Cleon
King of the Pod People
rikzilla said:
And yet, for all your bluster, neither you nor all the Great and Powerful Wisdom of the US Government have a single shred of evidence that he's a terrorist.
US Army to release kidnapped Australian.
- Thread starter The Fool
- Start date
-
- Tags
- mamdouh habib
And yet, for all your bluster, neither you nor all the Great and Powerful Wisdom of the US Government have a single shred of evidence that he's a terrorist.
crimresearch
Alumbrado
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 10,600
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: US Army to release kidnapped Australian.
Denial isn't just a river in Adelaide...
Seriously, I think the notion that there are less than a dozen white supremacists in all of Australia, and that the arsons, violence, and murders of non-whites were merely invented by the media, is utter rubbish.
I also suspect that many people, have to believe these things don't exist in their back yard, in order to keep their blinders firmly in place.
And countries where people don't want to believe these things are happening, are the very countries that became attractive to white supremacists after the US authorities made it unpleasant for them here.
Zep said:
Denial isn't just a river in Adelaide...
Seriously, I think the notion that there are less than a dozen white supremacists in all of Australia, and that the arsons, violence, and murders of non-whites were merely invented by the media, is utter rubbish.
I also suspect that many people, have to believe these things don't exist in their back yard, in order to keep their blinders firmly in place.
And countries where people don't want to believe these things are happening, are the very countries that became attractive to white supremacists after the US authorities made it unpleasant for them here.
rikzilla
Ninja wave: Atomic fire-breath ninja
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 5,009
Cleon said:
Well why don't we wait and see eh? We have a wonderful opportunity here to sit back and watch evidence unfold...or not. Thankfully this experiment will be performed on the streets of Oz and not here...so it's not my kid that may end up dead because of this little experiment. Mr. Habib is no longer our problem.
AUP, MM, and Fool are welcome to him...I just hope that he really isn't a dangerous jihadi because no matter how I feel about those three Aussie stooges, I hold the Australian people and government in high regard.
-z
Cleon
King of the Pod People
rikzilla said:
Call me a dirty America-hating pot-smoking granola-munching hippie communist, but I always thought it was better to get incriminating evidence before you lock someone up for years at a time.
That's all very nice, "Fool", but your "outrage" at the fact that the US is releasing him without a trial is somewhat undermined by the fact that you would be just as "outraged" and incensed at the "evil USA" if it decided NOT to release him and to put him on trial for terrorism.
You're up to your usual "damned if it does, damned if it doesn't" double standard towards the US. If it puts someone on trial for terrorism, you shout your head off that it is "a show trial", that the "defendant's rights are not protected", that the guilty verdict is known in advance, etc., etc.
But if it does NOT put someone on trial and releases them after detemining they are innocent, then this, naturally, merely shows that the US was being cruel to an innocent man for no reason whatever, apparently arresting him at random as an act of sheer imperialistic cruelty.
Did it occur to you that the US might have had reasons for arresting him? That there is something, shall we say, slightly suspicious with a devout Muslim Australian citizen showing up thousands of miles from home on the way to Afghanistan at the time bin Laden was calling on all believers to fight the American Infidel there? No, this does not prove he is guilty. But it hardly is illogical to reasonably suspect him of terrorist intentions.
Obviously, the only "moral" thing the US should have done is to not arrest anybody at all for terrorism anywhere, no matter how suspiciously they act; or, if it does, to know in advance by psychic means that all the suspects it arrests are, in fact, guilty of terrorism.
Oh wait, THAT won't work, either: if all of them WERE found guilty, you'd be shouting your head off how this proves the trials were all "unfair show trials where the verdict is known in advance", etc. So, we're left with "don't do anything"--the only "moral" action the US could take about Al Quaeda.
Otherwise, whatever it does, the US would have to face your wrath and moral approbation. (Shrug) Well, I think the US can live with that.
You're up to your usual "damned if it does, damned if it doesn't" double standard towards the US. If it puts someone on trial for terrorism, you shout your head off that it is "a show trial", that the "defendant's rights are not protected", that the guilty verdict is known in advance, etc., etc.
But if it does NOT put someone on trial and releases them after detemining they are innocent, then this, naturally, merely shows that the US was being cruel to an innocent man for no reason whatever, apparently arresting him at random as an act of sheer imperialistic cruelty.
Did it occur to you that the US might have had reasons for arresting him? That there is something, shall we say, slightly suspicious with a devout Muslim Australian citizen showing up thousands of miles from home on the way to Afghanistan at the time bin Laden was calling on all believers to fight the American Infidel there? No, this does not prove he is guilty. But it hardly is illogical to reasonably suspect him of terrorist intentions.
Obviously, the only "moral" thing the US should have done is to not arrest anybody at all for terrorism anywhere, no matter how suspiciously they act; or, if it does, to know in advance by psychic means that all the suspects it arrests are, in fact, guilty of terrorism.
Oh wait, THAT won't work, either: if all of them WERE found guilty, you'd be shouting your head off how this proves the trials were all "unfair show trials where the verdict is known in advance", etc. So, we're left with "don't do anything"--the only "moral" action the US could take about Al Quaeda.
Otherwise, whatever it does, the US would have to face your wrath and moral approbation. (Shrug) Well, I think the US can live with that.
Cleon
King of the Pod People
rikzilla said:
Makes for a great sound bite, but a rather disturbing political philosophy.
If the Constitution, right to due process, free speech, etc. are all so easily discarded, and valid only when it's "comfortable" to do so, they're essentially meaningless.
More to the point, if we don't observe basic human and civil rights because we've decided not to, exactly who constitutes the "good guys" and "bad guys," and what on earth is the difference?
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
It seems pretty clear to me that Australia wanted him held by everything I have read. It seems a bit odd to blame the U.S. for doing what Australia apparently asked Pakistan and the U.S. to do.
Australian authorities appear to have been fully aware of everything that went on, including the original arrest and detainment. Australian authorities appear to have been participating in everything all along, so I have to conclude that it was in accord with their wishes.
Australian authorities appear to have been fully aware of everything that went on, including the original arrest and detainment. Australian authorities appear to have been participating in everything all along, so I have to conclude that it was in accord with their wishes.
rikzilla
Ninja wave: Atomic fire-breath ninja
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 5,009
Cleon said:
It's just realism. Nothing much more.
No one is "easily discarding" anything. A shooting war in which our national viability/independence is threatened is a special case and not a casual trashing of all we hold dear. Granted we haven't been threatened to that point yet. But we may. Pre-9/11 we were much more open (and vulnerable) than we are now. If AQ ever manages to explode a nuclear bomb in the US the survivors will likely see many personal rights put on ice. Hell, they'll likely reaffirm the loss of these rights at the ballot box. That's just human nature. People would rather live through a period of less rights than die in a terrorist attack. As long as they know that when the threat passes they can go back to that same ballot box and take those rights back.
That's a little naive. If I tear a kidnapper limb from bloody limb to get him to tell me where he's chained up your child...am I a bad guy? Obviously I've done a bad thing, but I somehow doubt that you'd see me as "the bad guy", when your continued enjoyment of life with your family is due directly to my "bad" actions.
Of course the Abu Ghraib abuse was just sadistic fun for some twisted individuals and had no redeeming qualities. But imagine for a moment that the torture done there led to information that saved many lives. Suddenly it's not that easy to condemn is it? Suffering can be seen as fungible. You say you're opposed to making detainees suffer torture on moral grounds...yet if you don't get that "ticking bomb" information the suffering of many innocents will be substituted for the terrorist's own. What's moral about that?
-z
I am an old fashioned proud American. I was taught that you gather evidence, arrest someone if it is found, let them talk to a lawyer and quickly try or release them. Holding someone for two years w/o access to a lawyer or a trial is something that was left out of my civics book. There was some mention of the constitution and the Geneva Convention but, as I said, I am old fashioned stickler for things like that.
Unfortunately, that is not true in the US. Do the names Padilla and Hamdi ring a bell? Years in prison w/o a trial. Hamdi was stripped of his citizenship in a deal that let him get out of jail. Padilla, well, who knows what is happening with Padilla.Grammatron said:
CBL
CBL4 said:
If your civics book had gone into the subject in a little depth it might have mentioned that there were some chaps on a meadow by the Thames back in 1215 who made some observations on the subject of unfettered executive power. They rather approved of trial by jury in their primitive, backward way.
Close, but you left out one important factor. John Howard is a crawling lapdog to the USA. To him, it's the USA all the way, right or wrong. He wouldn't raise his voice to GWB and ask for Australian citizens in custody to be returned any more than he would vote Communist.LTC8K6 said:
The obvious solution to please all, IF the USA had any evidence in the first place that Habib was a terrorist, would have been to return him to Australia where he would face trial on terrorist charges here (yes, we have anti-terrorist laws). Like I said above: SHOW US THE EVIDENCE. If he's truly a bad guy, he'll get locked up. Here.
And those lame excuses that the US locked him up on SUSPICION of being a terrorist...shame on you! Surely you can't be advocating people being detained on suspicion, with subsequent trumped-up excuses to come - why, that's what they used to do in Stalin's Russia! Why, that's COMMUNISM!!! Really and truly, I thought better of you than that. What's next - jail people for suspicion of jaywalking???
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
rikzilla said:
You know what, I am getting the distinct feeling that Rick is really a terrorist sock puppet, who wants to go out and kill innocent people. In fact, I bet if you tortured him for three years, he would admit to the fact.
If this person was a POW in a war, taken by the US, then he would have no claim against the USA at all. POWs are supposed to be treated according to the Geneva convention. But the Geneva convention allows for the unlimited detention of enemy combatants until the end of hostilities, and does not require granting POWs access to lawyers.
Thus, for instance, the (vast majority of) POWs the US captured in Germany during WWII were not charged with any crime and eventually released--suspected participants in the holocaust, or other crimes, excepted. They had no access to lawyers (unless they were charged with such a crime) nor was their detention limited by any definite date except for the end of hostilities, at an unknown time in the future.
So does a POW who spent, say, 1943-1945 in an American camp have a right to argue that he was "kidnapped" since he was held without access to lawyers, not charged with a crime, and not brought before a judge? Of course not. Does the fact that he was eventually released mean that he is "innocent" and therefore "wrongfully imprisoned"? Of course not.
Al Quaeda & co. complicated matters. They do not carry their weapons openly and target civilians, so they do not enjoy the protection of the laws of war like the Geneva convention. But this hardly means, according to "The Fool's" twisted logic, that the fact that Al Quaeda or the Taliban DO NOT even meet the minimal requirements necessary to give its captured members the benefit of the Geneva convention, a reason that the US must be MORE lenient towards such captured soldiers, and give them--in addition to the usual Geneva convention protection--the additional protection of rights to lawyers, speedy trials, etc.
Surely, the Geneva convention, and the rights of captured POWs, is the most, not the least, that captured Al Quaeda members deserve--and those rights do NOT include access to lawyers, or a right against indefinite detention, or the right to be brought to trial or else released.
But, you say, the issue here is whether or not he WAS a member of Al Quaeda in the first place. Indeed so. But whose fault is it that his status is unclear? It is Al Quaeda's fault; in a regular army that carries weapons and uniforms openly, it is instantly possible to identify who is a member of the force and who is not. So the US is quite justified in not releasing suspected members out of hand, since it is Al Quaeda's fault that the problem of identification arises in the first place.
But, you say, the issue here is whether indefinite detention in this case cannot be REALLY indefinite, since Al Quaeda is not a state and therefore it's not clear how it can officially end hostilities. True; but again, whose fault is that? It is Al Quaeda's nature, as a trans-national terrorist organization, that is responsible for this situation. So the US is quite justified in holding its members indefinitely, since the possible long time it will take to end hostilities is, again, Al Quaeda's fault, not the US's.
To first deliberately and knowingly blur the line between your combatants and civilians and then complain that the enemy sometimes confuses your combatants with innocent civilians, or to first deliberately organize as a trans-national organization for waging eternal war against the infidel and then complain your captured combatants are held indefinintely, is the height of hypocracy.
Then again, that's the sort of thing Al Quaeda and its ideological llies are good at: see, for instance, Palestinian terrorists setting up headquarters in schools and hospitals and then complaining when those are bombed, or Iraq's 1992 complaint that it was imperialistically invaded just because it felt like invading Kuwait first, or for that matter Hitler's declaration that Poland's refusal to surrender to his demands is an act of war.
Of course, I perhaps should take back the claim that Al Quaeda is hypocritical. So far as I know, they never complained about the fate of their combatants in American hands, nor do they give a lick if an innocent man is mistakenly seen as one of their combatants. Which stands to reason, being an organization that sees its own members' lives as worthless, let alone that of the enemy or of innocent bystanders.
They are more cunning than that. They much rather let the useful idiots in the west complain in their stead. Saddam (and the Palestinians) are experts in THAT game, too.
Thus, for instance, the (vast majority of) POWs the US captured in Germany during WWII were not charged with any crime and eventually released--suspected participants in the holocaust, or other crimes, excepted. They had no access to lawyers (unless they were charged with such a crime) nor was their detention limited by any definite date except for the end of hostilities, at an unknown time in the future.
So does a POW who spent, say, 1943-1945 in an American camp have a right to argue that he was "kidnapped" since he was held without access to lawyers, not charged with a crime, and not brought before a judge? Of course not. Does the fact that he was eventually released mean that he is "innocent" and therefore "wrongfully imprisoned"? Of course not.
Al Quaeda & co. complicated matters. They do not carry their weapons openly and target civilians, so they do not enjoy the protection of the laws of war like the Geneva convention. But this hardly means, according to "The Fool's" twisted logic, that the fact that Al Quaeda or the Taliban DO NOT even meet the minimal requirements necessary to give its captured members the benefit of the Geneva convention, a reason that the US must be MORE lenient towards such captured soldiers, and give them--in addition to the usual Geneva convention protection--the additional protection of rights to lawyers, speedy trials, etc.
Surely, the Geneva convention, and the rights of captured POWs, is the most, not the least, that captured Al Quaeda members deserve--and those rights do NOT include access to lawyers, or a right against indefinite detention, or the right to be brought to trial or else released.
But, you say, the issue here is whether or not he WAS a member of Al Quaeda in the first place. Indeed so. But whose fault is it that his status is unclear? It is Al Quaeda's fault; in a regular army that carries weapons and uniforms openly, it is instantly possible to identify who is a member of the force and who is not. So the US is quite justified in not releasing suspected members out of hand, since it is Al Quaeda's fault that the problem of identification arises in the first place.
But, you say, the issue here is whether indefinite detention in this case cannot be REALLY indefinite, since Al Quaeda is not a state and therefore it's not clear how it can officially end hostilities. True; but again, whose fault is that? It is Al Quaeda's nature, as a trans-national terrorist organization, that is responsible for this situation. So the US is quite justified in holding its members indefinitely, since the possible long time it will take to end hostilities is, again, Al Quaeda's fault, not the US's.
To first deliberately and knowingly blur the line between your combatants and civilians and then complain that the enemy sometimes confuses your combatants with innocent civilians, or to first deliberately organize as a trans-national organization for waging eternal war against the infidel and then complain your captured combatants are held indefinintely, is the height of hypocracy.
Then again, that's the sort of thing Al Quaeda and its ideological llies are good at: see, for instance, Palestinian terrorists setting up headquarters in schools and hospitals and then complaining when those are bombed, or Iraq's 1992 complaint that it was imperialistically invaded just because it felt like invading Kuwait first, or for that matter Hitler's declaration that Poland's refusal to surrender to his demands is an act of war.
Of course, I perhaps should take back the claim that Al Quaeda is hypocritical. So far as I know, they never complained about the fate of their combatants in American hands, nor do they give a lick if an innocent man is mistakenly seen as one of their combatants. Which stands to reason, being an organization that sees its own members' lives as worthless, let alone that of the enemy or of innocent bystanders.
They are more cunning than that. They much rather let the useful idiots in the west complain in their stead. Saddam (and the Palestinians) are experts in THAT game, too.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Skeptic said:
No one that if there is evidence of his involvement in terrorism, that he shouldn't be tried. Please, put him on trial. Let's get all this out in the open.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Tony said:
And your proof is?
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
Cleon said:
The Constitution of the United States grants rights to citizens of the United States, not enemy combatants captured by foreign governments in foreign lands.
Really, I wonder at the fuzzy logic that expects soldiers to act as policemen when they are not, and combatants to be treated as common criminals when they are not.
Our citizens have rights guaranteed by our constitution. Foreign nationals on our soil also have rights guaranteed by law, though in some cases they are different rights. People with dual Austrailian/Egyptian citizenship who are arrested by Pakistani soldiers in Pakistan are not protected by the United States constitution, nor should they be.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Mycroft said:
That means that the US has the legal right to do anything it wants to a non US citizen. Amazing. Do you practice goose-stepping at the weekend or in the evenings?