US Army to release kidnapped Australian.

[Skeptic]

let me see.....the following are suspicios activities in "skeptic" world.
1. being a muslim
2. Being Australian
3. being thousands of miles from home...

...in the country where bin Laden, the Muslim fanatic, called for staging a jihad against America, after openly and often praising bin Laden to anybody who would listen.

Well, yes, '"Fool", I'd say it's pretty suspicious.

Let us use an analogy. A KKK leader calls on all white people to butcher the blacks, stating next wednesday in the town of Akron, Ohio.

Lo and behold, on Tuesday, the police stops a white supremacist KKK member from California going towards Akron, while praising the KKK leader to the high heavens to the officer who stopped him.

Should he be allowed to continue to Akron?

After all, he actually DID nothing worse than:

1. Being white.
2. Being from California.
3. Being found thousands of miles from home.

...and that's no crime, is it?

 

[Skeptic]

You call it "muslim", when most civilized Muslims call it deviant and having nothing to do with their religion?

That says a lot.

Whenever "The Fool" is defeated in a discussion--which is to say, every time he opens his big keyboard--he starts shouting "racist!!!!" "hater of Muslims!!!" and so on at his antagonists.

Remember, folks, in "The Fool"'s dictionary, ""Racist!" = "islamophobe!" = "I disagree with you on that".

 

[The Fool]

Whenever "The Fool" is defeated in a discussion--which is to say, every time he opens his big keyboard--he starts shouting "racist!!!!" "hater of Muslims!!!" and so on at his antagonists.

Remember, folks, in "The Fool"'s dictionary, ""Racist!" = "islamophobe!" = "I disagree with you on that".

look what fell out when I rattled the box.....

of couse you are not a racist, of course you don't hate muslims...that is why you call them bloodthirsty backward savages....

Unless you have any new evidence to support this guys detention I really don't see the point in you joining in..... Actually, its probably enough evidence for you already isn't it...after all, someone claims they think they heard him say something.....Lol. This board never ceases to amuse me with its constant supply of Believers.... You've been told what to believe, go away and do what you are told...

 

[gnome]

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.

That it is Al-Quaeda's fault that we cannot distinguish whether a captured, ununiformed individual is a member, is scant comfort to that individual if he was captured incorrectly. Nor is it of any benefit to a political, rather than military, opponent of the US, if that ambiguity is used to violate their human rights.

The terrorists attack our freedoms in this manner: by scaring us into curtailing them. We must defend our character as well as our borders and our people--for that is under attack just as surely--there is no use in beefing up our borders if we are going to surrender to the terrorists' agenda on another front.

 

[Zep]

You think so because you want him treated as a common criminal when he's not. He's more like a prisoner of war, which is the way the US Army treated him.

Um, no they did not. In fact they went a long way out of their way to ensure that these captives were NOT considered POWs. If they were POWs, they would not have been allowed to be mistreated as they have been in Gitmo, they would have been allowed at least written contact with their family, the right to assemble, the rule of law, etc. Gitmo is NOT a POW camp. Check with your prez and his team - they made this very clear to the world.

Habib got himself in trouble by loudly proclaiming his opposition to civilization and openly trying to recruit jihadists.

Sh1t, Mycroft - you should be arresting and jailing half of Eastern Europe, all of Asia, all China and half of South America, if that's the only criteria necessary to run foul of the USA today.

Of course, the reality here is that he's really just some mentally disturbed person who needs medical help to help him deal with his delusions of persecution and paranoia. I bet it's this realization that got him released. I bet if he had gotten himself arrested in Australia instead of Pakistan he would have ended up in a mental hospital instead of a prison camp.

You may well be right. He could be lots of things. So how about some examination of evidence?

 

[Elind]

Sh1t, Mycroft - you should be arresting and jailing half of Eastern Europe, all of Asia, all China and half of South America, if that's the only criteria necessary to run foul of the USA today.

Do you always exaggerate like this? There are certainly many, but shooting off at the mouth is not a practical option for arrest even though it is not only the USA doing the arresting; doing that AND more AND getting caught where you shouldn't be according to the law of the land, Pakistan in this case, is however a good reason. You think one should show deference to one's self stated enemies just because there are more than a few? Are you one of them?

 

[Zep]

Do you always exaggerate like this? There are certainly many, but shooting off at the mouth is not a practical option for arrest even though it is not only the USA doing the arresting; doing that AND more AND getting caught where you shouldn't be according to the law of the land, Pakistan in this case, is however a good reason. You think one should show deference to one's self stated enemies just because there are more than a few? Are you one of them?

Oh please. Don't be a goof, OK? At least, not in public.

What exaggeration have I made? There are indeed many millions of people right around the world today who are actively and loudly opposed to the USA and what it does. And not just Muslims. For example, they burn flags, chant in the streets, throw rocks, organise rallies and even jihads. That's a fact. Or have you been living under a rock?

That I remind you of these facts does not mean I endorse them. Consider it the news service you SHOULD have been getting, not the sanitised, homogenised, biased version you normally get from your own home networks.

But let's take one example to work with: Indonesia. This is a principally Muslim country in which anti-US feeling runs very high in many quarters there, often very publicly. It is considered the second most likely area in the world terrorist groups will operate from. Already there are known jihadist terrorist cells operating locally, and they have already caused grief for many westerners and locals in Bali and Jakarta - did you not see the world news a few years ago?

OK, given your criteria that such people are now "the enemy" and should be arrested and detained on suspicion alone, when do you think we will we see the USA consider the majority of Indonesians "suspects" worthy of unlimited, uncharged detention in Gitmo? Your answer will be interesting...

 

[Elind]

Oh please. Don't be a goof, OK? At least, not in public.


OK, given your criteria that such people are now "the enemy" and should be arrested and detained on suspicion alone, when do you think we will we see the USA consider the majority of Indonesians "suspects" worthy of unlimited, uncharged detention in Gitmo? Your answer will be interesting...

I did not say arrest because of demonstrations, I said because of actively facilitating efforts to support what amounts to warfare. Sure, I could argue that Al Jazeera and Fool and even you facilitate that by giving comfort to the enemy by defending them at every opportunity to be critical of the US and it's friends, propaganda is a tool of war too, but that is obviously not a practical or even ethical approach, however personally satisfying it might be in some cases.

Is that interesting? I would have thought it was simply obvious from what has already been said.

 

[a_unique_person]

You think so because you want him treated as a common criminal when he's not. He's more like a prisoner of war, which is the way the US Army treated him.

Habib got himself in trouble by loudly proclaiming his opposition to civilization and openly trying to recruit jihadists.

Of course, the reality here is that he's really just some mentally disturbed person who needs medical help to help him deal with his delusions of persecution and paranoia. I bet it's this realization that got him released. I bet if he had gotten himself arrested in Australia instead of Pakistan he would have ended up in a mental hospital instead of a prison camp.

Which is why things got really weird for Phil Ruddock. One minute, he is parroting that line, and looking forward to Habib being locked up for the next 50 hears, the next Habib has been released, and is not going to be charged with anything. No one was more surprised than Ruddock, I can tell you. His American friends have embarrassed him incredibly, and made him out to be a complete idiot.

 

[a_unique_person]

let me see.....the following are suspicios activities in "skeptic" world.
1. being a muslim
2. Being Australian
3. being thousands of miles from home...

...in the country where bin Laden, the Muslim fanatic, called for staging a jihad against America, after openly and often praising bin Laden to anybody who would listen.

Well, yes, '"Fool", I'd say it's pretty suspicious.

Let us use an analogy. A KKK leader calls on all white people to butcher the blacks, stating next wednesday in the town of Akron, Ohio.

Lo and behold, on Tuesday, the police stops a white supremacist KKK member from California going towards Akron, while praising the KKK leader to the high heavens to the officer who stopped him.

Should he be allowed to continue to Akron?

After all, he actually DID nothing worse than:

1. Being white.
2. Being from California.
3. Being found thousands of miles from home.

...and that's no crime, is it?

And, you left out the last bit, what happened then? There was a trial, wasn't there.

 

[Skeptic]

The terrorists attack our freedoms in this manner: by scaring us into curtailing them.

You have a point, but that's a bit like saying one should not install a burglar's alarm, because it shows burglars have scared you into wasting money on something you wouldn't have bought otherwise. Well, perhaps they did; but you still should install the alarm. If the burglars scare you into shooting on sight all unkown persons lest they be burglars, then they DID succeed in disrupting you far more than they should.

The issue here is reasonableness. Are the "curtalied freedoms" reaonable response? Apparently, Al Quaeda has "slienced our freedoms" to such a degree that admitted enthusiastic supporters of bin Laden who show up in the country he marked for "jihad" thousands of miles from home might, amazingly enough, be confused with bona fide Al Quaeda members.

This hardly sounds to me like an unreasonable extension of the "list of suspects" to compensate for the fact that Al Quaeda is a semi-unofficial organizations, does it?

 

[a_unique_person]

The terrorists attack our freedoms in this manner: by scaring us into curtailing them.

You have a point, but that's a bit like saying one should not install a burglar's alarm, because it shows burglars have scared you into wasting money on something you wouldn't have bought otherwise. Well, perhaps they did; but you still should install the alarm. If the burglars scare you into shooting on sight all unkown persons lest they be burglars, then they DID succeed in disrupting you far more than they should.

The issue here is reasonableness. Are the "curtalied freedoms" reaonable response? Apparently, Al Quaeda has "slienced our freedoms" to such a degree that admitted enthusiastic supporters of bin Laden who show up in the country he marked for "jihad" thousands of miles from home might, amazingly enough, be confused with bona fide Al Quaeda members.

This hardly sounds to me like an unreasonable extension of the "list of suspects" to compensate for the fact that Al Quaeda is a semi-unofficial organizations, does it?

You don't find it at all unreasonable that a person can be kept in jail, tortured, kidnapped, and then set free without any trial or charges.

 

[gnome]

The issue here is reasonableness. Are the "curtalied freedoms" reaonable response? Apparently, Al Quaeda has "slienced our freedoms" to such a degree that admitted enthusiastic supporters of bin Laden who show up in the country he marked for "jihad" thousands of miles from home might, amazingly enough, be confused with bona fide Al Quaeda members.

This hardly sounds to me like an unreasonable extension of the "list of suspects" to compensate for the fact that Al Quaeda is a semi-unofficial organizations, does it? [/B]

I'm not asking for us to be stupid... I'm just arguing that standards of justice don't change just because there is a new threat... those standards protect us in some ways that are even more important in violent times--because that is when our freedoms the most vulnerable--when the populace is most willing to let them erode for the illusion of safety.

It is not the militant arab screaming "death to america" that I am trying to help here--I fear that the same power that lets us deal with them with impunity will not be limited to the obviously guilty... a danger not worth whatever marginal improvement in security we get by shortcutting justice.

 

[Mycroft]

Lol...whatever.

what was it you consider the "nastiest philosophies on the planet" ?

sorry you lost this guy...maybe you can go out and get another one.

The guy was trying to recruit jihadists and had fantasies about living with Osama. Fruitloops or not, I think that qualifies as among the "nastiest philosophies on the planet."

 

[Mycroft]

And, you left out the last bit, what happened then? There was a trial, wasn't there.

In Skeptic's analogy the man would indeed get a trial. He's a US citizen arrested by US law enforcement for possibly planning to make trouble in a part of the USA.

Habib, on the other hand, was not a US citizen, was not arrested in the USA, was not arrested by US law enforcement or even the US military.

The US constitution doesn't cover a man with dual Australian/Egytian citizenship arrested in Pakistan by Pakistani police.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Zep
Um, no they did not. In fact they went a long way out of their way to ensure that these captives were NOT considered POWs.

Quite right, thanks for the correction. He didn't rise to the status of POW.

If someone were to afford him the right to defend himself as any criminal would, it would have been Pakistan.

 

[a_unique_person]

In Skeptic's analogy the man would indeed get a trial. He's a US citizen arrested by US law enforcement for possibly planning to make trouble in a part of the USA.

Habib, on the other hand, was not a US citizen, was not arrested in the USA, was not arrested by US law enforcement or even the US military.

The US constitution doesn't cover a man with dual Australian/Egytian citizenship arrested in Pakistan by Pakistani police.

So, a person who knowingly receives stolen property has committed no crime.

 

[a_unique_person]

Quite right, thanks for the correction. He didn't rise to the status of POW.

If someone were to afford him the right to defend himself as any criminal would, it would have been Pakistan.

Only Pakistan didn't have custody of him.

 

[Mycroft]

So, a person who knowingly receives stolen property has committed no crime.

I've no idea what you're talking about. You need to work on your communication skills.

Only Pakistan didn't have custody of him.

It was Pakistan that arrested him, of course they had custody of him.

 

[Zep]

I did not say arrest because of demonstrations, I said because of actively facilitating efforts to support what amounts to warfare. Sure, I could argue that Al Jazeera and Fool and even you facilitate that by giving comfort to the enemy by defending them at every opportunity to be critical of the US and it's friends, propaganda is a tool of war too, but that is obviously not a practical or even ethical approach, however personally satisfying it might be in some cases.

Is that interesting? I would have thought it was simply obvious from what has already been said.

Yes, it's very interesting, and reveals what I thought was the major flaw in your thinking.

Put simply, you and some others are using the "If yer ain't fer us, yer agin' us!" argument. However when we, your allies and friends out here, are not instantly agreeing entirely 150% with what you are "fer", somehow we are automatically "agin" you in everything else we say and do. And that you may be "fer" something that to the rest of the sensible world is irreconcilable with your usual high standards of justice also seems to have escaped you...

I repeat the skeptic's question: SHOW US THE EVIDENCE OF HABIB'S GUILT, and we will jail him but good. And I'm fairly sure even you don't really accept that hearsay and guilt by association are sufficient evidence.