Is This Right?
 

If you want my opinion, three things must happen first.

1. Define what "right" means in your title so that hasty posts regarding the topic are not misunderstood.

2. Clarify exactly what you want us to discuss and under what perspective to be discussed as

3. Tell us your opinion and where you stand, as you created the topic and this should be included so we know what the argument is about. You posted a lot of stuff concerning a lot of different things. What exactly do you want to talk about?

Again, you haven't defined what is right. So I will attempt to type out the two arguments that may or may not exist depending on your original desire to discuss this.

1. The first argument will be the logical argument. Should Special Ops forces have extra privileges not granted to other Americans when dealing with specific terrorists? In other words should Special Ops, regardless of their job or place in the military forces, be able to torture, maim, rough house, treat unfairly/inhumane the terrorists that they end up capturing? Or should that be left to a higher up decision?

I would have to say that, personally, I do think the SEALS should be held accountable for their actions. If the SEALS are not held accountable then that means that they are above the law and above justice. Are the SEALS considered superior to humans? If so, then they have every right to do what they did. If they are not considered to be superior humans, then they must follow the law just like everyone else who lives within an organized government.

If we did not punish the SEALS then this would set an example stating that SEALS do have extra privileges and then soon we would start seeing abuse of the system. Pretty soon there could be SEALS who decide that all muslims are terrorists and begin to torture/beat/maim any muslim they come in contact with. This could spread to different races and even possibly go into sexism. It doesn't stop once it's started. Military power is one that thing that must be heavily regulated lest we suffer the consequences after the fact. It does not matter that it was a terrorist. The terrorist is still a human being. Are cops allowed to beat murderers? No, in fact, if they do, the murderers are usually released under the basis that there are cops that are practicing unfair justice and therefore violating the criminal's rights.

Now, for the shallow, patriotic argument. Yes, the SEALS should have every right to beat up the terrorists they capture. The terrorists would do the same to us. They would torture us and kill us, why can we not do the same? Terrorists deserve to die due to the pain they have caused us Americans, and we will make it so. It is unjust that the SEALS are getting punished when it is the terrorist who is at fault. The terrorist deserves what he got and more. How could the government even think otherwise!?

For the record, my argument is with the first and not the second one. I like to look at things with long-term in mind as well as the logistic side of things rather than the emotional. I hope this answers your question shtona, at least on my end.

I agree with Tutela. Fuck, man, call the press!

Shtona, nobody said the offender was going to get off scotch-free. If we don't treat the world with respect, then how can we expect them to ever treat us with respect? If you are hit, and you stand up and hit them back, then you are just as silly and wrong as they are. It is up to you to give them justice, not revenge.

Also, simply because the offender had done wrong in the past does not necessitate that he has no rights He still has rights and we should still respect his rights. The Seals were in the wrong on this one, and they have to face the consequences of their wrongdoings.

I don't know what the regulations or standards are that Navy SEALS have to meet when making a capture? I personally think they should have special privileges as needed. It almost seems safer for them to shoot the person rather then capture to avoid being charged with abuse.

Heh, it was pretty sarcastic, but I also wrote it to demonstrate the emotional side that I see people argue with. Might have been a bit out of line I admit, but I felt it was necessary to get my point across by comparing them both in the same post.



I did not see you state your views until now. Your first post consisted of quoting an article and asking for opinions. Your second post shrugged the whole thing off saying what's the big deal, without backing up why you felt that indifferent about it.



Well, then until we get all the facts, an educated decision or opinion cannot be made. Based on what you presented here, the SEALS beat the prisoner in some way, shape, or form. Regardless of what the beating actually entailed, the SEALS went against America's accepted form of justice and for that they must be punished as they are Americans. I am fairly certain that you, based off your reply, would be extremely prejudiced had the opposite occurred and terrorists ended up capturing a SEAL and assaulting the SEAL. If those terrorists were then convicted for assault I doubt you would be opposed. Again this is based off what I gather from your reply.



Military personnel have their own separate laws altogether when in the military. The court martial is their form of justice and is completely made up of other military personnel who have been in said situations and had to choose between right and wrong under socially accepted ideas. the court martial is their "right to a free trial" as mentioned in the Bill of Rights.



Whether you think the man should have been punched int he face and more, does not mean it is tolerated as justice that is socially acceptable. No one ever said the legal system is right, but because we, as Americans, under an American society, chose this type of justice, we all must conform to it, regardless of usefulness to the country and/or position of employment. If the military started gaining specific privileges, then they could easily overturn the American government and we would then be a military state in forms of government. Which is basically, everything is run by the military for the military and enforced by the military. If you don't comply, you die or suffer sever punishment, plain and simple. Would this be a better government for us Americans?



1. I am quite uncomfortable with your use of the word terrorism. Terrorism in itself cannot be used as a sweeping generalization to target the extremist Al Qaeda Group that attack America. Terrorism encompasses that which is socially unacceptable in complete relation to what each particular society decides what socially acceptable means.

2. The Golden rule is not do unto others as they have done unto you, but rather do unto others as you would have them do unto you. No one ever said war was fair, the United States has chosen to be a leading example of being humane in war rather than inhumane. That is a choice we made as a Country, or more accurately, as a group of countries (the United Nations). The terrorists are not part of the United Nations and are not [b]forced[b] to uphold these practices per se. They are somewhat forced as the countries oppose them and it is a losing battle. However, they themselves do not share the same morals and will do everything in their power to inflict pain, sorrow, etc.

On the contrary, thinking before acting, is always more beneficial. Certain rules are omitted during actual wartime and being in actual warzones, and basically being on the battlefield as survival is the rule there. However, the article you quoted insinuates this all happened in a domesticated, civil environment where the prisoner was already detained. There was no reason for assault period.

Is it believable that the "terrorist" mocked them, spat at them, etc to rage the SEALS who probably already have an implanted hate of these people for causing all this pain and with the SEALS having to deal with it personally and witness the pain personally, I can see how they may have reacted foolishly and without proper judgment.

O.O Kris agrees with me??? :P Well, at least we agree on something haha. I'm really not that bad of a person lol, we just have extremely different points of view on certain things. I take your arguments as the enemy, but not you yourself ^^. I quite enjoy the arguments you bring to the table...as long as you don't put words in my mouth :P That kind of gets annoying when you do that. However, I will admit, I make mistakes and assume things too about different people so I am guilty of that as well. *shrugs* Part of being human I guess :)

All I have to say to this is that capture has its uses for American intelligence, and if SEALS decide to capture, they need to abide by those rules.

I agree with Tutela on...every single point I believe. Also, I'd like to think that the people who are supposed to be fighting for us, protecting us, would have enough sense to not assault someone. I don't like the idea of any military personal, who is supposed to have extensive training to be able to CONTROL that sort of thing, lashing out because of emotions.

I am fully aware of what they do to American soldiers. However they are not restricted by the same legalities that Americans are. Is it fair? No. However, regardless how you look at it, America chose this course of action to be the role model.

You stated it was unfair the SEALs had to go to trial. I, however, am claiming that it is more fair to let them go to trial than to just punish them for their misdeeds.

Make all the judgmental assertions you wish. The fact of the matter is, is that if a person is given power outside of his bounds, they usually abuse it. Abusing it could have a cause and effect of turning the United States gradually into a Military state. the United Nations has no say in how we run our country, only how we involve ourselves with other countries.

That is exactly what terrorism is, every single minority that ever existed. So that makes your claim very judgmental when you say all terrorists fight unfairly and unjustly. I would call Al Qaeda a terrorist group, but I would not assert that all terrorists fight the way you suggest. In fact, we, as Americans fought the same way using guerrilla tactics when warring with the redcoats. Does this make it wrong?

Regardless if particular politicians believe in it, it is a universally understood rule. Also, I would challenge your statement that all politicians are not moral. However you look at it, America, along with other U.N Countries fight under a certain code. To break that code is to violate what was agreed upon in the U.N. which could devastate our foreign relations. Would you be willing to take this risk, knowing that we are no longer the only superpower? Yes, I am fully supporting the terrorist's view as the SEAL did not honor their code. The terrorist is still human, and until convicted and a punishment decided, by the legal system we decided to create, no retaliatory action should be committed against the terrorist until said time regardless of who does it.

Yes.

It all depends on the lengths they went through for this. If they are being receiving a court martial a few things happened.
1: They did not do their mission correctly.
2: They went above what they were suppose to do.
3: They probably straight fucked up and obviously got caught.

There are groups in the military which their job is to be the unseen people. Going over this they fucked it up. When a person is detained they are just that, detained. Not beaten. Looks like they took a personal vendetta to kick this persons ass after they had him detained. Their orders may have been to detain him and bring him in with the doing what it takes to detain them. They obviously went outside of that directive order in which was given to them.

That is speculation at best when concerning what the U.N and N.A.T.O. would do in the event of the U.S becoming a military state. As far as politicians making a totalitarian govt, they would need the control of the military to back up their power. Thus why it is more logical that a military state would exist first.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shtona (Post 1765766099) Wow? Really? You believe this? Dictionary.com: I think you're confused as to what terrorism is...usually it involves violence, not just being a minority.

Please read the bolded and understand that terrorism is at best a loosely defined word.

Quote:

Originally Posted by legal definition of terrorism U.S. Code of Federal Regulations: "...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85). Current U.S. national security strategy: "premeditated, politically motivated violence against innocents." United States Department of Defense: the "calculated use of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies in pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological." [28] USA PATRIOT Act: "activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state, that (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S." The U.S. National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) described a terrorist act as one which was: "premeditated; perpetrated by a subnational or clandestine agent; politically motivated, potentially including religious, philosophical, or culturally symbolic motivations; violent; and perpetrated against a noncombatant target."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shtona (Post 1765766099) So you're comparing American militia to Al Qaeda terrorists? Guerrilla warfare is not terrorism, at least not the guerrilla warfare implemented in the Revolutionary War. We didn't use civilians as shields, bait, or targets; they do. They are similar, but the moral structures are completely different.

Morality is based entirely off of culture. Who is to say that we weren't wrong in shooting redcoats from the woods while they marched in the form of battle their culture taught them was right. When comparing two different types of morals there will be different definitions of what terrorism entails.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shtona (Post 1765766099) As for your last paragraph: I'll agree with you when there is more information, but I still think it's wrong for a man who risked his life to bring in a known terrorist to be prosecuted for punching him.

You have only given your opinion and tried to poke holes in my argument. Please explain why hitting a detainee should not be punished by law?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shtona (Post 1765766099) Also, I guess this could be considered a sidenote since it's really not relevant to the debate in my opinion, the golden rule may be globally understood, but it is not globally practiced. You're an idealist if you believe it is...

I never claimed it was, only that it was universally practiced, only that since the U.S. decided to pick certain ideals to follow, these ideals could be summed by the description of the Golden Rule.

I don't really see the issue here. The SEALS are going to be tried, it's not like they've been convicted of anything, and I don't think that gone "ridiculously" too far. For all we know they could have all charges dropped or be found innocent of the crimes for which they are accused.

I lol'd at the contradiction.

I didn't misquote, I selectively left parts out (as indicated by the ellipses).

Hmm, instead of properly punishing and ending his reign, we not only let Saddam live with a handslap, but let him keep his position of power. What happened next is the mess we are in now. Same thing could theoretically apply with the SEAL.

Please explain how this definition requires violence.

Unless you consider yourself above all humans, you have no say in giving a clear, universally understood and accepted definition good and evil. Because of this, you lack the power to decide if something the Al Qaeda do to prisoners is either evil or good. So, yes, unless you can prove otherwise, it is completely acceptable according to their culture.

You still attempt to poke holes in my argument and still fail. I will give you the one mistake I made that I acknowledged below.

Nothing wrong with trying to promote humane justice by humanity's standards if that is what our American humans have decided to do.

As I mentioned above, I made the mistake of not typing "universally understood" rather than practiced, which is repetitive.

I never said it covers the entire spectrum, rather it is a core idea to take into consideration when creating the basis of ideals.

I would say it is wrong for the SEALs to arrest him. He killed blackwater agents. not only is Blackwater a group that profits from war-mongering, they are even now being charged with killing innocent civilians. The case of an Iraqi killing members of a group who are murderous war-profiteers should be handled in their own country. If the Navy believes it should be handled by them, because it involves an act against US citizens, then the SEALs must let this case of assault on the detainee be handled by the Iraqis.

First off, it's not a metaphor, it's a simile. Secondly, a military state is dictatorship by the military.

Irrelevance to the discussion at hand.

You brought the word minority into the argument, not me. If you take a look at example B it fully shows that terrorism does not have to be violent to be called as such. It merely has to be assumed to be the intention of violence. My quoting within my quoting was to show a particular section. Yes, terrorism can be construed as acts requiring violence and coercion of some sort. However, there is a way to be labeled as a terrorist without actually having done any violence.


Prove that killing is wrong on a universal level (beyond humans even) and we'll talk. Who is to say Americans are right and other cultures are wrong? Are we that braggart of a nation to actually have the ability to tell the world what is right and what is wrong?

America has decided humanity standards entails giving rights to POW. Other countries set different standards. How can you possess the ability to determine which country is right and which country is wrong?

Most major decisions revert back to the fact that said person doesn't want said thing to happen to them. In fact, you have demonstrated this by arguing murder is wrong. I am assuming you are saying it is wrong because you yourself would not like to be murdered? If not, explain your reasoning on why you feel it is wrong.

@Shtona-
Applying your definition of terrorism to the assertion made by Feral Fantom leads me to the conclusion that Blackwater is a terrorist organisation. If this happens to be the case, I would question the jurisdiction of the Seals to capture this man. Indeed if there were say terrorists from the Philippines (chosen at random) operating in U.S.A and a U.S citizen killed some, would you expect the Filipino special forces to come and arrest said U.S citizen? Or do you believe that this is a completely different case as U.S jurisdiction overrides the sovereignty of Iraq?