What to tell children about 9/11

[thomfra]

Many Europeans actually believe that 9/11 was a plot by the Jews! .

“many europeans” !!! Your Polish friend… Get real. NOBODY I have ever spoken to, or anything I have heard referred to in the media (mainstream or otherwise) in Europe have thought anything other than Bin Laden’s men were responsible. Maybe you should thing twice before you have anti semetics around for dinner.

I’ve seen from your previous posts in other threads, that you don’t seem to grasp what America is all about, and I can’t really explain it to you in this venue…

I lived there for a number of years actually. I’d love to hear your explaination on what America “is all about”.

If we had been attacked by extremist Irish Catholics or Basque separatists, we would have an entirely different group of people in Gitmo, and we would be making it unpleasant for them so that they might tell us who else is trying to kill us, and when, and where.

…And did the British military set up a special jail off the mainland where they could keep the IRA for interrogation? Hmm…I don’t believe so…

What about the Spanish? Do they feel the need to redefine “justice” because it’s too hard otherwise…

 

[sanctamaria17]

It’s not about “conservatives” and “liberals”. Either you are a society that values the concept of Justice and a fair trail, or not. Can’t you see this?

Yes. All terrible things. We are talking about the way in which the US behaves.

Yes I can see that. And with regards to them, they are not being tortured. They’re terrorists. They deserve to be punished. I don’t really think the US is behaving badly, nor do I think their treatment constitutes as torture (they get better medical care than the poor of this country! And religious freedom and good food). I don’t think it’s far to compare the treatment of terrorists with the brutal treatment of innocent people. Or with torture and execution practices that took place in Russia or Nazi Germany.

 

[thomfra]

Yes I can see that. And with regards to them, they are not being tortured. They’re terrorists. They deserve to be punished.

They deserve to be punished if and when they are given a **fair trial ***and *found to be guilty.

Can you agree with this?

(as a side note, not even the US military are calling them terrorists, they are calling them “unlawful combattants”).

 

[sanctamaria17]

Ok. then respond to me then. What do **you **say to Amnesty international?

Ok. So what you are saying is that they “have no right” to a fair trial.

can you see a problem with the army being the accuser, judge, jury and executioner at all???

Hmmm, let’s see, we’re waging a war on terror and we have captured terrorists. It makes sense that the Army takes care of that since that pretty much makes them prisoners of war. So they can’t be treated as civilians, nor as citizens of this country.

Seriously, as much as I love Amnesty and as much as I’ve questioned the policies of our president in many respects, I think there are more horrible things that need our focus. And, as one who lived near NYC during the WTC attacks and who lives in DC now, I’m absolutely OK with anything that protects our country. Sometimes, I’d rather be too hard on a terrorist than not be hard enough and have my city attacked and many innocent people killed.

We can’t live in a perfect society and not every policy is going to be perfect and benefit everyone. Terrorists won’t give us information easily. We can’t afford to go easy on them, if it means getting information that could save millions of lives. If it means we’re a little tougher on the “poor babies” than on our own prisoners, so be it.

 

[thomfra]

Hmmm, let’s see, we’re waging a war on terror and we have captured terrorists. It makes sense that the Army takes care of that since that pretty much makes them prisoners of war. So they can’t be treated as civilians, nor as citizens of this country.

Seriously, as much as I love Amnesty and as much as I’ve questioned the policies of our president in many respects, I think there are more horrible things that need our focus. And, as one who lived near NYC during the WTC attacks and who lives in DC now, I’m absolutely OK with anything that protects our country. Sometimes, I’d rather be too hard on a terrorist than not be hard enough and have my city attacked and many innocent people killed.

We can’t live in a perfect society and not every policy is going to be perfect and benefit everyone. Terrorists won’t give us information easily. We can’t afford to go easy on them, if it means getting information that could save millions of lives. If it means we’re a little tougher on the “poor babies” than on our own prisoners, so be it.

But what do you have against the concept of a fair trial?

I mean if they are guilty, they are guilty, and this will be proven in court. This is the way every other country seems to do it. This is how the English dealt with the IRA, the Spanish with ETA.

Surely that would leave a better taste in your mouth than rounding up people willy nilly, calling them a terrorist, and giving them no right of a defense.

Anyway, the whole concept of “torture” (however you want to re-define it) has basically been proven to give bad if not outright useless intelligence. I thought we (in the civilised world) were above that. Isn’t that what we are supposed to be fighting for?

What of those who are released with no charge? Are they just eggs that had to be cracked to make the omelette?

 

[thomfra]

I’m absolutely OK with anything that protects our country

Have you thought through that statement?

Don’t you think that there needs to be some level of parity between the percieved threat, and the response?

 

[JKS]

Thomfra,
My friend didn’t say whether they believed the goofy idea of blaming the Jews, and since I’d laughed at the idea, I thought it would be rude to ask. He’s a friend that I know and trust, while you are an anti-American who comes onto the forum only to attack the US (or maybe you’re some 19-year-old named Garth with nothing better to do, living in his mom’s basement in Des Moines, for all I know). Add to that Europe’s track record on Jews and Israel, and I have good reason to doubt your accuracy.

The guerrillas in Guatanamo Bay are better treated then many other POWs have been, historically. Also, some of the prisoners are Uigher rebels, aren’t they? They would almost certainly be executed if they were returned to China, so I thought the US was trying to figure out what to do with them. Several other terrorists have been released only to go back to trying to kill lots of innocent civilians, too. Still, in this case I don’t mind that pressure is helping to keep us from treating them the way that we’re tempted to…

Again, I’m glad we’re living in a country where questions are asked like, “How far should we go, in making life unpleasant for terrorists who don’t abide by Geneva Conventions, in order to find out who is next going to try to murder thousands of innocent civilians, and when, and how?” and also that we’ve spent billions of dollars over the past several decades, trying to make weapons that will only kill bad guys, and not innocent civilians (precision bombing etc). You’re welcome to join in on the discussion, but it appears all you want to do is fling mud in our direction. We don’t want people to have a fair trial, we are against the concept of a fair trial, we redefine justice because it’s too hard From previous threads: we don’t have socialist medicine because we don’t care about the poor, yada yada. If you want to be taken seriously, be realistic that we’re trying to do what’s right without getting stepped on and blown up by Islamic terrorists.

We were founded on the idea that government will become tyrannical if you let it, so we put some strong limits on what we’ll allow our government to do, and we have armed citizens just in case the government (or any other bully) has any funny ideas. It seems to be working out okay for us, since our border guards are working to limit the number of people who sneak in, rather than keeping people from sneaking out. Being American is a matter of location, not ethnicity so anyone who likes that, is welcome to try to navigate our bureaucracy and become an American too. We’re really pro-choice about how other countries run themselves, for the most part, so we try not to get militarily involved with other countries, and while we really appreciate all the help we got in Afghanistan and Iraq, we realize that each country’s citizens had to decide whether it was in their best interest to join us, or not. But when America-haters start trying to micromanage the way we run a war, we’re just not going to listen. We listen to people we respect (like Pope Benedict, Margaret Thatcher, Toomas Ilves or President Ma).

And Amnesty International is pro-abortion so I have a very poor opinion of them (no amnesty for the unborn, unfortunately).

 

[Della]

Have you thought through that statement?

Don’t you think that there needs to be some level of parity between the percieved threat, and the response?

I take careful note that you have not responded to the fact that these people are foreign militaristic terrorists, not citizens of the USA nor ordinary criminals nor soldiers in any recognized country’s army. This isn’t WWII. This isn’t even like the IRA, as wrong-headed as they were. This is raw terrorism by radicals who represent no one but themselves. People of their own faith/nationalities have rejected and condemned them and said they don’t represent their interests. If you’re going to argue with us at least argue from the facts and have the courage to answer when facts are presented.

 

[JKS]

Litcrit,
Other than 9/11, the first attack on the WTC, and Pearl Harbor, we haven’t been attacked on our own soil much, so American children have been spared war up close, for the most part. I wonder how much more slowly the US would have healed from our own civil war, if there hadn’t been such a huge rush of immigrants over the following 50 years-so many of us have no ancestors who fought, so we don’t have grudges to carry. It must sound strange to have the choice of exposing our kids to the effects of war, or not. It definitely sounds strange to us, allies of the British, that there are 500-year-old feuds.

What did you think of the UN peacekeepers? The Balkan war is one where we could have done better, but the US administration at the time liked to work with the UN, rather than form coalitions on our own. It was so painful to watch, but all we could do was pray and help the refugees who came to our parish.

 

[duskyjewel]

They deserve to be punished if and when they are given a **fair trial ***and *found to be guilty.

Can you agree with this?

(as a side note, not even the US military are calling them terrorists, they are calling them “unlawful combattants”).

The term “unlawful combatants” is purposefully used, to demonstrate that they do not qualify under the Geneva Convention. And they do not.

A military tribunal is not, by definition, an unfair trial. How dare you smear our military men and women that way. One of the most important reasons why these trials cannot be conducted in open, public, civilian courts, or even in closed court with civilian juries and judges, is that national security interests are at stake. We would have to reveal important secret strategies and methods, and possibly the identity of our operatives, that we are STILL USING to gather information and stop terrorist attacks. We would be basically showing the terrorists our hand, everything we know how to do to stop them, and helping them defeat us.

Does your concept of justice extend to the innocent lives that will be lost all over the world if we lose our ability to fight terror effectively?

 

[rpp]

The term “unlawful combatants” is purposefully used, to demonstrate that they do not qualify under the Geneva Convention. And they do not.

A military tribunal is not, by definition, an unfair trial. How dare you smear our military men and women that way. One of the most important reasons why these trials cannot be conducted in open, public, civilian courts, or even in closed court with civilian juries and judges, is that national security interests are at stake. We would have to reveal important secret strategies and methods, and possibly the identity of our operatives, that we are STILL USING to gather information and stop terrorist attacks. We would be basically showing the terrorists our hand, everything we know how to do to stop them, and helping them defeat us.

Does your concept of justice extend to the innocent lives that will be lost all over the world if we lose our ability to fight terror effectively?

Dusky, there is not point in discussing this with this particular poster. He is clearly close-minded and motivated by something other than national security and a desire to keep people from being killed by radicals.

 

[thomfra]

I take careful note that you have not responded to the fact that these people are foreign militaristic terrorists, not citizens of the USA nor ordinary criminals nor soldiers in any recognized country’s army. .

I take careful note that you have not ackowledged that some of these “foreign militaristic terrorists” have been released without charge.

Either you agree with the concept of a fair trial or you do not. It’s that simple I am afraid. You can’t have it both ways.

Do you agree with the concept of innocent until proven guilty?

 

[Litcrit]

Litcrit,
Other than 9/11, the first attack on the WTC, and Pearl Harbor, we haven’t been attacked on our own soil much, so American children have been spared war up close, for the most part. I wonder how much more slowly the US would have healed from our own civil war, if there hadn’t been such a huge rush of immigrants over the following 50 years-so many of us have no ancestors who fought, so we don’t have grudges to carry. It must sound strange to have the choice of exposing our kids to the effects of war, or not. It definitely sounds strange to us, allies of the British, that there are 500-year-old feuds.

The choice does sound strange to me, but that only means you’re lucky compared to the rest of the world

What did you think of the UN peacekeepers? The Balkan war is one where we could have done better, but the US administration at the time liked to work with the UN, rather than form coalitions on our own. It was so painful to watch, but all we could do was pray and help the refugees who came to our parish.

UN - much better than much more that could have happened instead

 

[thomfra]

Dusky, there is not point in discussing this with this particular poster. He is clearly close-minded and motivated by something other than national security and a desire to keep people from being killed by radicals.

My, my. It sounds like the words of a man running out of excuses. “quick, end the discussion…before we run out of retoric”

“motivated by something other than national security”. Yes, I would say I am motivated by the concept of justice, and fairness.

**You **seem to think these concepts can be abandoned when things get tricky. Some might call this hypocritical.

 

[Litcrit]

To clarify: JKS, I really do appreaciate the concern.

And peacekeepers by any name are ALWAYS a good thing.

 

[Della]

I take careful note that you have not ackowledged that some of these “foreign militaristic terrorists” have been released without charge.

Then they were found not to be foreign militaristic terrorists. It doesn’t change the fact that there are FMTs who will and ought to be tried and sentenced if found guilty.

Either you agree with the concept of a fair trial or you do not. It’s that simple I am afraid. You can’t have it both ways.

They are getting fair trials or none of them would have been released. Did you think of that?

Do you agree with the concept of innocent until proven guilty?

Of course I do, but even in the USA, with our own citizens, a person may be held in jail until his trial if he cannot make bail or the judge decides letting him out on bail would be imprudent. No more or less is being done with these people or, once again, none of them would have been released.

You may not like to face the true facts here, but the situation is hardly as bad as you and others who are distorting the facts are making it. Is that what you want to teach our children? That simply wanting something to be the way you’d like means it is that way? Where is your desire for the truth here?

 

[thomfra]

How dare you smear our military men and women that way.

I knew it was just a matter of time before the overly patriotic “How dare you” came out. A classic sign of a failing argument.

So why don’t we do away with the justice system all together? We can get the army or the police to charge us, interrogate us, put us on trial, judge us, and sentence us. What a wonderful system that’d be.

One of the most important reasons why these trials cannot be conducted in open, public, civilian courts, or even in closed court with civilian juries and judges, is that national security interests are at stake. We would have to reveal important secret strategies and methods, and possibly the identity of our operatives, that we are STILL USING to gather information and stop terrorist attacks. We would be basically showing the terrorists our hand, everything we know how to do to stop them, and helping them defeat us.

Funny. They managed to conduct trials in public everwhere else in the world when dealing with terrorism. They managed to conduct the entire trial of Sadam Hussein (with the insurgency level of activity at it’s peak) in Iraq, on TV, with members of the public testifying openly. hmmm. Oh…I guess that was “good media exposure”…so that can be on TV.

Does your concept of justice extend to the innocent lives that will be lost all over the world if we lose our ability to fight terror effectively?

The mere fact that the US has resorted to these measures (mind you, many more enlightened and media savy Americans are appauled by this), means they are winning. Somewhere along the line Bush and his mates decided that what America stood for really wasn’t that important anymore.

PS; Sorry for the large font (pressed some weird button combination)

 

[rpp]

Do you agree with the concept of innocent until proven guilty?

Not in all cases.

 

[JKS]

To clarify: JKS, I really do appreciate the concern.

And peacekeepers by any name are ALWAYS a good thing.

I’m glad to hear that. We did worry.

And it was only when you commented earlier that I realized how strange it would sound to you, and how fortunate our children are. God Bless.

 

[duskyjewel]

So why don’t we do away with the justice system all together? We can get the army or the police to charge us, interrogate us, put us on trial, judge us, and sentence us. What a wonderful system that’d be.

Because civilians are not subject to the UCMJ. Your ignorance is astounding!

Funny. They managed to conduct trials in public everwhere else in the world when dealing with terrorism. They managed to conduct the entire trial of Sadam Hussein (with the insurgency level of activity at it’s peak) in Iraq, on TV, with members of the public testifying openly. hmmm. Oh…I guess that was “good media exposure”…so that can be on TV.

Where are you talking about? Which countries? Where are they publicly prosecuting terrorists and effectively stopping them that way? The trial of Saddam Hussein was conducted by the IRAQI government. Their country, their rules. They decided their national interest was better served with a public trial. We decided different. Besides, what Iraqi national security measures were compromised by that trial? Whatever the answer, the fact remains that the U.S. is actively fighting terror, using covert means, and we cannot compromise those efforts by public airing. Jeez, people like you would have insisted on public admission that we broke the Enigma codes and lost us WWII. Or outed the Venona project and lost us the Cold War.

The assumption made by you that military trials are de facto unfair ones IS a smear. You are impugning the honesty and honor of everyone involved.