It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by kosmicjack
I will only add that now almost anyone can be defined as a terrorist, what with the vague definition set forth in the Radicalization Bill, the Patriot Act, FISA, etc.
Just ask any of the one million people on the terror watch list. Public Servants, little old ladies, kids...
So yes, we should definitely clarify this torture issue once and for all...before it's my turn.
Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by Maxmars
Originally posted by Maxmars
reply to post by WhatTheory
You guys finished debating some time ago, so I don;t know when or if you'll see this. But something you said really stuck with me.
Your opponent said: "You have no rights if you are determined to be a terrorist."
You responded: "Not true, only non U.S. citizens have no rights. Big difference."
I will avoid the pedantic I hope by stating that you mean in the context of the US government does not have to extend citizen's rights to non-citizens.
It made me wonder, Is it, or should it be our position, (America) that non-citizens have 'no' rights whatsoever? If those rights differ substantially from our own, does that extend to what we call "due process"?
Shall we openly decline human rights as we ourselves defined them? It seems contradictory to the political and diplomatic stance we have taken since World War One.
You bring up an interesting point. There are rights which extend to all men, such as due process, and there are rights reserved to citizens, such as voting.
What would be really useful would be a list of which rights are extended to whom.
Originally posted by Wotan
Hmm, I seem to remember the days when the US bitched about its troops and airmen being tortured by the NVA and Vietcong ..... you cant have it both ways. Those who live by the sword, die by the sword or what goes around comes around.