
Yes, ‘blather’. We’re now at that point of the discussion, I see. For my point, read the whole of this thread.
It seems you don’t know the difference between ‘certain things’ and ‘everything’. Oh well.
You can think as you choose. I don’t have the inclination to debate important issues with those who only want to hear me say what they expect me to say, rather than the actual words I use.
Mike
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Rob’s Wife said:
Most of our wars have been undeclared. This war was authorized by Congress – and some of the people most stridently attacking it now voted for it.
Rob's Wife:
**2. This is supposedly a reaction to 9/11, however we have yet to see any group related to that act targeted and caught. **
Wrong on two counts. The war in Iraq, while part of the general war on terrorism is based on consistent violations of the truce following the Gulf War.
Secondly, the organization that perpetrated the 9/11 attack is Al Qaeda. Most of the people at Gitmo are Al Qaeda.
Rob's Wife:
**It seems that the main goal was Hussien, which is odd because there is much more proof of terrorism activity in many other countries in Asia and even Europe. **
So you are advancing the proposition that if we don’t fight evil everywhere in the world, at the same time, we can’t fight it anywhere, at any time?
Rob's Wife:
No, I don’t think he’s a good guy! But that doesn’t mean that what’s going on had anything to do with 9/11 - which was supposed to be why were there.
Nobody said Saddam Hussain was a key player in 9/11. But he was in violation of the truce terms and a danger to world peace.
Rob's Wife:
**3. I will never understand the rather scary theory that the only way to ensure the safety of our freedoms and democracy is to give them up. **
Who said we have to give up our freedoms?
On the other hand, if you look at Al Qaeda’s agenda, you’ll see they definitely want us to give them up!
Rob's Wife:
**I don’t care if they are called P.O.W’s or detainees or if what or if they are US citizens or foreigners - there should be a fair trial with proof given of guilt or innocence in a reasonable amount of time. **
So we should have tried every Japanese, German, or Italian we captured in WWII?
Rob's Wife:
These people have basicly been sent to prison with no one knowing anything or even presenting proof of any wrong doing. If we really want respect, we must admit that there is NO WAY we would tolorate another country doing this to our citizens or even our soldiers. You can’t cry foul when others do it, say it’s justified when you do it, and then expect anyone to believe you are principled person or country.
You mis-state the issue. These people are as legitimately prisoners as the Germans, Japanese, or Italian prisoners we captured in WWII.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
I accept your consession of the issue.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif
- Status