"Hachiroku ????" wrote in message
news:qoAfj.60$tZ6.33@trndny03...
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 01:51:25 +0000, Arfa Daily wrote:


"Hachiroku ????" wrote in message
news:aGdfj.11830$cq5.6792@trndny06...
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 05:30:56 +0000, Eeyore wrote:



"dbu." wrote:

Habeas Corpus is not suspended, goofy.

It is (in the USA) if THEY decide you're a terrorist. No proof required
whatever.

Graham


That's OK. No Problem. Since a LOT of the people they have incarcerated
for terrorism ARE terrorists!

Take the case of Dave Whatever from Austrailia. Wrote a letter to his
Mum saying he would fight, kill and die for the 'cause'. The cause was
Jihad. The tactics of the Muslims is terrorism. They jailed him at
Guantanamo, then moved him to a prison in Austrailia. He was released
last week after 6 years.

Should have kept him at Guantanamo...



This is actually a tricky one, where a country has a fundamental
principle
of freedom of speech. It's a big step from someone voicing Walter Mitty
delusions of being a terrorist, to actually being one. Just in the last
few weeks, a young girl has been jailed here in the UK under the
prevention of terrorism act, for writing delusional poems about being a
terrorist. Interestingly, she was employed in a shop at Heathrow Airport
... I don't think that it was a particuarly clever thing to do, but you
have to ask yourself exactly what crime she has committed, in a country
where people supposedly have a right to say what they like, and hold
whatever opinions they like. There is a lot of double standards like this
creeping in now. Had this girl have been a character in a TV show, say,
would the writer of that show have been guilty of the same offence that
she was, for coming up with the poems, writing them down, giving them as
a
script to a credible actor, and then getting them broadcast on public
television?

There are now huge issues here with voicing any negative opinions in
public about anyone being gay, or about anyone's race or colour or most
any other characteristic, but it is fine to do so as part of a 'make
believe' television production. Why is it so hugely offensive for these
people to have negative comments made about them in reality, but
apparently not when it's done in the TV world of make believe ?

Arresting and incarcerating people for talking like a terrorist, without
any proof that they are actually a terrorist, is drifting towards a
dangerous situation of a totalitarian state, complete with thought police
...

Arfa


Hmmmm...this is all very true.

Here in the states people (a few HS/College kids mostly) have been
investigated for writing stories about Columbine-type killings. But not
jailed.

The problem results from not knowing who your enemy is. In wars of old, We
wore one uniform, They wore another. Warfare has changed since Vietnam,
and especially in dealing with the terrorists. Do we err on the side of
Human Rights, and take a chance, or do we err on the side of caution and
jail them in an effort to find out where they really stand?

After 9/11 and July 2005 in the UK, I'm all in favor of sending them to
Guantanamo until their true colors show.

And, as far as 'torture' (waterboarding, sleep deprivation, hypothermia,
etc) it has been borne out that we have in fact been correct so far a lot
more than we have been wrong.

You have to remember that these people kill with NO remorse, by the mere
fact that they will take themselves out with their victims, believing it
is the Will of Allah.



I take your points absolutely. Trust me when i tell you that I am not a
blanket 'human rights' merchant. The Human Rights Act is enshrined in
European Law now, and there are vast numbers of lawyers specialising in, and
making obscene amounts of money from human rights cases that are, in my
opinion, nothing short of fraudulent if not in point of law, then certainly
in the spirit of it. Criminals now have more rights than their victims, and
woe betide the copper who violates those rights. As far as I am concerned,
if you choose to be a criminal, then all of your 'special' rights should be
suspended. If you slash yourself to pieces trying to climb over a glass
topped wall, then that's your fault, and not that of the person who put it
there to defend their property against dirty little scrotes trying to break
in to get their drug money. Same as when you are convicted and sent to jail.
Your only human rights should be to be treated as a human being - fed,
housed, kept warm, and given medical treatment if required. You should not
have the right to television, religious segregation, endless visits and so
on, but under the terms of the Human Rights Act, they seem to get all of
these things and more.

BUT, I really do believe that there has to be some kind of restaint in law
to prevent *real* violations of human rights. All sorts of laws have been
rushed through on both sides of the Atlantic to aid the 'war on terror', and
doubtless, when correctly applied, have some measure of success against the
genuinely bad people. I don't have too much of a problem with 'torture' of
the non-permanent variety, being used against the genuinely bad. What I do
have a problem with, is when the laws are used as a 'blunt instrument', as
appears to have been the case with *some* Guantanamo internees, who have
been held on nothing more than suspicion. Some of those have been British
citizens, and have been eventually released, but seem to have been the
subjects of the 'persuasion' methods that you detailed, for some
considerable time before their release. During their incarceration, they
make claims of being prevented from having any kind of contact with proper
legal representaion. Now that seems to me to be collectively, a *genuine*
breach of human rights, and if we pursue that route rigidly, with no
exceptions and no mitigations, then we run the risk of losing our freedom
and democracy, and becoming a totalitarian state, which Iraq pretty much was
before the western efforts to 'liberate' it, and restore the freedoms and
human rights that it once had. Now is this an example of double standards,
perhaps ? We really can't have it both ways ...

It *is* a very tricky situation, no matter how you look at it. On the one
hand, a government has the responsibility to protect the people it governs,
but on the other, it must stand up for the fundamental principles on which
the country's heritage and laws are built. In the case of western
democracies, a keystone in this respect, is freedoms of speech and actions,
and an expectation that the country's laws will be applied to all with equal
rigour. To date, I don't think we have got that balance quite right.

Arfa