Stanley 'Tookie' Williams

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

A single man with the passion to kill thousands can do so with technology that is readily available. He thinks of himself as a soldier representing his god. He is unconcerned about the consequences of his actions and is willing to die for his cause. A single person capable of killing thousands...
...
The US has to deal with terrorism in very unconventional ways. Otherwise, we are just sitting ducks for the next terrorist attack. We need information on where the terrorists are, who they are, and what their next move is. They are not going to announce their attack, they just do it. They know they can't actually win they know that they just want to cause pain, fear and death- terror. Try to kill as many Americans as possible; hit a US landmark, the goal is to erase our resolve for peace. The US doesn't want to control another country. We just want that country to act responsibly and deal with terrorism.

In all seriousness, why must the majority of the country be so utterly petrified of a terrorist blowing something up? Let's step back for a second; you contend that the U.S. has to deal with terrorism. Do they? Does the U.S. have to invest billions of dollars, and thousands of lives, in support of campaigns that might save thousands more, but also unreasonably restrict the rights of individuals, both American and foreign? At some point, these actions go beyond "reasonable and prudent", and become obsessive. The fact that infiltrators with terroristic aspirations are, by their very essence, subversive and difficult to detect makes it a fundamentally losing proposition to attempt to catch them all. The American government crows loudly when a top terrorist is killed or captured—but it is fundamentally misguided to claim this as a victory in their phantom war. For every terrorist emblazoned on a playing card, there are dozens, maybe hundreds, of others who are just as willing to set off a car bomb, or grenade, or fire off a few thousand rifle rounds, or poison a critical resource. One would be insane, utterly and positively insane, to believe that even a police state could prevent every single one from slipping through their web of impediments. And if even one does get through? If it's a suicide bomber that you're dealing with, well, you might as well give up. If escape isn't a concern, it's suddenly a whole lot easier for the terrorist that got away to pull off all sorts of outrageously violent things.

The fact of the matter is, you'll never be safe from terrorists, because there are too many of them, and they will forever be able to cause havoc in innovative and unexpected ways. So why obsess over it? If it's the loss of American lives that concerns the nation, why not campaign aggressively against smoking, or improve automobile safety? At least then, the benefits will be tangible, and substantially more significant to the well being of the locals.

And that brings up another problem: what to do about the loss of life in general? After all, we hear plenty about how America is safer for Americans; but if you're going to invade another country, unless you follow the Ghengis Khan school of thought, it's very much your responsibility to plan for the bloodbath that might well ensue. When America went marching into Iraq on a platform of "fighting terror" and "searching for WMDs", it's relatively obvious that they didn't anticipate staying as long as they have, and having the blood of thousands on their hands, just a few years later.

America has committed itself to an unwinnable conflict, which has the potential to exist in perpetuity, so long as ideologues on both sides refuse to seek common ground. The only way to win a war on terrorism, is to fight a different battle: earn the respect of those with whom you would do battle, and come to a consensus. Obviously, this is not an overnight solution; it is a long-term goal, which may require decades, or even centuries, if history is any indication. In the mean time, America must stop living for the cheap thrill of dominating over hapless despots, and pursue policies that earn the trust of other nations, lest they be doomed to do battle over their differences later. If it is in the interest of human rights, to depose a dictator or junta, then seek the opinion of all of the stakeholders; if it's in the interests of promoting an ideology and political message (e.g. "War on Terror"), forget about it.

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

We are in one of the most difficult times in history. Traditionally, a country declares war on another country. They fight and one side is the clear winner with the other county admitting defeat. The modern day terrorist has no government support. Most Middle Eastern governments aren’t even concerned if their citizens are committing acts of terror. The terror is supported by a group of individuals who share the same ideals. Recruitment happens when someone else shares the ideals. However, these are not soldiers we are not fighting a traditional war. One day a member could be on a roof top sniping the next day he is in a market selling vegetables. This is why they are called terrorist, insurgents or enemy combatants.

Be that as it may, there's almost nothing (reasonable) that can be done about this problem. The more we talk about fighting terror, the more we perpetuate the notion that we must kill "them" all. Every government feels the pressures of history; despite this, to claim that this is "one of the most difficult times in history" is hyperbole in the extreme. What of the real wars, the economic crises, the natural disasters, the famines and the plagues? To compare the deaths of 3 000 citizens to those things is pure sensationalism. What of the 25 000 who died in the recent earthquake in Iran—shouldn't we say that they had a slightly more difficult time than we did? When 200 000 died in the recent tsunami? When millions died in pandemics, or in droughts? In fact, tens of millions have died in the past century as a result of natural disasters; mere tens of thousands have died at the hands of terrorists. It is abundantly clear that America is not living through a particularly difficult period in history; it merely tells itself that, as perverse justification for all manner of counterproductive and uncivilized behaviour.

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

I don’t feel there is enough public information to judge whether the US is committing acts that could truly be considered torture. One method of information gathering is forcing a detainee to be awake for long periods of time without sleep. Some would say that is torture, most would not. I think the word torture conjures images of splinters under finger nails and there’s no evidence to support torture in the truest since. There’s simply no evidence to support similar events.

I wouldn't say no evidence; merely that proof is difficulty to obtain, when facilities like Guantanamo are not open to inspection by impartial observers, and when courts are not permitted to publish their evidence into the public record, on the basis of trumped-up national security concerns. (Self-perpetuating terror, at work.)

There's no fine line between torture and aggressive interrogation; but who speaks for the prisoners, when the loosely defined boundaries are pushed too far? Who speaks for the prisoners, when they're held too long? Isn't it valid to note that what may not be torture when applied once, can be rather torturous when applied over a period of several years of incarceration? One of the most grevious injustices against the American prisoners, is the unavailability of proper legal representation, in a court of competent jurisdiction. If they're war criminals or terrorists, charge them, try them, and prove it. If they're prisoners of war, then, by definition, America must be at war with their country of origin, in order to hold them—since it is not, they are being held in violation of the spirit of the historically recognized conventions of war. The "enemy combatant" designation is not a recognized one—it's simply a construct designed to avoid the procedures established for the protection of the imprisoned; as such, it is fundamentally contrary to their rights as individuals. Terrorists have rights, too, insofar as they are entitled to certain "unalienable Rights", simply as members of the species; to claim otherwise is to reduce yourself to their level, by adopting barbarism when it is convenient to avoid the niceties that society provides for everyone.

And now, we return to our regularly scheduled discussion of Mr. Williams, already in progress....