What's a potential act of terrorism worth in gaol time?

Originally posted by steveknows

Originally posted by akushla99
...and what a mess would ensue if 'thought-crimes' became mandated...

...ever thought about eradicating a bunch of people en masse? (seems to be alot of it around these days)...potential act of terrorism?

Akushla

Perhaps you might want to read the link. it's not a thought crime. They were preparing for it. Getting ready. Arming themsleves and planning. That;s not just a thought. Potential is that they were caught before they could carry it out.

I't's sad that had to be explained I think.

...and countries 'practicing', war games?...could this be considered 'potential acts of terrorism' on the part of governments? The stockpiling of weapons etc...potential acts of terrorism? Round table think tanks discussing possible scenarios from possible scenarios...potential acts of terrorism?

All depends what side of the fence you want to stand on...

Yes...I think I understand what you are saying...

Akushla

reply to post by steveknows


Thing is, I am of the belief that the very reasons the US went to war was based on a lie.

You are making a circular argument by saying that the Taliban shouldn't have harboured him because the US said he did it. If the Taliban had have been given the proof they asked for, this whole god damned war would never have happened in the first place. In my opinion, the US made up a whole bunch of lies to start a war for their own benefit. I noticed they never found any WMDs in Iraq either, hmmmm.

Yes, this thread is about 'terrorists' getting punished for attacking their countries but at the heart of it, who declared them terrorists in the first place, and why? Again, it always comes back to the US and a bunch of complete lies.

Don't believe everything the media tells you mate, I have learnt that over the years the hard way.

reply to post by steveknows

I think that they should be in until they're very very old men and I actually believe that if we're fighting a war on terror and those terrorist hide in civilian populations then they should be subject to capital punishment.

I have no problem with that at all, personally. Capital Punishment would seem more fitting for an act of foreign terrorism upon a host nation than anything else. These men received a proper trial and no one is questioning that or the verdict in a major way locally I presume? Assuming the evidence is there and the trial handled, then you have a strong point about why the host nation to pay to keep them alive just so they can sit in a human warehouse...or even 13-18 years in this case.

Sorry...You got me a little distracted by the concept of ANY prisoner running through a degree program at state expense while serving time. That is so foreign a concept to my American thinking..I mean heck, we go into crushing student debt to get an education as free citizens, let alone prisoners here.

Originally posted by akushla99
...and countries 'practicing', war games?...could this be considered 'potential acts of terrorism' on the part of governments? The stockpiling of weapons etc...potential acts of terrorism? Round table think tanks discussing possible scenarios from possible scenarios...potential acts of terrorism?

All depends what side of the fence you want to stand on...

Akushla

If you're on a war ship and you're taking part in war games it's war games. You wear a uniform and your ship flies a flag and everyone knows who you are.

If you live in a country and you're living as a civilian in that country and you're arming yourself and planning to attack a component of that country then you're terrorist. The only reason these people are guilty of a potential act and not an act is because they were caught before hand.

If you think they were getting ready to do it but at the end of the day would have decided that it wouldn't be a nice thing to do then there's something wrong with you. they didn't get to do it because they were caught.

If someone stuck a gun in your face and were disarmed before they got to pull the trigger would you think that they aren't guilty simply because they didn' get the chance to blow your head off?

Potential...is an interesting word to use in the context of an 'act'.

Potential assumes the capability, the means and the ken to act...

How many institutional 'potentialities' could fall under this definition?

Akushla

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by steveknows

 

I think that they should be in until they're very very old men and I actually believe that if we're fighting a war on terror and those terrorist hide in civilian populations then they should be subject to capital punishment.

I have no problem with that at all, personally. Capital Punishment would seem more fitting for an act of foreign terrorism upon a host nation than anything else. These men received a proper trial and no one is questioning that or the verdict in a major way locally I presume? Assuming the evidence is there and the trial handled, then you have a strong point about why the host nation to pay to keep them alive just so they can sit in a human warehouse...or even 13-18 years in this case.

Sorry...You got me a little distracted by the concept of ANY prisoner running through a degree program at state expense while serving time. That is so foreign a concept to my American thinking..I mean heck, we go into crushing student debt to get an education as free citizens, let alone prisoners here.

Australia is so politically correct and there are so many do gooders and leach lawyers that if these people are found guilty you can bet the evidence is overwhelming.

Yep it's the age old cry about how prisoners seem to have more rights than other people. I read once that if all prisoners behaved themsleves and there wasn't violence within a prison that it probably wouldn't be a bid place to get away for a while Though of course you never know until you're there I suppose but I have seen interviews with people in prisons and it sometimes looks cushy.

"If you're on a war ship and you're taking part in war games it's war games. You wear a uniform and your ship flies a flag and everyone knows who you are.

If you live in a country and you're living as a civilian in that country and you're arming yourself and planning to attack a component of that country then you're terrorist. The only reason these people are guilty of a potential act and not an act is because they were caught before hand.

If you think they were getting ready to do it but at the end of the day would have decided that it wouldn't be a nice thing to do then there's something wrong with you. they didn't get to do it because they were caught.

If someone stuck a gun in your face and were disarmed before they got to pull the trigger would you think that they aren't guilty simply because they didn' get the chance to blow your head off?"

If you're on a warship, taking part in war 'games' (lets remove the convenient misnomer!), you are by definition exercising potentiality...
Wearing a uniform, flying a flag...is conventionalising the same act/s in a 'this is the way it should be done' attitude...

'Potential' is my my bone here!

An act is not a potential...it is the exercise of potential...
If you agree with this, there are many potential acts being perpetrated, and which have been perpetrated, under the guise of potential, before and after the act, by governments and individuals alike...

It is not the cut and dry explanation you seem to be sticking to, IMO...

Akushla

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by steveknows

 

Thing is, I am of the belief that the very reasons the US went to war was based on a lie.

You are making a circular argument by saying that the Taliban shouldn't have harboured him because the US said he did it. If the Taliban had have been given the proof they asked for, this whole god damned war would never have happened in the first place. In my opinion, the US made up a whole bunch of lies to start a war for their own benefit. I noticed they never found any WMDs in Iraq either, hmmmm.

Yes, this thread is about 'terrorists' getting punished for attacking their countries but at the heart of it, who declared them terrorists in the first place, and why? Again, it always comes back to the US and a bunch of complete lies.

Don't believe everything the media tells you mate, I have learnt that over the years the hard way.

That's your opinion and that's fine. And my opinion is that the Taliban got hemselves in the way and that's fine.

But the issue is that when poeple live among your population plan to harm it and claim it to be war yet don't wear uniforms then they should be subject to capital punishment which is allowed in war.

reply to post by steveknows


Australia, like its 'proxy parents', Britain and US...displays the same political correctness...the definition for an 'act' couched in the terminology of a 'potential'...

Akushla

Originally posted by akushla99
"If you're on a war ship and you're taking part in war games it's war games. You wear a uniform and your ship flies a flag and everyone knows who you are.

If you live in a country and you're living as a civilian in that country and you're arming yourself and planning to attack a component of that country then you're terrorist. The only reason these people are guilty of a potential act and not an act is because they were caught before hand.

If you think they were getting ready to do it but at the end of the day would have decided that it wouldn't be a nice thing to do then there's something wrong with you. they didn't get to do it because they were caught.

If someone stuck a gun in your face and were disarmed before they got to pull the trigger would you think that they aren't guilty simply because they didn' get the chance to blow your head off?"

If you're on a warship, taking part in war 'games' (lets remove the convenient misnomer!), you are by definition exercising potentiality...
Wearing a uniform, flying a flag...is conventionalising the same act/s in a 'this is the way it should be done' attitude...

'Potential' is my my bone here!

An act is not a potential...it is the exercise of potential...
If you agree with this, there are many potential acts being perpetrated, and which have been perpetrated, under the guise of potential, before and after the act, by governments and individuals alike...

It is not the cut and dry explanation you seem to be sticking to, IMO...

Akushla

Could you please seperate my qoutes from yours when you repond.

No it's not the same. If you're on a warship and you're wearing a uniform and you're ship is flying your nations flag and you're involved in war games all that mean is that is that your defence force has the potential to attack or defend itself. It's not hiding, it's living among it's enemy. Every army or navy or airforce has the potentioal to wage war but they're not terrorist.

It is cut and dry. there is a big difference between an internationaly recognised defence force training for the day it has to defend your nation and a group of people living omog you hiding their real intent until such time as they can carry it out.

Your analogy is lame at best.

reply to post by steveknows


I, for one, am glad Australia did away with Capital Punishment for the abhorrence to humanity that it is.

Killing someone for killing someone in order to teach people not to kill people is hypocritical to the core and nothing short of barbarism.

reply to post by steveknows


So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that if the 'potential' is secret...and not out in the open, the potentiality is an 'act' of war?...but, if it is out in the open, it is not?

Defense aside...offense is practised in many different ways...many of these ways are subtle and almost indiscernable...

Defense forces and countries practising 'war games', in my opinion, is, offensively potential! If this is unknown to you, or you have a different view on this, so be it...

My beef is with the terminology which has been conveniently usurped to target, and I said target, individuals, and 'rogue' elements (whatever that means), insurgents - now, there's a word for you!

Akushla

Originally posted by steveknows

Originally posted by akushla99
"If you're on a war ship and you're taking part in war games it's war games. You wear a uniform and your ship flies a flag and everyone knows who you are.

If you live in a country and you're living as a civilian in that country and you're arming yourself and planning to attack a component of that country then you're terrorist. The only reason these people are guilty of a potential act and not an act is because they were caught before hand.

If you think they were getting ready to do it but at the end of the day would have decided that it wouldn't be a nice thing to do then there's something wrong with you. they didn't get to do it because they were caught.

If someone stuck a gun in your face and were disarmed before they got to pull the trigger would you think that they aren't guilty simply because they didn' get the chance to blow your head off?"

If you're on a warship, taking part in war 'games' (lets remove the convenient misnomer!), you are by definition exercising potentiality...
Wearing a uniform, flying a flag...is conventionalising the same act/s in a 'this is the way it should be done' attitude...

'Potential' is my my bone here!

An act is not a potential...it is the exercise of potential...
If you agree with this, there are many potential acts being perpetrated, and which have been perpetrated, under the guise of potential, before and after the act, by governments and individuals alike...

It is not the cut and dry explanation you seem to be sticking to, IMO...

Akushla

Could you please seperate my qoutes from yours when you repond.

No it's not the same. If you're on a warship and you're wearing a uniform and you're ship is flying your nations flag and you're involved in war games all that mean is that is that your defence force has the potential to attack or defend itself. It's not hiding, it's living among it's enemy. Every army or navy or airforce has the potentioal to wage war but they're not terrorist.

It is cut and dry. there is a big difference between an internationaly recognised defence force training for the day it has to defend your nation and a group of people living omog you hiding their real intent until such time as they can carry it out.

Your analogy is lame at best.

...and where is the definition which describes the difference between whether you are 'potentially' defending yourself, or conversely, 'potentially' being offensive? It seems to me that the definition is conveniently blurred on the side of, 'the enemy'...and left conveniently crystal clear on the side of the 'Right' and lawful?!

The capacity to defend is a 'natural' right...the notion that you are being offended, is subjective...and gives rise to the kind of blurred definitions of offense and defence which has seen the institutionalisation of terms, such as, potential...

To put it another way...a country, principality, whatever...could invade another country under the auspices of 'defense' (how this could ever be maintained, I don't know) of 'way of life' and somehow, because of the accoutrements of warfare can be seen to be in some sense, legal...where, in history has this happened?...and do you think the 'act' of mobilising troops to another country can be construed somehow as 'defensive'?

Akushla

...and following on from this...
What attitude should the local population take towards an 'offending' principality, force of nations, invading its country, killing innocent civilians and warmongers alike (lets not forget 'friendly fire ), restructuring its governmental systems, generally disrupting lives...
The 'lucky' ones escape this with the memory of how thier lives were disrupted, they flee on leaky boats, some die in the process, only to be greeted by the prospect of more finger-pointing...thier 'welcome' is tainted and they harbour resentment...there is ongoing vilification of a PC kind from 'Australians' (and I say this with my tongue firmly planted, since we well know the tainted history of Australia), the US&THEM attitude is perpetuated in a different place, and laws are made to make it a crime to 'potentially' want to kill or maim - thought crime...if you think this is guff, I challenge you to walk through Tulla airport and utter the word 'bomb', or wear a t-shirt of a controversial nature...you will then understand what I am saying at a visceral level, when you need to justify yourself against mainstream/conventional/institutionalised terminology, and what effect it can have...

'Potentially', criminals should be treated as all criminals under the law of the land, if this system is not adequate, change it...

Akushla

Originally posted by akushla99
reply to post by steveknows

 

So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that if the 'potential' is secret...and not out in the open, the potentiality is an 'act' of war?...but, if it is out in the open, it is not?

Defense aside...offense is practised in many different ways...many of these ways are subtle and almost indiscernable...

Defense forces and countries practising 'war games', in my opinion, is, offensively potential! If this is unknown to you, or you have a different view on this, so be it...

My beef is with the terminology which has been conveniently usurped to target, and I said target, individuals, and 'rogue' elements (whatever that means), insurgents - now, there's a word for you!

Akushla

The most obvious and easy to understand point of it is this.

If you were a soldier in the army or orginisation which has declared war on a nation, people or religion and you were living in the country of that enemy and didn't wear a uniform and projected the appearence of belonging to the civil population of that country being how you go about the usual daily business as any other person would other than making the preparations to harm that country designating and not wearring a uniform that you belong to the enemy and you were caught in the process of preparing to cause damage to that country you are by defanition an insurgent and subject to capital punishment.

These people claim they are fighting a war yet dressing as civilians ( they don't have a uniform doesn't cut it) in the country they wish to attack. In war time people who do this are supposed to be shot.

My argument is that if they want to say it's a war they're fightinng then we need to start shooting them when they hide in our populations and plan attacks as they would be shot for this very act in any other form of warfare.

You are just trying to reduce the national defence force of a nation down to the level of these terrorist which is lame. Australian soldiers aren't immigrating to thier countries hiding among their people pretending to be members of their populations yet at the same time planning attacks on those countries.

What you are saying is that a soldier in uniform should be subject to capital punishment simply because he's in those countries fighting or that these poeple shouldn't be subject to it becuase they're in our country fighting.

They're not fighting they're carrying out offencive actions of war while dressed like civilians and that is a capital offence.

And you are saying this because you're saying that if we're over there than they have a right to be over here planning attacks but you know that's it a completely different thing.

Our soldiers aren't hiding in those countries not wearing their uniform pretending to be civilains going about a daily life.. Our soldiers are easy to identify and in the open and upfront.

.If you dress like the enemy and live with the enemy while planning attacks on the enemy ( yes muslims dress different but remember it's not supposed to be islam which is at war with us so they're dressing llike civilians) Then you are to be shot when caught

If these creeps say that they're fighting a war then I say fine let them be subject to the rules of war and shoot them.

You're comparisons are just stupid I'm sorry. They're two very different things.

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by steveknows

 

I, for one, am glad Australia did away with Capital Punishment for the abhorrence to humanity that it is.

Killing someone for killing someone in order to teach people not to kill people is hypocritical to the core and nothing short of barbarism.

It's different in cases of war. Spies or anyone who lives among you but who are the enemy and plan attacks on you are subject under the rules of war to capital punishment. All I'm saying is that if they want to say that this is a war and then go ahead and pretend to be civilians in the country they're at war with and plan to or do attack those countries while pretending to be civilians then they should be subject to that law. It's not to teach people not to kill. It's a deterent to spies and such. That's whay in peace time a spy will be arrested and sent to prison but in war time they can be shot. Well these extremists are using war as an arguement. I agree that they should be able to use it as an arguement. Then they can be shot.

reply to post by steveknows


I defer respectfully to your knowledge of the subject.

Whether in uniform, or not, the definition of a terrorist, and terrorism activities are rubbery and changeable depending on whose side you are on.

Criminals, civilian or military...who carry out criminal acts, should be processed under the law of the land. 'in-vading' another country, and then claiming, civilians of that country are 'in-surgents' into thier own land is laughable...

Regardless of the nomenclature, or the veiled accusations, perpetrated on the population of the world...the 'axis of non-evil' will gain all assets necessary to the running of the western democratic processes...if this means spending billions of dollars on the kind of farcical litigation visited upon 'detainees', you know where your tax dollars are going...oil, petrol and gas lines assetted, will ensure the right pollute the planet as they wish...not to mention minerals 'acquired'...and the billions of dollars in spin-off for years to come through trade deals brokered, perhaps illegally (but what the hell, it was war)...

If you are defending your house, are you in uniform?...and, if you organise into a poor mans army, do you waste time and money on uniforms?

A comparison in the 'classes' of warfare can be made between Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan...the spectre of 'unconventional' warfare has loomed again, and the west (namely the US) will not be seen to be showing any confusion as to who these people are...they do not wear 'uniforms', they reside amongst you, you should be scared...that neighbour of yours could be AlQuaida, or a sleeper, or an intel agent, or a financier, or a weapons expert, or a bomb maker...or they may just be (in sequence) bone lazy, a computer geek, an economist, ex-army...trying to start a new life sans hourly bombing...

SAS and SEAL teams are annonymous...

Can the 'law' distinguish between an intent and potential, and how does this change the equation, as to what gaol sentence an accused and charged individual/s recieve, based on the rubbery definitions of terrorism?

What is a terrorist? Someone who terrorises? Where can this definition be legitimately applied?...and where can it be not applied, and why?

Understanding the complex nature of a 'war' extending over, the now, decades, requires all aspects of the greater 'war' to be examined...and while I do genuinly admire the original question, the answer in my view is much, much more complex...and the deference which has been seen to be applied to these cases is testament to the difficulty of mounting credible, binding convictions in all cases...the deference is there for a reason...the ground is being tread very carefully and slowly, and when there is a roadblock - a new 'law' is instituted to cover the block, and so on and so forth...

We are dealing with a problem created by the western world (US) et al...from all accounts it was the apparent stupidity of the US which harboured and funded OBL at the beginning (and who really knows what the case is now?)...to all intents and purposes, the continuation of some kind of occupation is inevitable (given the changed nature of colonisation in the 21st C) to a manageable 'state'...

Criminals of all flavours should be processed under the law of the land...

Akushla

Originally posted by steveknows

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by steveknows

 

So the Taliban ask for proof of OBL's involvement from the US before they hand him over. The US completely ignores this and claims they are harbouring him regardless.

The obvious question is: If the US was so sure about OBL's involvement, why didn't they just give the Taliban the proof, collect OBL and save many hundreds of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars?

Yes but the U.S didn't place the Taliban in the firing line the Taliban did. They could have always told Bin ladin and he's mob to go but chose not to.

Anyway this is about terrorists attacking their host country and should they face capital punishment. It's not about discussing what the Taliban should and shouldn't have done.

If these people want to have a war with us that's fine but they should put in a uniform and be seen as prisoners of war or continue to hide among us and be shot as per the laws of war. 18 years isn't enough. They should die.

edit on 16-12-2011 by steveknows because: (no reason given)

Your wrong here the US did put the Taliban on the firing line not the Taliban itself. We could have taken him when they offered him but we didn't. We could have provided the evidence they requested but we couldn't do that because even our FBI couldn't find enough hard evidence to even charge him with the crime. We started this war because the war profiteers wanted it and it also serves the interest of our allies in the region. The US has been drawn into a holy war and that's one place we shouldn't be.

Originally posted by akushla99
reply to post by steveknows

 

I defer respectfully to your knowledge of the subject.

Whether in uniform, or not, the definition of a terrorist, and terrorism activities are rubbery and changeable depending on whose side you are on.

Criminals, civilian or military...who carry out criminal acts, should be processed under the law of the land. 'in-vading' another country, and then claiming, civilians of that country are 'in-surgents' into thier own land is laughable...

Regardless of the nomenclature, or the veiled accusations, perpetrated on the population of the world...the 'axis of non-evil' will gain all assets necessary to the running of the western democratic processes...if this means spending billions of dollars on the kind of farcical litigation visited upon 'detainees', you know where your tax dollars are going...oil, petrol and gas lines assetted, will ensure the right pollute the planet as they wish...not to mention minerals 'acquired'...and the billions of dollars in spin-off for years to come through trade deals brokered, perhaps illegally (but what the hell, it was war)...

If you are defending your house, are you in uniform?...and, if you organise into a poor mans army, do you waste time and money on uniforms?

A comparison in the 'classes' of warfare can be made between Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan...the spectre of 'unconventional' warfare has loomed again, and the west (namely the US) will not be seen to be showing any confusion as to who these people are...they do not wear 'uniforms', they reside amongst you, you should be scared...that neighbour of yours could be AlQuaida, or a sleeper, or an intel agent, or a financier, or a weapons expert, or a bomb maker...or they may just be (in sequence) bone lazy, a computer geek, an economist, ex-army...trying to start a new life sans hourly bombing...

SAS and SEAL teams are annonymous...

Can the 'law' distinguish between an intent and potential, and how does this change the equation, as to what gaol sentence an accused and charged individual/s recieve, based on the rubbery definitions of terrorism?

What is a terrorist? Someone who terrorises? Where can this definition be legitimately applied?...and where can it be not applied, and why?

Understanding the complex nature of a 'war' extending over, the now, decades, requires all aspects of the greater 'war' to be examined...and while I do genuinly admire the original question, the answer in my view is much, much more complex...and the deference which has been seen to be applied to these cases is testament to the difficulty of mounting credible, binding convictions in all cases...the deference is there for a reason...the ground is being tread very carefully and slowly, and when there is a roadblock - a new 'law' is instituted to cover the block, and so on and so forth...

We are dealing with a problem created by the western world (US) et al...from all accounts it was the apparent stupidity of the US which harboured and funded OBL at the beginning (and who really knows what the case is now?)...to all intents and purposes, the continuation of some kind of occupation is inevitable (given the changed nature of colonisation in the 21st C) to a manageable 'state'...

Criminals of all flavours should be processed under the law of the land...

Akushla

They're not saying they're criminals. They're saying they're soldiers. Ok then if they're soldiers dressed as civilians and acting like civilians while living in the land of their enemy and planning attacks on their enemy then they should be subject to capital punishment as per the rules of war.

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by steveknows

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by steveknows

 

So the Taliban ask for proof of OBL's involvement from the US before they hand him over. The US completely ignores this and claims they are harbouring him regardless.

The obvious question is: If the US was so sure about OBL's involvement, why didn't they just give the Taliban the proof, collect OBL and save many hundreds of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars?

Yes but the U.S didn't place the Taliban in the firing line the Taliban did. They could have always told Bin ladin and he's mob to go but chose not to.

Anyway this is about terrorists attacking their host country and should they face capital punishment. It's not about discussing what the Taliban should and shouldn't have done.

If these people want to have a war with us that's fine but they should put in a uniform and be seen as prisoners of war or continue to hide among us and be shot as per the laws of war. 18 years isn't enough. They should die.

edit on 16-12-2011 by steveknows because: (no reason given)

Your wrong here the US did put the Taliban on the firing line not the Taliban itself. We could have taken him when they offered him but we didn't. We could have provided the evidence they requested but we couldn't do that because even our FBI couldn't find enough hard evidence to even charge him with the crime. We started this war because the war profiteers wanted it and it also serves the interest of our allies in the region. The US has been drawn into a holy war and that's one place we shouldn't be.

I remember Bush saying "your're with us or your against us" The Taliban chose to be against by choosing to harbour wanted terrorists. They put themselves in the firing line.

Also what people seem to avoid aknowledging is that by giving away the evidence that Taliban asked for they might very well have been giving away their intelligence sources.