US Army to release kidnapped Australian.

[The Fool]

Let's try to be rational for a brief moment. While I can agree that we can take any single example and debate that to the n'th degree on the basis of specific information, and I don't want to raise your friend Habib here; the generalized point about the "Jihadists" is simply that by their own admission and preaching (I assume you have read some of it, or listened to OBL), they have nothing to offer except what was documented well enough in the Taliban, for example.

Most importantly, they do not offer choice about their beliefs (and if you don't think they are perverted...), they offer death or their beliefs.

Do you need to ask the question above to accept that point?
Do you need them each individually to first commit a crime when they state that that is their intent, and then treat them as common criminals to protect yourself, if not others?
Do you see no distinction between war and criminal behaviour?
Do you think they represent a "nation" with which one can negotiate their status in return for possibly our own held by them (who they have always killed anyway), as in the basis of the Geneva Conventions?

As I recall a while ago, you once implied that we should negotiate with OBL. I think I simply ignored you for some time after, and now that I think about it I can't understand why I didn't stick to that resolve. Maybe I should start smoking again instead.

Don't dodge the question. Nobody is arguing about how bad terrorists are...on what have you based your decision that Habib is one of them?

All that exists is some weak hearsay.....is that it? Is that all there is? Is that enough to imprison someone? Come on Elind, The reason that he is being released in that the evidence does not exist...let alone go within a fart of proving anything.

yet you believe......without question.

 

[Mycroft]

The phrase illegal combatent seems to lead to some confusion.

A legal combatent is covered by the Geneva conventions and this grants them certain privileges. Without those privileges they could be treated as common criminals and subject to the ordinary criminal law ( if you could detain them ).

Thus an illegal combatent has not entered some legal limbo devoid of all rights but is merely in the same position as any other person accused of a criminal offence.

If you detain them, transfer them from their abode etc you must show that you have jurisdiction over them, allow them access to a lawyer and other standard protections, charge them, adhere to appropiate rules of evidence, etc etc.

Clearly if a state does not treat the accused in this way it is indistinguishable from a common kidnapper.

Interesting. So how does being an illegal combatant get you more rights than being a legal combatant?

 

[Mycroft]

All that exists is some weak hearsay.....is that it? Is that all there is? Is that enough to imprison someone? Come on Elind, The reason that he is being released in that the evidence does not exist...let alone go within a fart of proving anything.

Where was it said that the evidence doesn't exist? Are you just taking it for granted that's the only reason he might have been released?

 

[Mycroft]

So all you have to do is hold someone as an illegal combatant, it doesn't matter how they got to you, how it was decided they were one, or any other reason. You proclaim them to be an illegal combatant, and they are your bitch.

Yeah, and all you need to bring someone to trial and throw them in prison is to hold them as criminals. All you need to throw someone into a POW camp is to hold them as prisoners of war. All you need to deport someone is to hold them as an illegal alien.

If you believe in rule of law, then there are all sorts of legal distinctions we make between people that affect how we treat them. If you want to object to how this specific man was treated, maybe you should figure out what law was supposed to protect him and how.

 

[a_unique_person]

Yeah, and all you need to bring someone to trial and throw them in prison is to hold them as criminals. All you need to throw someone into a POW camp is to hold them as prisoners of war. All you need to deport someone is to hold them as an illegal alien.

If you believe in rule of law, then there are all sorts of legal distinctions we make between people that affect how we treat them. If you want to object to how this specific man was treated, maybe you should figure out what law was supposed to protect him and how.

As I said, a decree from on high that a specific person is whatever someone wants them to be is enough to allow you to do whatever you want with them.

They don't have to be holding a gun, or fighting when captured. They don't have to have any evidence that has to stand up to any standards. They can be in a country that is not at war with the US. They can be kidnapped and held in a foreign country without any legal redress.

It is entirely arbitrary, and has nothing to do with any sort of legal process.

 

[The Fool]

As I said, a decree from on high that a specific person is whatever someone wants them to be is enough to allow you to do whatever you want with them.

They don't have to be holding a gun, or fighting when captured. They don't have to have any evidence that has to stand up to any standards. They can be in a country that is not at war with the US. They can be kidnapped and held in a foreign country without any legal redress.

It is entirely arbitrary, and has nothing to do with any sort of legal process.

to be fair...some people have said that he said some things...or at least they said they think he said them. Thats enough isn't it? Come on A_U_P why can't you just believe?

 

[gnome]

Yeah, and all you need to bring someone to trial and throw them in prison is to hold them as criminals. All you need to throw someone into a POW camp is to hold them as prisoners of war. All you need to deport someone is to hold them as an illegal alien.

If you believe in rule of law, then there are all sorts of legal distinctions we make between people that affect how we treat them. If you want to object to how this specific man was treated, maybe you should figure out what law was supposed to protect him and how.

It's impossible to say what law can protect someone if simply ASSERTING that they're an illlegal combatant takes away all right to argue the point in an official forum.

Mycroft, I've just declared you an illegal combatant and am holding you. I told the press you were caught attempting to carry out an attack on a nearby military base.

Now, this is not true at all, but now you can't get a lawyer or even a forum for a lawyer to advocate for you in. Do you see the problem?

Thank god, the Supreme Court ruled this is unconstitutional... but the administration WANTED it this way... and you're OK with that?

 

[Elind]

Don't dodge the question. Nobody is arguing about how bad terrorists are...on what have you based your decision that Habib is one of them?

All that exists is some weak hearsay.....is that it? Is that all there is? Is that enough to imprison someone? Come on Elind, The reason that he is being released in that the evidence does not exist...let alone go within a fart of proving anything.

yet you believe......without question.

Fool, you probably have your heart in the right place, but not your brain.

We've hashed the legalities to death, and clearly there are differences in how to deal with this kind of situation, but my point is simply this;

Habib is, by all accounts I have seen, an Islamic Jihadist who, competently or not, has tried to recruit others for that purpose, which is to kill his perceived enemies.

If he had been wearing a swastika armband and been trying to recruit storm troopers to kill jews, while proclaiming his love of Hitler, would you still be so kind? I see only one difference between Habib the Jihadist and Habib the Nazi. The former does it all for a god; which makes him even more dangerous.

Our parents or grandparents at first thought the Nazis were just a political expression and treated them with civility. I don't think we should make that mistake yet again.

 

[Zep]

Fool, you probably have your heart in the right place, but not your brain.

We've hashed the legalities to death, and clearly there are differences in how to deal with this kind of situation, but my point is simply this;

Habib is, by all accounts I have seen, an Islamic Jihadist who, competently or not, has tried to recruit others for that purpose, which is to kill his perceived enemies.

If he had been wearing a swastika armband and been trying to recruit storm troopers to kill jews, while proclaiming his love of Hitler, would you still be so kind? I see only one difference between Habib the Jihadist and Habib the Nazi. The former does it all for a god; which makes him even more dangerous.

Our parents or grandparents at first thought the Nazis were just a political expression and treated them with civility. I don't think we should make that mistake yet again.

And what we have been trying to get through to you is that if Habib did indeed act like that, and there's still no proof he did, there are still literally millions of equally vocal and active agitators in the world today with the same message and goal. Whole countries full of them. If the US administration were really serious about this, the justification for arresting Habib is the same justification that MUST be applied to the rest of these people across the globe. You would need to send hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of them to Gitmo. When will we see that happening?

And why arrest Habib anyway, who would be but a relatively tiny tiddler in the large shoal of terrorists? Why not go for the head of the snake? Or was that just to difficult to organise? Or was he simply a token? Or just the slowest one to run away? Or simply a convenient gimme because the Pakistani authorities told you he was a bad guy?

 

[a_unique_person]

Fool, you probably have your heart in the right place, but not your brain.

We've hashed the legalities to death, and clearly there are differences in how to deal with this kind of situation, but my point is simply this;

Habib is, by all accounts I have seen, an Islamic Jihadist who, competently or not, has tried to recruit others for that purpose, which is to kill his perceived enemies.

If he had been wearing a swastika armband and been trying to recruit storm troopers to kill jews, while proclaiming his love of Hitler, would you still be so kind? I see only one difference between Habib the Jihadist and Habib the Nazi. The former does it all for a god; which makes him even more dangerous.

Our parents or grandparents at first thought the Nazis were just a political expression and treated them with civility. I don't think we should make that mistake yet again.

And if this happens, for example, in Germany, you get a trial.

 

[The Fool]

Fool, you probably have your heart in the right place, but not your brain.

We've hashed the legalities to death, and clearly there are differences in how to deal with this kind of situation, but my point is simply this;

Habib is, by all accounts I have seen, an Islamic Jihadist who, competently or not, has tried to recruit others for that purpose, which is to kill his perceived enemies.

And we can continue to hash it to death for all I care....."By all accounts I have seen" is meaningless. What accounts have you seen? If they are the same as those I have seen they are all the same, someone saying they heard him, or think they heard him say something.....Do you want to live in a society where that sort of unsubstantianted denunciation gets you dragged off to a detention camp? Unsubstantiated denunciations, these are the tools of the witch hunter...

If he had been wearing a swastika armband and been trying to recruit storm troopers to kill jews, while proclaiming his love of Hitler, would you still be so kind?

not if you had actual evidence....once again if you told me that all you had was a report that someone heard about someone who said they heard (or think they had heard) habib had said he wished to do that.... would that be enough to imprison? GFind me a swastica armband....find me some papework in his posession, a weapon....anything remotely concrete. Someone willing to say he attempted to recruit them....Its called evidence and Habib is being released because there is none.

I see only one difference between Habib the Jihadist and Habib the Nazi. The former does it all for a god; which makes him even more dangerous.

whereas I see them as both stories with nothing of substance to back them up....why not make him a baby eater or a serial rapist...make him whatever you want because the nastyness or severity of the accusation is not the point is it....its the evidence that backs it up.


Our parents or grandparents at first thought the Nazis were just a political expression and treated them with civility. I don't think we should make that mistake yet again.
you've lost me here....Are you saying that we should suspend the requirements for evidence and imprison people on hearsay to avoid the risk of another Nazi party forming? Do you realise how much you sound like stalin?

No evidence means not guilty....anything other than that and you smell just like the regimes you call evil.

Jesus H Christ Elind...Habib may be Osamas chief military advisor and gay lover, so may anyone else I pass in the street. Once you struggle past that bit you may be able to start thinking about the role of presumption of innocence in a free society, the requirement for due process and a fair trial. The absolute rejection of unsubstantiated claims as evidence....Thats what the freedoms of our nations are built on and you want to toss it in the trash.

 

[Elind]

And what we have been trying to get through to you is that if Habib did indeed act like that, and there's still no proof he did, there are still literally millions of equally vocal and active agitators in the world today with the same message and goal. Whole countries full of them. If the US administration were really serious about this, the justification for arresting Habib is the same justification that MUST be applied to the rest of these people across the globe. You would need to send hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of them to Gitmo. When will we see that happening?

And why arrest Habib anyway, who would be but a relatively tiny tiddler in the large shoal of terrorists? Why not go for the head of the snake? Or was that just to difficult to organise? Or was he simply a token? Or just the slowest one to run away? Or simply a convenient gimme because the Pakistani authorities told you he was a bad guy?

Sigh...There's plenty of proof in what I have seen.

As to size of the fish; he is being released is he not? As to the circumstances, do you remember what they were like 3 years ago near the borders of Afghanistan? He was a Nazi Jihadist in the wrong place at the wrong time. If others are similarly placed and not just foul mouthed we will have to deal with them too; not roll over like you suggest.

 

[Mycroft]

Mycroft, I've just declared you an illegal combatant and am holding you. I told the press you were caught attempting to carry out an attack on a nearby military base.

The work of the policeman is different from the work of the soldier. In a time of war, the man suspected of attempting to carry out an attack on a military base does not get the presumption of innocence.

 

[Zep]

Sigh...There's plenty of proof in what I have seen.

Then, as has been said a few times above, you had better tell the US military quick smart, because they don't seem to have seen what you have seen, and they're letting the bastard go right now. On your bike, sunshine.

As to size of the fish; he is being released is he not? As to the circumstances, do you remember what they were like 3 years ago near the borders of Afghanistan? He was a Nazi Jihadist in the wrong place at the wrong time. If others are similarly placed and not just foul mouthed we will have to deal with them too; not roll over like you suggest.

I remember the circumstances all too well. However you DO know that we in Australia treely ruly live within a only few hundred miles of one of the biggest Muslim countries in the world - Indonesia? Have done for years - they haven't been moving it any further away much at all recently. Here's a map so you can get your bearings.

And the anti-USA noises out of there alone are much longer, louder, nastier and more insistent than this one pingling loudmouth in Pakistan. They have been at this anti-US game for decades now. AND they have real active jihadists there. AND they have real bombs. AND they have actually been used on us westerners, such as in Bali. Check this out (famous picture of the Bali bombing from The Age newspaper):

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/06/1062549066023.html?from=storyrhs

They know the people who did this, personally, by name. They have even been arrested by the local authorities. So, as I asked before, when are the US going to go get them and Gitmo them? Just like Habib was?

 

[Elind]

Originally posted by Zep

Then, as has been said a few times above, you had better tell the US military quick smart, because they don't seem to have seen what you have seen, and they're letting the bastard go right now. On your bike, sunshine.


?? Your point? My guess is that he is being released because he is no longer considered a danger or of value, and because he is one of your sunshine boys. You are welcome to him.



I remember the circumstances all too well. However you DO know that we in Australia treely ruly live within a only few hundred miles of one of the biggest Muslim countries in the world - Indonesia? Have done for years - they haven't been moving it any further away much at all recently. Here's a map so you can get your bearings.


Am I supposed to appreciate the sarcasm, such as it is? What's your point? They are your neighbors. Deal with them or move yourself.



And the anti-USA noises out of there alone are much longer, louder, nastier and more insistent than this one pingling loudmouth in Pakistan. They have been at this anti-US game for decades now. AND they have real active jihadists there. AND they have real bombs. AND they have actually been used on us westerners, such as in Bali. Check this out (famous picture of the Bali bombing from The Age newspaper):


Yes I know. And the point is?



They know the people who did this, personally, by name. They have even been arrested by the local authorities. So, as I asked before, when are the US going to go get them and Gitmo them? Just like Habib was?

?? So let me see if I get the point. You want the US to straighten out your stroppy neighbors, as you see them, or is it that you think they would love you if only the US would learn to love radical Islam? Since you know who is guilty (other than Habib) why don't you do something about it?

 

[a_unique_person]

Sigh...There's plenty of proof in what I have seen.

As to size of the fish; he is being released is he not? As to the circumstances, do you remember what they were like 3 years ago near the borders of Afghanistan? He was a Nazi Jihadist in the wrong place at the wrong time. If others are similarly placed and not just foul mouthed we will have to deal with them too; not roll over like you suggest.

False dichotomy, there are more choices available than just rolling over and illegally imprisoning and torturing for three years.

 

[Zep]

Then, as has been said a few times above, you had better tell the US military quick smart, because they don't seem to have seen what you have seen, and they're letting the bastard go right now. On your bike, sunshine.


?? Your point? My guess is that he is being released because he is no longer considered a danger or of value, and because he is one of your sunshine boys. You are welcome to him.

Sorry, you guessed wrong. If he was indeed a "sunshine boy" then they took a damn long time to get around to releasing him.



I remember the circumstances all too well. However you DO know that we in Australia treely ruly live within a only few hundred miles of one of the biggest Muslim countries in the world - Indonesia? Have done for years - they haven't been moving it any further away much at all recently. Here's a map so you can get your bearings.


Am I supposed to appreciate the sarcasm, such as it is? What's your point? They are your neighbors. Deal with them or move yourself.

They are a lot closer to us than Afghanistan and Iraq are to you.



And the anti-USA noises out of there alone are much longer, louder, nastier and more insistent than this one pingling loudmouth in Pakistan. They have been at this anti-US game for decades now. AND they have real active jihadists there. AND they have real bombs. AND they have actually been used on us westerners, such as in Bali. Check this out (famous picture of the Bali bombing from The Age newspaper):


Yes I know. And the point is?

Habib was accused of being simply a Muslim mouth-off and sympathiser. These guys actually do nasty stuff. So don't you think that these genuinely bad guys would be far more worthy candidates for a stretch in Gitmo? Based on the criteria that Habib was put away for three years for?



They know the people who did this, personally, by name. They have even been arrested by the local authorities. So, as I asked before, when are the US going to go get them and Gitmo them? Just like Habib was?

?? So let me see if I get the point. You want the US to straighten out your stroppy neighbors, as you see them, or is it that you think they would love you if only the US would learn to love radical Islam? Since you know who is guilty (other than Habib) why don't you do something about it?

I think you are being deliberately dense now. Like a child who realises they have been sprung misbehaving but still refuse to acknowledge it as such. But let's try again, shall we?

1) There was a certain set of reasons why the USA imprisoned Habib in Gitmo.
2) Habib was captured by the Pakistanis in Pakistan for Pakistani reasons, was sent to Egypt(!) and finally ended up in a US prison in Cuba(!!).
3) There are lots of other people right around the world who match or significantly exceed Habib's "crime".
4) Why are they not also being rounded up into Gitmo?

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Zep
3) There are lots of other people right around the world who match or significantly exceed Habib's "crime".
4) Why are they not also being rounded up into Gitmo?

The existence of other people who exceed Habib's crime has nothing to do with Habib's guilt or innocence. If you want agreement that these others deserve detention more than Habib did, it's hard to disagree, but it still has nothing to do with the Habib case.

 

[Zep]

The existence of other people who exceed Habib's crime has nothing to do with Habib's guilt or innocence. If you want agreement that these others deserve detention more than Habib did, it's hard to disagree, but it still has nothing to do with the Habib case.

OK, let's consider his case purely in isolation from the rest of the world.

I repeat:

How come an Australian in Pakistan, arrested by Pakistanis for Pakistani reasons, was shipped first to Egypt for questioning, and then to US military control at Gitmo half way around the world? With no charges being laid then?

And was then, when his case finally began to be processed three years later, he was quickly released without charges having ever being laid in that whole period.

Doesn't that whole scenario seem as bizarre and "not right" to you as it does to me??

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Zep
OK, let's consider his case purely in isolation from the rest of the world.

Or not. One doesn’t need isolation to recognize that someone else’s crime has nothing to do with Habib’s crime.

Originally posted by Zep
How come an Australian in Pakistan, arrested by Pakistanis for Pakistani reasons, was shipped first to Egypt for questioning, and then to US military control at Gitmo half way around the world? With no charges being laid then?

While Egypt questioned him he said some things that convinced the Egyptians he was a person of interest to the United States. Namely that he had advance knowledge of 9-11, that he had trained with Al-Qaeda, and that on this recent trip he was making contacts with enemies of the US for some vague but nefarious purpose.

Originally posted by Zep
And was then, when his case finally began to be processed three years later, he was quickly released without charges having ever being laid in that whole period.

Doesn't that whole scenario seem as bizarre and "not right" to you as it does to me??

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "not right."

That a man has legal problems of an international nature that takes three years to resolve? Well, that doesn’t seem unlikely to me. Kafka didn’t write his book completely without inspiration from the real world, many legal matters take a very long time to resolve.

Is it "not right" that he wound up in Gitmo at all? Well, the history of this person is that he’s worked very hard to be identified as being with and supporting exactly the sort of jihadist who should end up in Gitmo. That in the end he seems more like a harmless crank than an actual terrorist threat is not from his lack of trying. I think sympathy towards him is misplaced.

Is it "not right" that it took three years to figure out he wasn’t worth keeping? I could agree with that. At the same time, this kind of warfare is new so it’s natural if we don’t have everything figured out yet.