|
Just to add a little philosophy to this thread... I'd say a lot of the discussion centers on one fundamental problem:
<b>should potential terrorists be picked up *before* they do their work, or should they only be arrested *afterwards*?</b>
Normally, there's no problem: someone plans to commit a crime, the police discover their plans, arrest them, and everyone is happy. If they don't find out about the plans beforehand, the criminal will do their thing, and something is stolen, or someone is murdered. All in all, the results are usually acceptable.
In the case of terrorism, there is a lot of secrecy and abuse of the laws to further the terrorist's cause. Terrorists aren't be easily found, and their plans are very difficult to disrupt, even if one of them is captured. Furthermore, terrorists typically target large groups of people, important buildings, or high-level officials; the results of their actions are usually *unacceptable*.
Given these differences, and the fundamental problem I mentioned, you're either going to say that everyone is equal, and there should be no difference between terrorists and normal criminals; or, you're going to say that the danger posed by terrorists is such, that they must be stopped at all cost, including the cost of less (human) rights and occasional mistakes.
To illustrate my point: willravel, the "war on terror" has moved beyond 9/11. People in Guantanamo bay generally don't have anything to do with that. They're suspected of being members of Al Qaida, which means they'd do *other* nasty things if not stopped. They're suspected of planning more 9/11-style attacks. Suppose the US hadn't arrested them... Some of them might have blown up the White house, or bombed downtown LA. Should the US have waited for that to happen?
What would *you* have done with Al Qaida members discovered in Afghanistan???
|