On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 02:42:52 +0000, Arfa Daily wrote:


"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.


Well said. Too many times the criminal has more rights than the victim.
Someone with a brain really needs to look at this one.


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.

I spent some time in a US Federal prison and I actually disagree with
this. On a number of levels. There are some who, if not distracted
somehow, will turn their thoughts towards their next crime when they are
released. Now, perhaps the Federal system gets a higher caliber of
criminal (?!) but I saw as many people watching History and Discovery
perhaps even more than "Must See TV".

Also arts and crafts should not be thrown away. I myself did something I
hadn't done for 20 years: I picked up a bass guitar, and haven't put it
down since. I relearned how to make and keep friends, both with music and
without. I occupy my time with worthwhile pursuits rather than things
which may lead to trouble (I wasn't a 'badass' to begin with, but this
does apply to others as well). There was a leather shop at the place I
was; you should have SEEN some of the work that was done there. You did
have to pay for your own materials, but someof this stuff was AMAZING!

No, I believe there should be ways for people to maintain some semblance
of a normal life, so they have an easier time getting back to the GOOD
things in life and minimizing the negative aspects that got them there in
the first place.


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
...

The problem here is that it is basically taking POWs. So, as someone said,
Habeus Corpus is sort of out the window. For the people who were detained
for reasons of terrorism or acts of war, they are basically under Military
law and really only have to be held in accordance with the Geneva
Convention. This is where a lot of the criticism of Guantanamo falls on
it's face. Yeah, it's a US Federal prison, but it is a MILITARY prison and
not civilian. Entirely different set of rules.

I'm guessing you're from the UK? My very own Ultra Liberal Senator, Edward
Kennedy, D-MASS in 2005 talked for WEEKS AND WEEKS about the atrocities at
Guantanamo; after about three months he and two other overly-vociferous
members of the US Congress took a weekend trip to Gitmo.

The funny thing was, after their return on Tuesday, they uttered not ONE
MORE WORD about the subject! Like a door had been slammed shut. I can
only guess they were afraid to report what they had found there for fear
of making themselves look like fools for all the rhetoric they slung
around beforehand. Even a "Hey, we were wrong, this is what we found..."
would have been nice, but being Democrats 'against' a Republican Pres,
they couldn't.




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


As I said, I am all for erring on the side of caution, and maybe imprison
someone who is innocent, rather than make the mistake of turning someone
loose who may loose a Dirty Bomb on my kids. Tough call, indeed, since *I*
myself would not want to be held for nothing, but the War was declared by
the Islamists (as a "Jihad" against the "Infidels") and the devastation of
9/11 was worse in terms of loss of life than Pearl Harbor.