|
Originally Posted by punky
She probably means when they are dictated by an Authority outside our own country.
Unfortunately, the security world doesn't work that way, which is one reason it is shrouded in secrecy. I'm sure if you could find the location of a bomb saving 500 lives, or even 2, by interrogating someone outside of international law, then you wouldn't let your principals become clouded on the issue, but myself and i'm sure others, would. You have to weigh up the options. Dispense with the human rights of a terrorist in order to save lives, or protect his human rights and let 500 die.
I doesn't get any better i'm afriad. I know it is from a movie, but the saying is an old one, and one i'm sure that a lot of governments swear by: "To protect a nation, and it's freedoms, whatever the cost". It is part of self-preservation, to protect yourself, your family, your city, your country, however you can.
Of course, this leads to the morality issue, which falls outside of common sense.
They started this. Way past 9/11 western countries have felt the wrath of islamic fundamentalism. I don't see the US asking to run a miltary base in Saudi Arabia, and getting the permission from the Saudis as declaring war on Islam. I don't see the United Nations partioning Israel in 1948, as a declaration of war on the US' behalf against Islam. They twisted events in history to enhance their view that everyone in the west are persecuting them. They then incorrectly use the Koran to back this up, and then use this against us in the form of terrorist attack.
Some countries do believe that giving in to terrorists will mean they won't have to face their wrath. While it will lower the priority of attacks against them, I don't think it will absolve them from all blame entirely. So, I think the phrase is an apt description. Why is it offensive? You even said you dont believe in following appeasement.
I don't remember hearing anyone say there was only one way. "You're either with us, or with them", means fighting terrorists metaphorically, not necessarily literally. 'Fighting terrorism' means with rockets and guns (Afghanistan), or using political dialogue (Libya). Many don't agree with fighting fire with fire, but they agree something physically as to be done. Not necessarily appeasement, but more like apathy (Which i'm guessing is what you'd do? Out of curiousity, if you are the US president, how would you of responded after 9/11 against terrorists?
|