Should POW camps be set up to deal with "potential" terrorists?

1. 74

   Oztinatoposted 9 years ago

   Should POW camps be set up to deal with "potential" terrorists?
   
   There are often long lists of "potential" threats listed by security agencies in various countries. Every government says they are impossible to police but POW camps would solve the problem. It may be that governments simply find it "cheaper" to keep such people in the community even though it poses a huge risk to "us" the general public. The numbers of such people only number in the hundreds in each Western country so POW camps could solve the immediate threats.

   report
2. 0

   t aaron brownposted 9 years ago

   There could possibly be some intermediate alternatives first, such as: probation contacts, ankle monitors, deportation.

   report
   1. 74

      Oztinatoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Its too risky. A few hundred people in humane camps cant be a bad thing.

      report
3. 87

   HeadlyvonNogginposted 9 years ago

   One of the great thing about America is that the punishment comes only after the crime. You're innocent until you are proven guilty. Anything you suggest, first imagine what you'd think of it if you were someday wrongly accused of being a terrorist threat. Maybe something you wrote could be misconstrued as terrorist propaganda, just for speaking your mind? If accused, wrongly, of being a terrorist, would you be okay being held in a POW camp, or kept on probation, or made to wear an ankle monitor? Or is freedom worth everyone being free, even if that means the potential for harm? As soon as we start taking that freedom from people, we don't deserve it either.

   report
   1. 74

      Oztinatoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Its unpalatable but usual practice during war times to have camps. Not for ever muslim just those deemed at risk

      report
   2. 87

      HeadlyvonNogginposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      It's that "deemed a risk" part that's the problem. People determined who's a risk, and people make mistakes. You or I could just as easily be "deemed a risk" after letting off some steam after getting a ticket or something.

      report
   3. 74

      Oztinatoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      VNoggin
      My other concern is that right wing governments may be using a handful of "risks" to make draconian security laws instead of simply putting them in POW camps to easily remove the potential threat..

      report
   4. 87

      HeadlyvonNogginposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      That's the problem. Fear of such things are what cause us to take freedom away from others. Because it's easier to keep track of them if they're locked up, or something similar. It's a slippery slope. Freedom means there will be danger and risk.

      report
   5. 74

      Oztinatoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I realise the dangers but this is definitely a War. Not since the Nazis have we seen such a thirst for total genocide

      report
   6. 87

      HeadlyvonNogginposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      But if we take such precautions then the terrorists have succeeded. We give them power by responding in this kind of way. The best we can do is live on and show we're not intimidated and can't be made to do what they want.

      report
   7. 74

      Oztinatoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Laws will change during war time. It is inevitable. Its not intimidation just temporary war time precaution.

      report
   8. 87

      HeadlyvonNogginposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      It's fear, pure and simple. Fear of the 'what if's'. We can't let fear cause us to take people's freedoms away. We're only then creating more animosity that only makes it easier for terrorists to recruit and perpetuate the cycle.

      report
   9. 74

      Oztinatoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Those few hundred people have serious potential to harm others. Its just unfortunate that camps are a fact of war. Its just volleyball and farm work.

      report