Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The international blockades weren't doing gak. He was still trying to work on chemical weapons, as always. The WMDs approach was the wrong one, and it was done under terrible intelligence.
HOWEVER it does not stop the fact that Saddam and his regime were funneling weapons, equipment, training, and funding to Al-Qaeda fighters.

And if you want to start talking about cock-ups, guess what?

What country invented the concentration camp?

Protip: Not Germany. And not even in your own home country, but an occupied colony *cough* South Africa *cough*.

Modquisition on.

OK ok
1. I stepping out of the thread. I apologize for myself being foamy at the mouth.

2. Now that my conscious is clean (well when you have no soul thats really not an issue) lets ALL STEP BACK and tone it down now, myself included.

ShumaGorath wrote:

utan wrote:Human rights?

Folks I hate to spoil your fun, but... there's no such thing as rights. They're imaginary. We made 'em up. Like the boogie man. Like Three Little Pigs, Pinocio, Mother Goose, sh!t like that. Rights are an idea. They're just imaginary. They're a cute idea. Cute. But that's all. Cute...and fictional. - Carlin

Whelp, looks like I spoke to soon. This little diamond in the rough that-could-only-be-posted-by-a-14-year-old takes the prize for worst thing I've heard today.

George Carlin isn't a 14 year old. He also wasn't wrong either. They are only abstract ideas. Useful ones that allow us to function together in a world with so many people. The right to universal healthcare won't fix a busted leg out in the wilderness any more than the right to bear arms will magically give you a firearm to protect yourself in said woods. You can't buy and sell rights. you can't touch them or taste them. There isn't a single working definition of what it means, as they can mean something different to different people. We constantly debate them and go to court over them. A right won't keep you warm in the winter or plant a garden to feed you. It can motivate people to set up programs that keep the heat on and find ways of making food cheaper. Rights, the way they are presented today, is still a fairly modern concept that basically set up rules for governing large amounts of people. It helps us get along by setting the basic superstructure of what we will put up with. But they won't you in the with a and a whilst atop a unicycle. It is also why they are so fragile. Look at the Bush administration. They curtailed rights in the name of rights and it isn't as if they only had 4 people thinking they were doing the right thing. We could find that in any European country as well, like say the BNP.

Oh man, now Ahtman has gone 'deep' on us. Next Dogma will post equally deeply and I'll have to go find the "what does this smell like" thread to get back to my level.

Frazzled, could you PM me what you meant about the IRA? I'm still confused.

Also, I am still at a loss as to how someone so distrustful of the government they think they need guns to fight them off could be happy with government agencies behaving in this way.I'd be interested to hear your views, over PM. If it's not too much hassle. Don't worry if it's a chore.

Stepping myself out of here before I say something ridiculous/out of line.

Terrorists and how they should be treated are a touchy subject for me. I've lost a few family friends who joined the military following 9/11, and a family member in the attack itself. So I'm a bit skewed on my views, I'll freely admit that.

Anyways, I'm gonna step out and go back to "work."

Frazzled wrote:Oh man, now Ahtman has gone 'deep' on us. Next Dogma will post equally deeply and I'll have to go find the "what does this smell like" thread to get back to my level.

How did I miss this? Why wasn't I told?

Its in a special OT subdirectory Ahtman.

"OT For Dummies" (or how I stopped worrying and learned to love finger paints)

Kanluwen wrote:
What country invented the concentration camp?

Protip: Not Germany. And not even in your own home country, but an occupied colony *cough* South Africa *cough*.

//and this is relevant because ? Oh, it isn't, as I'm not arguing for this failed policy..are you confusing us perhaps ?

The international blockades weren't doing gak.

No, they were doing alright..as the pitiful state of his army showed. And the many deaths of Iraqi children and sick as the regime's infrastructure collapsed, depending upon which reports you read.

He was still trying to work on chemical weapons, as always.

And failing.

The WMDs approach was the wrong one, and it was done under terrible intelligence.

More or less agreed.

HOWEVER it does not stop the fact that Saddam and his regime were funneling weapons, equipment, training, and funding to Al-Qaeda fighters.

err... no. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

Aside from a mutual enemy ( us western devils with oour decadent lifestyles and so forth) they had very little in common. Iraq was a secular regime and many women held important positions of power, especially in areas like sciences and so forth, women could drive, go out ont ehri own, wear trousers etc etc Hardline Muslim extremists tend not to big on that.

I've lost a few family friends who joined the military following 9/11, and a family member in the attack itself. So I'm a bit skewed on my views, I'll freely admit that.

I'm very sorry to hear that. It's a hard subject to try to stay objective about, especially in those circumstances I'd imagine.

Still... who knew Italy even had a secret service eh ?

"Folks I hate to spoil your fun, but... there's no such thing as The Constitution and the Bill Of Rights. They're imaginary. We made 'em up. Like the boogie man. Like Three Little Pigs, Pinocio, Mother Goose, sh!t like that. Rights are an idea. They're just imaginary. They're a cute idea. Cute. But that's all. Cute...and fictional."

Ahtman wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

utan wrote:Human rights?

Folks I hate to spoil your fun, but... there's no such thing as rights. They're imaginary. We made 'em up. Like the boogie man. Like Three Little Pigs, Pinocio, Mother Goose, sh!t like that. Rights are an idea. They're just imaginary. They're a cute idea. Cute. But that's all. Cute...and fictional. - Carlin

Whelp, looks like I spoke to soon. This little diamond in the rough that-could-only-be-posted-by-a-14-year-old takes the prize for worst thing I've heard today.

George Carlin isn't a 14 year old. He also wasn't wrong either. They are only abstract ideas. Useful ones that allow us to function together in a world with so many people. The right to universal healthcare won't fix a busted leg out in the wilderness any more than the right to bear arms will magically give you a firearm to protect yourself in said woods. You can't buy and sell rights. you can't touch them or taste them. There isn't a single working definition of what it means, as they can mean something different to different people. We constantly debate them and go to court over them. A right won't keep you warm in the winter or plant a garden to feed you. It can motivate people to set up programs that keep the heat on and find ways of making food cheaper. Rights, the way they are presented today, is still a fairly modern concept that basically set up rules for governing large amounts of people. It helps us get along by setting the basic superstructure of what we will put up with. But they won't you in the with a and a whilst atop a unicycle. It is also why they are so fragile. Look at the Bush administration. They curtailed rights in the name of rights and it isn't as if they only had 4 people thinking they were doing the right thing. We could find that in any European country as well, like say the BNP.

And yet the statement still had no relevance to the topic at hand and was at best a pandering attempt at (bad) humor or at worst tacit approval of methods of torture and abuse "because rights don't exist". Numbers don't exist either. Nor do seasons, countries, streets, brands, or words. His quote was not an attempt at deriving a common view of immaterial social matters, and one could not have come from it regardless.

The statement is true.

It matters to the discussion because everyone thinks they are entitled to all sorts of incompatible "rights". When you argue these against each other as if your own perceived "rights" are indisputable. We have once again a "holy war" thread that will merely degenerate into lockdown. Again.

No, the statement is irrelevant. Terrorists have one of two sets of rights, the first being those of a suspected international civilian criminal, the second being of an enemy combatant. Whether or not "rights" exist makes no difference at all. A national border doesn't "exist" but the ones we have set have had more of an impact on history and humankind than any single "material" existence in history. The rights "exist" far moreso than you or I. More people know of them, they effect more lives, they produce more good, they do more harm. They are in every way more important and material than you're small collection of shortly coherent atoms. To say that they don't have rights ignores international accord, treaties, the constitution of america itself, and a whole host of other "immaterial" things that are more well known and felt than any material existence.

And if you want to start talking about cock-ups, guess what?

What country invented the concentration camp?

Protip: Not Germany. And not even in your own home country, but an occupied colony *cough* South Africa *cough*.

Actually the form of the concentration camp has a pretty long history that stretches back for many periods of human history. To lay claim over its invention to a nation is a bit silly.

Actually The Taliban and the Mujihadin are two seperate things. There are former Mujihadin in both the taliban and the Afghan government. The CIA didn't train the taliban, they trained the mujihadin to fight the russians.

@Ahtman - I was merely rebuking the poster (cane, IIRC) who implied that kidnapping terror SUSPECTS (key word) and shipping them to CIA dungeons for 'Deep Interrogation' (torture, to you and I...) was acceptable because it is in the interest of the USA. Don't give yourself an ulcer, man! I am fully aware that several nations are party to this horrific state of affairs. Britain plays a large part in this - we did similar things in Northern Ireland (kidnap, torture, summary execution), allegedly. I find this despicable and would react the same way towards a Brit who said something that crass.

Frazzled wrote:We've not violated any Geneva Accords. by those accords all those Gitmo guys could have been shot as they weren't wearing uniforms and representing sovereign states.

According to the Geneva Conventions we aren't at war anyway, as the Geneva Conventions only consider 'war' to be something between sovereign states.

In any case, even if we were at war, the Conventions stipulate that any prisoner must still be prosecuted under the law of the detaining state.

Either we aren't at war, and therefore the Geneva Conventions do not apply at all, or we are at war, and the Geneva Conventions have clearly been violated. Neither argument plays out well for the United States. Hence the Bush Administration's running shell-game with respect to the legality of the allegations against them. So very stupid as the only thing we really need to do is establish a domestic legal convention under which non-lawful combatants can be tried.

Frazzled wrote:Exactly. These people kill children.

Wait, why haven't we executed all those Vietnam vets who dropped napalm on villages full of children?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:Sorry, but anyone who straps a bomb on and blows themselves up in a school in THEIR OWN COUNTRY while yelling "Death to America"?

Not a person.

Nope, still a person. Unless you're going to differentiate between 'person' and 'human'. Though I sincerely doubt you put that much reason into your comment.

sebster wrote:

Polonius wrote:One of the aspects in the war on terror that IMO the US has failed to play up is that it is a true war, in the sense that there are groups that have declared war on us, they have fighting units and governments, and just because they aren't states doesn't mean we can't treat a known fighter for a cell like a soldier for an enemy nation.

They could have arrested him, though, instead of taking him to a third location to be tortured.

Excellent point sebster. Polonius there are many of your fellow 'realists' who argue that torture, guantanamo, rendition, and blind support for Israel are not policies that further the interests of the United States in either the short or long term.

Numbers don't exist either.

Actually they do. Now the terms we use for them is abstract (one, ichi, uno, ect) but you actually can hold a thing or things. Even if you don't call it two, one can see the difference between holding one apple and holding dos manzana. Much like apple is an abstract term but the thing wich we call apple is real.

Nor do seasons

Those do as well. Now they don't follow strictly by the calendar we have set up but it an easily observable phenomena. Ever our non science having, fire worshiping ancestors noticed that there is a consistent cycle of weather based on geographic location. Rain actually falls on your head, snow actually builds up on the ground.

I could go on all day for each of these you mentioned. In essence you are trying to argue something other than the discussion in the framework. You are arguing about confusing the signifier with the signified. We know words are arbitrary and abstract. We also know they have impact, but that doesn't change knowledge that they are arbitrary and abstract. Like ideas, they don't exist but they have an impact. Streets, seasons, and brands do actually exist. Coka-cola is a real company. Pennsylvania Ave is a place. you can write letters and they don't disappear into the ether. I can point to a sign and touch it. Countries are real but are fluid concepts, which is not the same as not existing. Even things we can't see exist, so it isn't about the senses. We can measure atoms. We can measure sound waves. You can't measure an idea.

I wouldn't say that human rights are a myth, I'd say that the idea that human rights can be granted is a bit of a fallacy. Teh rights American's have aren't granted by the government, they were withheld by the people when the government was founded. The counsitition is a contract between the government and the people. Of course, this is a contract you can only sue on in the court of civil war, but it's still a contract. The government gets certain things (the power to tax and govern in certain areas) while the people get certain things (security and rule of law), with certain things neither side can do.

If the NRA is right about anything, it's right about the idea that at the very end of the line, the only thing governments are scared of is armed rebellion by the people.

What does this have to do with anything? It's that in areas of foreign policy, there's a conflict, between the obligation of a nation to protect it's citizens and it's need to act within the boundaries set by those citizens. The boundaries are looser in national security issues, and certainly when involving foreign nationals abroad.

Now, I have little problem with reducing the burden of proof for national security issues. Meaning, if you can show that a person is an operative by preponderance of evidence, and that the group he's an operative for is a legit threat, I say that's enough to be taken.

I'm not an expert on international law, but haven't spies and sabateurs always been without any rights if captured?

olympia wrote:Excellent point sebster. Polonius there are many of your fellow 'realists' who argue that torture, guantanamo, rendition, and blind support for Israel are not policies that further the interests of the United States in either the short or long term.

I'm sorry, who brought Israel up in this thread? I know Polonius didn't. No one has mentioned Isreal at all so why bring it up? And to do so by putting it next to torture and rendition? Trying to muddy the water a bit maybe?

Actually they do. Now the terms we use for them is abstract (one, ichi, uno, ect) but you actually can hold a thing or things. Even if you don't call it two, one can see the difference between holding one apple and holding dos manzana. Much like apple is an abstract term but the thing wich we call apple is real.

Actually it's a false distinction of separation. Two rocks exist on one planet. Eight planets exist in one solar system. Billions of stars exist in one galaxy. You get where I'm going with this. Numbers are a false granularity that serve only to separate things for an observer to easier categorize them. Without the observer that separation ceases to function. This is specifically for numbers pertaining to counting as well, when utilized for abstract calculations they get even more conceptual.

Those do as well. Now they don't follow strictly by the calendar we have set up but it an easily observable phenomena. Ever our non science having, fire worshiping ancestors noticed that there is a consistent cycle of weather based on geographic location. Rain actually falls on your head, snow actually builds up on the ground.

Those cycles exist. Seasons do not. The seasons are a rough distinction between warming and cooling cycles inherent to the planets journey around the sun, however they, like the numbers, are simply a form of granular distinction that make it easier to interpret dates and future conditions. They do not exist outside of their nature as functions of separation.

I could go on all day for each of these you mentioned. In essence you are trying to argue something other than the discussion in the framework. You are arguing about confusing the signifier with the signified. We know words are arbitrary and abstract. We also know they have impact, but that doesn't change knowledge that they are arbitrary and abstract. Like ideas, they don't exist but they have an impact. Streets, seasons, and brands do actually exist. Coka-cola is a real company. Pennsylvania Ave is a place. you can write letters and they don't disappear into the ether. I can point to a sign and touch it. Countries are real but are fluid concepts, which is not the same as not existing. Even things we can't see exist, so it isn't about the senses. We can measure atoms. We can measure sound waves. You can't measure an idea.

I'm bamboozled that you can somehow state that brands, streets, and letters aren't abstract ideas when each is simply a terminology used to identify something material as something abstract. A street is something cards drive on, but it's also an area of something physical (the land). One part is abstract and immaterial the other is not. Everything I listed is entirely dependent on the existence of an observer that understands the system those things exist in. Just the same as human rights. They are all just as real and immaterial.

Polonius wrote:I wouldn't say that human rights are a myth,

That is good since no one said they were myth. Also didn't say human rights either. Rights in general are pure abstraction. Useful abstraction perhaps but purely imaginary. They only exist under certain conditions and they constantly change depending on the time. Try feeding yourself purely on ideas and see how far it gets you. Eventually you will need food that isn't an abstraction. To steal from Alan Moore, "it's like giving a drowning man a picture of an oxygen molecule". I think the concept of rights is a good one, but that doesn't mean I'm going to mistake a picture of oxygen for actual oxygen.


@Shuma: Tell you what, you bring me a 'right' and I'll try and get a can of Pepsi and we'll see who can locate their object and show to other people first. You are still arguing semantics at best. None of those words you use exist because, as I said, words are arbitrary and abstract. Words are just signifiers. "Season" is just a signifier for a cycle of weather that has been happening almost as long as the Earth has existed. The word for the thing doesn't exist, but what it represents does. Only an idiot would deny there are seasonal changes.

olympia wrote:

sebster wrote:

Polonius wrote:One of the aspects in the war on terror that IMO the US has failed to play up is that it is a true war, in the sense that there are groups that have declared war on us, they have fighting units and governments, and just because they aren't states doesn't mean we can't treat a known fighter for a cell like a soldier for an enemy nation.

They could have arrested him, though, instead of taking him to a third location to be tortured.

Excellent point sebster. Polonius there are many of your fellow 'realists' who argue that torture, guantanamo, rendition, and blind support for Israel are not policies that further the interests of the United States in either the short or long term.

Ok. I'm one of them. I think that torture probably results in little to no effective intel, at a moral cost that's too high. I think that gitmo should be divided into two camps: one holding people awaiting trial, the other holding POWs until there is no more war in Iraq or Afghanistan. I don't think blind support for anything is justifiable, but I know that Israel is an ally and a functioning democracy in a region where we don't have either.

I would like oversight on actions taken in the war on Terror, I really would. I'm chauvinist enough not to trust any other nation, except maybe Britain, for providing oversight that's not horribly political, however. I like the idea of creating some sort of "Grand Jury of Terror" that the CIA can bring evidence to. If it seems likely that they're 1) involved with a terrorist organization, and 2) that organization is a tangible threat, they can be captured, and held as a POW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:

Polonius wrote:I wouldn't say that human rights are a myth,

That is good since no one said they were myth. Also didn't say human rights either. Rights in general are pure abstraction. Useful abstraction perhaps but purely imaginary. They only exist under certain conditions and they constantly change depending on the time. Try feeding yourself purely on ideas and see how far it gets you. Eventually you will need food that isn't an abstraction. To steal from Alan Moore, "it's like giving a drowning man a picture of an oxygen molecule". I think the concept of rights is a good one, but that doesn't mean I'm going to mistake a picture of oxygen for actual oxygen.

I have no clue what you're talking about. Right are real enough to motivate people. Don't confuse tangibility with reality.

World War 2

In the UK, German spies were prosecuted under the law. The penalty was death, unlike a soldier who was captured. At the time we had the death penalty for various offences.

http://www.stephen-stratford.co.uk/spying.htm

In occupied France they were without rights when captured by the Gestapo and were freely tortured and executed.

And that is the point of this whole argument.

Kanluwen wrote:
Not a single goddamned right, whatsoever. No uniforms, no sovereign army. Our troops could have(and should have) shot them in the head rather than accepting their surrenders.

Wrong, sorry. The only reason you could believe that is total ignorance of the Geneva Conventions.

Article 5, of the 3rd Geneva Convention wrote:
The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

Article 5, 4th Geneva Convention wrote:
Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State...

note, the above bold references the privileges to be granted to non-combatants, not the privileges to be granted to POWs.

...In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

Polonius wrote:I have no clue what you're talking about. Right are real enough to motivate people. Don't confuse tangibility with reality.

Go back and reread what I wrote. I got a minute I can wait.


Ok, where did I say that the idea had no effect? That it did nothing? Oh, that is right, I didn't say that. I said the opposite. I said it could have an effect, and that it does.

Don't confuse existence with reality. This isn't about reality, but existence. While often thought of as similar, they are not the same thing.

It is a sticky situation when dealing with scum like terrorists and social degenerates in general. While torturing, kidnapping, and violating human-made constructs like our concept of rights shouldn't necessarily be condoned it is definitely understandable why government agencies like the CIA employ such tactics. Especially since terrorists and suspected terrorists are hunted and detained by people who likely got injured or lost friends due to terrorists.

But thats the very nature of the business when it comes to organizations like the CIA - they're just not supposed to get caught unless it was part of their plan. Nations like the US of A and the UK engage in daily spec-ops missions that at best would be declassified in a couple of decades. These organizations including the military, police, etc. are necessary for modern nations but like all things can be handled incredibly badly (Bay of Pigs) to really, really badly (Gestapo).

Torturing people shouldn't be condoned but its understandable for agencies like the CIA and makes for really bad press if failures leak out. It is somewhat of a double standard but hey if you want to kill people you can be paid by the government to do it and for some reason I can't help but think of Casino Royale regarding this issue.

Cane wrote:Torturing people shouldn't be condoned but its understandable for agencies like the CIA and makes for really bad press if failures leak out. It is somewhat of a double standard but hey if you want to kill people you can be paid by the government to do it and for some reason I can't help but think of Casino Royale regarding this issue.

The internet, and the freedom of information in general, is a worrying thing for most people in the intelligence community as it almost guarantees an increase in the the degree of public awareness.

What this means for the future is either a greater degree of comfort with things like torture, or a greater willingness to punish/prosecute those agents who are caught engaging in those acts. Personally, I prefer the latter option. Both because it allows us to save some degree of face in the public eye, and because it will force any given agency to think long and hard before it uses questionable tactics.

Kanluwen wrote:The international blockades weren't doing gak. He was still trying to work on chemical weapons, as always. The WMDs approach was the wrong one, and it was done under terrible intelligence.
HOWEVER it does not stop the fact that Saddam and his regime were funneling weapons, equipment, training, and funding to Al-Qaeda fighters.

And if you want to start talking about cock-ups, guess what?

What country invented the concentration camp?

Protip: Not Germany. And not even in your own home country, but an occupied colony *cough* South Africa *cough*.

Actually the answer is Spain in their Cuban colony. The Nazi concentration camps weren't really concentration camps. The Nazi's used concentration camp as an euphemism to disguise their true use.

The evidence for links between Saddam an Al Qaeda are weak as they were ideologically opposed. The Mujahedeen even offered to fight for the Saudis when Kuwait was invaded.

The above is correct. Saddam was an Arabist. Al Qaeda is founded on Islamism. They did not like one another.

Basically, I reckon you catch a spy, you try the spy. One of your operatives gets caught, he gets put on trial too.
That's how I'd like it to work.

I'm aware of all the reasons why it doesn't, obviously.

Kanluwen wrote:But then it raises another issue:

Why the hell should we treat people who use the population as a shield, have no qualms with killing innocents to prove that their group is still a threat, and use all manner of tactics to AVOID open combat...as combatants of any sort?

They're operating as a partisan/guerilla force. That's all they have EVER done. They're anarchists at worst, guerillas at best.

Yeah, that's wonderful but don't you want to know they're actually terrorists before you strip their rights away and start torturing them?

Because the only thing that made that guy a terrorist was some intel people saying he was. And you'd have to be aware by now that intel screws up, and they often screw up big time. Remember that Iraq thing?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

utan wrote:Human rights?

Folks I hate to spoil your fun, but... there's no such thing as rights. They're imaginary. We made 'em up. Like the boogie man. Like Three Little Pigs, Pinocio, Mother Goose, sh!t like that. Rights are an idea. They're just imaginary. They're a cute idea. Cute. But that's all. Cute...and fictional. - Carlin

Property rights are also made up, and yet the whole world is built on trade derived from property rights.

Human rights exist to the extent that we value them. To the extent that we're okay with government kidnapping people and torturing them is the extent to which human rights don't exist.

This whole debate is absurd. There are actually people here talking about how it is alright to kidnap people suspected of crimes and then torturing them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

olympia wrote:Excellent point sebster. Polonius there are many of your fellow 'realists' who argue that torture, guantanamo, rendition, and blind support for Israel are not policies that further the interests of the United States in either the short or long term.

It's one of those things, where people claim that they're being realistic, but all they're ultimately doing is supporting cruelty and violence without considering the long term consequences.

It's a very unrealistic way of looking at the world.

Sebster--did I say anywhere, whatsoever, that snatching people off the street off of just one report from some goon who gets offered money to be an informant was a good idea?

No. I didn't.

However, that doesn't change the fact that when there IS intel tying someone to activities, more often than not, we're reduced to pleading with some ridiculous government that won't give them up no matter what--or the person has, by then, been tipped off enough to have fled somewhere and the intel is wasted.

Where's the middleground there?