For you that wanted USA to invade Iraq, suck on this..

[GekuL]

As the past has shown, governments usually don't give a toss if it is only a countries residents getting killed. It's nice to think that they would help out, but the truth is they wouldn't - there needs to be some other factor.

 

[Stazbumpa]

Precisely, so the WMD threat, maybe overrated in this particular case, comes to the fore. Like I say, I reckon he has/had them. We know he gassed a shedload of Kurds because he thought they might rebel, so he went for the women and children as a warning.

And, as someone once pointed out here, how difficult is it to hide 10,000 litres of nerve gas on a lorry??
Do you err on the side of caution and sort it, or say fuck it, only to receive a chemical warhead on Israel and all out war in the middle east?

By the way, I have no doubt that the good people of Holland would make a stand aginst oppression against other people. You guys have what it feels like still in living memory.

Because we're not allowed to see for ourselves. They are denied legal representation, so we can't assume they are being treated fairly, because we have no way of knowing.

Fair point, but this is a military operation and such things as military secrets do and should exist. By that I mean that these guys were picked up in a combat zone and there is a serious risk that they are Al Quaida, we all know what Al Quaida is capable of, therefore keeping them out of the way is paramount to finding out what they know. Now I do agree that the International Red Cross should be allowed access to them, but the requirement of lawyers for a military interrogation is a spanner in the works that is not required imo.

How can you judge a person guilty without a fair trial? Also, its not because of our legal system that they are free, its because of a political settlement designed to end many years of conflict.

Fair point again, but the reason I stated that is because it makes my blood boil to see IRA fuck heads being released in the name of peace. This is bullshit, they were given fair trials convicted and then released because of a political deal with terrorists. They are convicted murderers, terrorists and NOT part of any recognised armed force.
They certainly never fucking fought like real soldiers, so why should they be entitled to anything other than long years in a small cell?
And the political settlement hasn't worked anyway coz the 2 sides will never agree and the only thing achieved was to have IRA hard men back on the streets.
They should've been fucking wiped out.

The statement I made about them laughing at us is in reference to a particular incident involving 4 IRA men and a big time drug dealer. If you want a good laugh, I'll tell you what happened.

I'm appauled that other people share this sentiment. It goes against everything that a free society is supposed to stand for, you cannot morally deny a person's right to fair treatment based on the severity of what you suspect him of doing. They are innocent, and will remain innocent, until proven guilty in a court of law.

Again you fail to understand the nature of the beast. They were arrested and detained in a combat zone, and whilst you know no more than I do about the details of their arrest, I refuse to believe that innocent civilians have been rounded up and carted off to Camp Delta.
That is something Saddam would've done, not a free western country with a free press. If they're in there, its for a bloody good reason.

Of course I'm appalled that this is happening the way it is, but I'm appalled at 9/11, I'm appalled at Madrid, I'm appalled at Bali, I'm appalled at the civilians killed and dragged through the streets in Iraq.
What they know could save thousands of lives, and I for one would really be fucking APPALLED if information was not extracted due to a legal technicality.
For gods sake don't forget what these men are capable of.

Because thats the fairest way of deciding a person's guilt. The lawyer isn't a dickhead, a suspect has the right not to incriminate himself. If you deny them that right, you open the door to all kinds of dodgy confessions, and we don't want a return to those kind of injustices.

See above rant by me. This isn't a cut and dried criminal case. They fly fucking planes into building for fucks sake.

Thats the point. You don't know if they did it. If the prosecution is unable to conclusively prove a person's guilt, then they must be found innocent. Its hard to swallow, but there have been more than a few injustices where presumed guilty people have been aquitted due to new evidence, or evidence that was not originally submitted in their trial.

A man was aquitted, of a murder charge I believe, because apparantly the police notes of what happened were too similar. The inference was that all the officers in the case had simply copied the notes from one another and not actually done any leg work.
But given their long years of service in the force, why was it not inferred that these men had done precisely the the right amount of leg work and that the notes were similar because they had all looked through the evidence and reached the same conclusions?
It makes the police task of noting everything down in detail so they are all singing from the same song sheet a complete waste of time.

These are the legal technicalities I'm talking about.
And we also should all know by now that the law doesn't always mean justice.

I'm enjoying this

Its got nothing to do with Lawyers, and everything to do with freedom of speech. If you don't like what he has to say, complain to your MP, write to your newspaper, don't just sit there mumbling. As soon as a person crosses the line and starts inciting hatred, the authorities can do something about it. Its the price of freedom, that others are able to say things you find unpalatable.

Ok, now this is where the stupidity of your argument is shown. You obviously have no idea what this man has been saying, the real kicker being that he lives on state benefits paid for by us while he rants about how shit our society is and incites religious and racial hatred. As for your free speech thoughts, I shall refer you to page 7 of this thread and implore you to read Xane's treatise on free speech and what it means.
Marry that to the fact that Hamza is still here saying what he says with us paying for him, and you will hopefully see what I'm getting at.

As for doing something about him, my lazy ass will do as much as your lazy ass will do for the Camp Delta inmates. It ain't my place, thats why we have Government, Police etc etc. They're the ones that are supposed to make/uhold the law, not me or you.
Thing is, why is it taking so long to deport him? Wouldn't be appeals or complaints lodged by his lawyer would it?

So now racism is now acceptable to bolster your argument?

Of course it isn't. I'm not being racist.
I'm being xenophobic

Or should I say; I love them as much as they love us. Especially the French.

 

[Tom]

Fair point, but this is a military operation and such things as military secrets do and should exist. By that I mean that these guys were picked up in a combat zone and there is a serious risk that they are Al Quaida, we all know what Al Quaida is capable of, therefore keeping them out of the way is paramount to finding out what they know. Now I do agree that the International Red Cross should be allowed access to them, but the requirement of lawyers for a military interrogation is a spanner in the works that is not required imo.

The americans will not give them status either way. Either they are prisoners of war, or they aren't. They're in a foreign country, they have no access to a lawyer, no promise of a fair trial, they haven't been charged with anything, their identities are kept secret, and they're refused permission by their captors for any external bodies to observe their condition.

They have not been granted POW status. So if this is a military operation, why are they not POWs? Is it because, maybe, if they were defined as such, they would have all the rights under the geneva convention that are currently denied to them?

Fair point again, but the reason I stated that is because it makes my blood boil to see IRA fuck heads being released in the name of peace.

<snip>

They should've been fucking wiped out.

Nice sentiment, you're not far away from sharing a terrorist's opinion of their enemy.

Again you fail to understand the nature of the beast. They were arrested and detained in a combat zone, and whilst you know no more than I do about the details of their arrest, I refuse to believe that innocent civilians have been rounded up and carted off to Camp Delta.

Thats probably the most ignorant thing you've said so far. Without any kind of democratic control on our government and its military, corruption will surely come to the fore. If you could possibly believe the story of a man who was suspected of spying for this country, and locked up by the Taliban, only to be carted off to Camp Delta by the Americans, then why could similar injustices not have been inflicted on some of the other 300 detainees?

That is something Saddam would've done, not a free western country with a free press. If they're in there, its for a bloody good reason.

I don't share your unwavering support and trust in either ours or the US government.

For gods sake don't forget what these men are capable of.

Which men exactly? Anyone wearing a long cloak and a turban? No? What about dark skinned men with beards? Because they all look the same, don't they? They all harbour dark evil thoughts, and they must be guilty, or they wouldn't be living in Afghanistan or Pakistan. How dare they!

See above rant by me. This isn't a cut and dried criminal case. They fly fucking planes into building for fucks sake.

See above by me. This isn't a cut and dried criminal case, because they are denied any form of legal representation.

A man was aquitted, of a murder charge I believe, because apparantly the police notes of what happened were too similar. The inference was that all the officers in the case had simply copied the notes from one another and not actually done any leg work.

You seem to trust what the Americans say about the detainees, but you don't trust what our own judicial system says about suspected criminals? The phrase 'got off because of a technicality' implies that that person was presumed guilty, not a presumption I could ever share.

These are the legal technicalities I'm talking about.
And we also should all know by now that the law doesn't always mean justice.

Agreed, but it is by far the best system devised yet, come up with a better solution and I'm sure you would be applauded.

As for doing something about him, my lazy ass will do as much as your lazy ass will do for the Camp Delta inmates. It ain't my place, thats why we have Government, Police etc etc. They're the ones that are supposed to make/uhold the law, not me or you.

If thats your attitude, then you have absolutely no right to express any kind of opinion and expect anybody to do something about it. We have a government, but its a body of people just like you and me, who happen to share the same values and ideals. A police uniform doesn't make the wearer any less human, and any less capable of making mistakes.

One day, perhaps you'll suffer some kind of injustice of your own. Maybe that day, you'll think back and rue what you spout here.

 

[Furr]

News is depressing at the moment, they need to excersice some good old fashioned British Imperial tactics... ie kill them all!

 

[xane]

The americans will not give them status either way. Either they are prisoners of war, or they aren't. They're in a foreign country, they have no access to a lawyer, no promise of a fair trial, they haven't been charged with anything, their identities are kept secret, and they're refused permission by their captors for any external bodies to observe their condition.

They have not been granted POW status. So if this is a military operation, why are they not POWs? Is it because, maybe, if they were defined as such, they would have all the rights under the geneva convention that are currently denied to them?.

Both Al-Queda and the Taliban were illegal combat forces, neither were national representives of a country's military force or any internationally recognised authority, none of the rules of the Geneva convention apply.

This is entirely the fault of combatants themselves, by not making themselves into a cohesive organisation with no clear goals, there is no-one to represent and no-one to negotiate with. As such they are little more than a mercenary force, fighting for an unrecognised and possibly private militia.

This is in fact entirely within the remit of the goals of Al-Queda, they follow a doctrine that calls for worldwide domination and the genocidal elimination of anyone not converting to their religious ideals, such a doctrine would be unpalatable to the international community if openly adopted by an national authority and would probably be met with severe opposition, so they choose to hide behide a facade of a loose band of like-minded individuals.

As individuals, and illegal combatants, America is in fact obliged to send them back to their respective countries for prosecution, now you can just imagine what the Saudi Arabian citizens in Camp Delta would think of that, their future would be decidedly short if that happened, and America would get the blame, America has a policy of not sending people back to their host country if they are likely to face torture or death.

If some countries really could not give a monkeys nuts what happens to their citizens when they are captured by a foreign power, or they resolve to deal with them severely if they are returned, what advice would you give the Americans ?

Ronnie Fiddler, the website designer from Manchester, was released following intervention by his country's government, as yet our legal system, to which he now has access, has not decided if he can be prosecuted here, and the option is available for him to demand compensation from America, others may not be so lucky.

 

[Mofo8]

I really wish that the British Army had set up its own Camp Delta for IRA terrorists, and denied them legal representation for months on end, because thanks to our fair and just legal system most of the fuckers have been released and are now sat at home laughing their collective tits off at us.

erm.... I think they did (not the army, but the government). It was called internment, and was basically imprisonment without trial. Not really a good idea if you're trying to claim you are a democracy.

 

[Munkey]

Tbh they should lock up Isreal.

Whilst they're at it, you know.


edit: and at the end of world war II, during the trials, it was established that following orders is now a suitable form of defence.

Which should be true for us, we're not a democracy for nothing you know

 

[Munkey]

I wouldnt say the USA has the best of records for freedom of speech by the way. The banning of communist parties, trial infront of a senator etc. during the McCarthy witchhunts effectivley proved this.

 

[Damon_D]

damn retard, read my other posts....

Why the feek should I.. if you dont mean what you write in the first post .. THEN DONT WRITE IT MORON !!!!!

 

[Ning]

I love them as much as they love us. Especially the French.

So you must speak french to read french newspapers articles or web forums about your country.

Wait a minute.

I'm pretty sure you don't speak french. Your opinion is based on sterotypes and on what you read in tabloids ?

 

[Driwen]

So you must speak french to read french newspapers articles about your country.

Wait a minute.

I'm pretty sure you don't speak french. Your opinion is based on sterotypes and on what you read in tabloids ?

out of curiousity how do the french think about the rest of europe?

 

[Ning]

out of curiousity how do the french think about the rest of europe?

what do you mean ?
Europe : continant or European union ? About people ? governments ? geography ?

There is not french equivalent of "The Sun". The most sold french newspaper (Le Monde) is an equivalent of the BBC. Have you ever seen xenophobia in BBC News ?

 

[]AC[dRuM]

This post is dedicated to the thousands of innocent victims at the hands of Saddam Husseins tyrannical reign, may their souls rest in peace.

As adults you can read the following and make your own minds up.

In 1979, immediately upon coming to power, Saddam Hussein silenced all political opposition in Iraq and converted his one-party state into a cult of personality. Since then, his regime has systematically executed, tortured, imprisoned, raped, terrorised, and repressed the Iraqi people. Iraq is a nation rich in culture, with a long history of intellectual and scientific achievement, especially among its women. However, Saddam Hussein's brutal regime has silenced the voices of Iraq's women, along with its men, through violence and intimidation.

In Iraq under Saddam, if you are a woman, you could face:

Beheading. Under the pretext of fighting prostitution, units of "Fedayeen Saddam," the paramilitary organization led by Uday Hussein, Saddam's eldest son, have beheaded in public more than 200 women throughout the country, dumping their severed heads at their families' doorsteps. Many families have been required to display the victim's head on their outside fences for several days. These barbaric acts were carried out in the total absence of any proper judicial procedures and many of the victims were not engaged in prostitution, but were targeted for political reasons. For example, Najat Mohammad Haydar, an obstetrician in Baghdad, was beheaded after criticizing the corruption within health services.

Rape. The Iraqi Government uses rape and sexual assault of women to achieve the following goals: to extract information and forced confessions from detained family members; to intimidate Iraqi oppositionists by sending videotapes showing the rape of female family members; and to blackmail Iraqi men into future cooperation with the regime. Some Iraqi authorities even carry personnel cards identifying their official "activity" as the "violation of women's honor."

Torture. The Iraqi Government routinely tortures and kills female dissidents and the female relatives of Iraqi oppositionists and defectors. Victims include Safiyah Hassan, the mother of two Iraqi defectors, who was killed after publicly criticizing the Iraqi Government for killing her sons after their return to Iraq. Women in Saddam's jails are subjected to the following forms of torture: brutal beatings, systematic rape, electrical shocks, and branding.

Murder. In 1990, Saddam Hussein introduced Article 111 into the Iraqi Penal Code in a calculated effort to strengthen tribal support for his regime. This law exempts men who kill their female relatives in defense of their family's honor from prosecution and punishment. The UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women reported that more than 4,000 women have been victims of so-called "honor killings" since Article 111 went into effect.

Being related to Saddam was no guarantee of safety in what one author dubbed the "republic of fear." In August 1995, two of Saddam's sons-in-law, both also his cousins, defected to Jordan with their wives. Returning home in the belief they had been pardoned, both were dead in 72 hours.

Under Saddam's regime many hundreds of thousands of people have died as a result of his actions - the vast majority of them Muslims.

According to a 2001 Amnesty International report, "victims of torture in Iraq are subjected to a wide range of forms of torture, including the gouging out of eyes, severe beatings and electric shocks... some victims have died as a result and many have been left with permanent physical and psychological damage."

Saddam has had approximately 40 of his own relatives murdered.

Allegations of prostitution used to intimidate opponents of the regime, have been used by the regime to justify the barbaric beheading of women.

Documented chemical attacks by the regime, from 1983 to 1988, resulted in some 30,000 Iraqi and Iranian deaths.

Human Rights Watch estimates that Saddam's 1987-1988 campaign of terror against the Kurds killed at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds. o The Iraqi regime used chemical agents to include mustard gas and nerve agents in attacks against at least 40 Kurdish villages between 1987-1988. The largest was the attack on Halabja which resulted in approximately 5,000 deaths. o 2,000 Kurdish villages were destroyed during the campaign of terror.

Iraq's 13 million Shi'a Muslims, the majority of Iraq's population of approximately 22 million, face severe restrictions on their religious practice, including a ban on communal Friday prayer, and restriction on funeral processions.

According to Human Rights Watch, "senior Arab diplomats told the London-based Arabic daily newspaper al-Hayat in October [1991] that Iraqi leaders were privately acknowledging that 250,000 people were killed during the uprisings, with most of the casualties in the south." Refugees International reports that the "Oppressive government policies have led to the internal displacement of 900,000 Iraqis, primarily Kurds who have fled to the north to escape Saddam Hussein's Arabization campaigns (which involve forcing Kurds to renounce their Kurdish identity or lose their property) and Marsh Arabs, who fled the government's campaign to dry up the southern marshes for agricultural use. More than 200,000 Iraqis continue to live as refugees in Iran."

The U.S. Committee for Refugees, in 2002, estimated that nearly 100,000 Kurds, Assyrians and Turkomans had previously been expelled, by the regime, from the "central-government-controlled Kirkuk and surrounding districts in the oil-rich region bordering the Kurdish controlled north."

"Over the past five years, 400,000 Iraqi children under the age of five died of malnutrition and disease, preventively, but died because of the nature of the regime under which they are living." Under the oil-for-food program, the international community sought to make available to the Iraqi people adequate supplies of food and medicine, but the regime blocked sufficient access for international workers to ensure proper distribution of these supplies. Since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, coalition forces have discovered military warehouses filled with food supplies meant for the Iraqi people that had been diverted by Iraqi military forces.

The Iraqi regime has repeatedly refused visits by human rights monitors. From 1992 until 2002, Saddam prevented the UN Special Rapporteur from visiting Iraq.

The UN Special Rapporteur's September 2001, report criticized the regime for "the sheer number of executions," the number of "extrajudicial executions on political grounds," and "the absence of a due process of the law."

Executions: Saddam Hussein's regime has carried out frequent summary executions, including: o 4,000 prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in 1984 o 3,000 prisoners at the Mahjar prison from 1993-1998 o 2,500 prisoners were executed between 1997-1999 in a "prison cleansing campaign" o 122 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in February/March 2000 o 23 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in October 2001 o At least 130 Iraqi women were beheaded between June 2000 and April 2001.

 

[xane]

I wouldnt say the USA has the best of records for freedom of speech by the way. The banning of communist parties, trial infront of a senator etc. during the McCarthy witchhunts effectivley proved this.

Whilst I'd certainly agree that McCarthy was a sad moment in US history, but it's becoming a little tiring using this as a stick to beat America even 50 years after most of the main events.

Firstly, it is worth noting that although McCarthy was a loose cannon once he got appointed, his cause; the opposition to hardline communism, was a worthy one. The people he originally started to investigate were of the same opinions that islamic extremists are today; they wanted worldwide domination, they wanted to eliminate and subjugate the free and liberal USA. Worldwide, this form of communism has probably caused more death and despair than any other political system.

These people were not just "left-wing" or a bit "too liberal", they were Stalinist/Leninist supporters, and similar to other political and religious extremists like facists and KKK. Later McCarthy started working on sympathisers to those investigated and thereby exceeded his position of power, he was opposed by later administrations and eventually removed. It was the freedom of the press and common democracy that prevented McCarthy getting too ambitious and cutting him short.

McCarthy might have strayed beyond the edges of a liberal democratic administration, but the worst of his activities doesn't even begin to compare to the kinds of persecution that has gone on elsewhere.

 

[Driwen]

what do you mean ?
Europe : continant or European union ? About people ? governments ? geography ?

There is not french equivalent of "The Sun". The most sold french newspaper (Le Monde) is an equivalent of the BBC. Have you ever seen xenophobia in BBC News ?

I meant how the french people on average look at europe, the different countries/people and EU.
And I am not really talking about xenophobia, for example the average englishmen likes to make jokes of the french and probably has a low opinion off them (cant be sure as I am not british). Stazbumpa claims the french hate the british and I just wondered what their sentiment (on average) actually is .

 

[Louster]

Stazbumpa claims the french hate the british and I just wondered what their sentiment (on average) actually is .

My dad comes from a partly French family, and some topic similar to this came up in a conversation with my (English) grandfather's (French) wife. Apparently, her impression of the general French attitude towards England is that of gratitude due to the WW2 stuff (I don't really know my history at all thanks to a lethargic apathy but I gather this makes sense, ehm!) and they even "look up to [us]". Maybe this is a generational thing, though, and it wouldn't surprise me if this attitude isn't at all present in the younger folks. Of course, no attitude'll be fully representative of an entire nation, but whatever. Just an interesting aside. And no, I don't share in the "average Englishman's" low opinion of French people, but I guess that figures.

 

[Vae]

what do you mean ?
Europe : continant or European union ? About people ? governments ? geography ?

There is not french equivalent of "The Sun". The most sold french newspaper (Le Monde) is an equivalent of the BBC. Have you ever seen xenophobia in BBC News ?

I would pick a hole in that - Afaiaa the most sold French newspaper is actually L'Ouest France as the French aren't big on buying national papers and thus the regional (allbeit large regions) ones sell better.

 

[mr.Blacky]

French people no problem, French politicians no thanks. Then again I don't really respect most politicians, for me it is politicians are bad though the French politicians are a bit worse.

 

[Stazbumpa]

Maybe I was a bit harsh, but then I've only got history and personal experience to go on. I think I'll settle for mr.Blacky's take on things.

Anyway, onto Staz vs Tom:

The americans will not give them status either way. Either they are prisoners of war, or they aren't. They're in a foreign country, they have no access to a lawyer, no promise of a fair trial, they haven't been charged with anything, their identities are kept secret, and they're refused permission by their captors for any external bodies to observe their condition.

They have not been granted POW status. So if this is a military operation, why are they not POWs? Is it because, maybe, if they were defined as such, they would have all the rights under the geneva convention that are currently denied to them?

I refer you to what Xane said.
They were not combatants in the legal sense of things, and even if the Taliban WAS the equivilant of the regular army then the line between the Taliban and Al Quaida is so blurred anyway, plus the fact that the Tlaiban openly supported Al Quaida, would that not make a case for imprisonment and questioning of ALL suspects in an effort to find out who is who and who knows what?

Nice sentiment, you're not far away from sharing a terrorist's opinion of their enemy.

I fail to see your point here. In a choice between them and me I'd really rather prefer them to die. Thats the way they see it for whatever fucked up reasons they offer, so why should my self preservation reason be invalid?

Thats probably the most ignorant thing you've said so far. Without any kind of democratic control on our government and its military, corruption will surely come to the fore. If you could possibly believe the story of a man who was suspected of spying for this country, and locked up by the Taliban, only to be carted off to Camp Delta by the Americans, then why could similar injustices not have been inflicted on some of the other 300 detainees?

I agree, its not impossible that there are a few unfortunates in Camp Delta, who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. This is where the sad but true phrase "shit happens" springs to mind.
Innocents do die, injustices do occur. However I don't believe its on such a grand scale as you do and I personally don't have a problem with one or two innocents getting locked up by mistake if the information gleaned from the rest saves lives.
Its sad, it isn't right either. But its the way things are. To do otherwise would be the equivilent of releasing all convicted murderers from jail on the grounds that there have been half a dozen miscarraiges of justice.

I don't share your unwavering support and trust in either ours or the US government.

Thats your problem mate.
You obviously see a grand conspiracy of the UK/US governments, but at the same time conveniently ignore the even grander conspiracies enacted by Al Quaida, Saddam and a multitude of other maniacs.
I personally don't like Blair and I ain't keen on Bush either, but I respect them for doing what needed to be done. Either way, its a moot point.

Which men exactly? Anyone wearing a long cloak and a turban? No? What about dark skinned men with beards? Because they all look the same, don't they? They all harbour dark evil thoughts, and they must be guilty, or they wouldn't be living in Afghanistan or Pakistan. How dare they!

For gods sake, do you not watch the bloody TV? Does the idea that these people could possibly be devious bastards as well as murderers not enter your head? How are you supposed to combat something like this if you tip toe everywhere and make sure all the suspects are nice and comfy and have a mug of fucking cocoa?
Be nice to suspects, any suspect of anything at all, and they will laugh at you.

See above by me. This isn't a cut and dried criminal case, because they are denied any form of legal representation.

And I refer you back to what I said. This is a military series of operations to defend against terrorist activity. Legal representation is fine provided they have been charged with something. They haven't because interrogation is still ongoing, you and I don't know how they got arrested, so given that they are possibly a threat then Camp Delta is the best place for them because they are DEFINATELY not a threat now.

You seem to trust what the Americans say about the detainees, but you don't trust what our own judicial system says about suspected criminals? The phrase 'got off because of a technicality' implies that that person was presumed guilty, not a presumption I could ever share.

I have some experience of our judicial system, quite a lot in fact, and I don't totally trust it to be honest. Its the judges that piss me off the most, the difference is sentencing for the same crimes varies so wildly from judge to judge as to be a joke.
This goes hand in hand with people getting away with it on technicalities. There are many, many legal loopholes and senile judges only make things worse.
As for believing the americans about the Delta inmates, I would counter this by saying that parallels with how legal process should be carried out can't really be drawn given the sheer amount of lives at stake in a single terrorist attack. And would legal process in the Delta case help or hinder this process? Given the legal wrangling and backroom deals that go on in the legal profession today, I would say "hinder".

If thats your attitude, then you have absolutely no right to express any kind of opinion and expect anybody to do something about it. We have a government, but its a body of people just like you and me, who happen to share the same values and ideals. A police uniform doesn't make the wearer any less human, and any less capable of making mistakes.

One day, perhaps you'll suffer some kind of injustice of your own. Maybe that day, you'll think back and rue what you spout here.

I don't expect anyone to do anything about it. I hope they will, but I won't be suprised if they don't. As for Hamza, he's been here far too long for it to be a simple mistake. I see injustice everyday of my life, but with regard to the Camp Delta inmates, all I think about are the potential deaths that have been avoided due to them being locked up.
Any injustices suffered by them are part of a process to insure that worse injustices are not suffered by us.
I'm not saying its totally right, but if you a better idea to get the job done and defeat the terrorists then I'm all ears.

Don't forget that this is war against an enemy that wants religious supremacy above all else, and they are quite prepared to die for this.

 

[Tom]

I don't believe that detaining people for over 2 years without any formal charges, without any access to legal services, without anybody knowing their names, with the possibility of death sentences being enforced by secret courts, can ever be justified. Its one step down the road toward martial law. I don't want people to have their rights stripped from them on my behalf, on the basis that they 'might' pose a threat.

Try them with our laws, or let them go.

Its wrong, and I'm ashamed that its happening.

 

[Mofo8]

It all reminds me of that old pre-911 movie "The Siege". Civil liberties and freedoms are being eroded in the USA so they can have their "War on Terror". War on terror just breeds more terrorists. The only way to win is to kill everyone, including everyone on your side who disagrees with your way of doing things.

 

[Mofo8]

On the subject of the Taliban not being legal combatants. They wore what could be regarded as an easily recognisable uniform, i.e. big black turban and matching big bushy beard. The Taliban were also at the time, whether you like it or not, the government of the country. The US and their allies certainly never seemed to have any difficulty identifying them when it came to shooting at them.

If the Taliban forces were illegal combatants, then what does that make the Northern Alliance anti-Taliban forces? They wore much the same "uniform", a mixture of Pakistani military jumpers, various colours and types of headgear, mixed with civilan clothing. The various warlords who make up the so-called Northern Alliance are as bad as the Taliban. At many times during the fighting there, a warlord would try and convince US Special Forces teams to call in airstrikes and artillery on groups of Taliban in the distance. On closer inspection, these Taliban happened to be fighters from another warlord's band.

I just don't like double standards. If it's OK for the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, and anti-Saddam forces in Iraq to fight as freedom fighters against their enemies, why isn't it OK for anti-occupation forces in these countries to fight against the US-led Coalition?

 

[xane]

The Taliban were also at the time, whether you like it or not, the government of the country.

The Taliban were never internationally recognised as the official government of Afghanistan by the United Nations, but a very small number of countries did declare recognition. The Taliban were Pakistan backed insurgents and one of a number of factions left after the Soviet withdrawl, although they controlled up to 95% of the country at one point they did not sieze power, the official (elected) President of Afghanistan never conceeded defeat.

The closest the Taliban ever came to international recognition was when the UN specifically embargoed them after they refused to hand over bin Laden after 9/11.

 

[Job]

Sadders is a bad lad.

Others have done far worse and got away with it, Stalin killed goddam million of his own people.

The Kurds were gassed as an act of revenge for uprisings against the Iragi government.

He invaded Kuwait because most Iraqis felt it was really there land and was being corrupted by western civilisation and all the profits were being creamed off for the super rich.

He killed evryone who didn't tow the line, but in a country like Iraq and the explosive mix of people thats's the only thing that worked.
As the new govenment will find out, they fight and fight till a new dictator appears, he'll just be Saddam 2.

We try to extend our oh so clever western sensibilities to a place where they don't belong, our values have no meaning, our morals are unworkable.
FFS the Americans can barely run their own country and they think they can fix someone elses

I agree with Saddam , his trial is just pure theatre.
Just another happy movie ending for the uninformed armchair generals sitting on their fat asses, flicking the channel as it gets boring to watch highly edited and stylised 'terror alert' on channel5.

What a fucked up bag of shite world, where you can be nailed to the floor for forgetting to tax your car, but genocide gets swept under the carpet for political reasons.

 

[throdgrain]

I think to be honest you're quite probably right.

 

[Panda On Smack]

What a fucked up bag of shite world, where you can be nailed to the floor for forgetting to tax your car, but genocide gets swept under the carpet for political reasons.

Heh, word.

It will all come to and end soon. You'll see. Man can't rule himself.

 

[Trem]

Sadders is a bad lad.

Others have done far worse and got away with it, Stalin killed goddam million of his own people.

The Kurds were gassed as an act of revenge for uprisings against the Iragi government.

He invaded Kuwait because most Iraqis felt it was really there land and was being corrupted by western civilisation and all the profits were being creamed off for the super rich.

He killed evryone who didn't tow the line, but in a country like Iraq and the explosive mix of people thats's the only thing that worked.
As the new govenment will find out, they fight and fight till a new dictator appears, he'll just be Saddam 2.

We try to extend our oh so clever western sensibilities to a place where they don't belong, our values have no meaning, our morals are unworkable.
FFS the Americans can barely run their own country and they think they can fix someone elses

I agree with Saddam , his trial is just pure theatre.
Just another happy movie ending for the uninformed armchair generals sitting on their fat asses, flicking the channel as it gets boring to watch highly edited and stylised 'terror alert' on channel5.

What a fucked up bag of shite world, where you can be nailed to the floor for forgetting to tax your car, but genocide gets swept under the carpet for political reasons.

Jesus christ, that was one fucking excellent post.

 

[Wij]

Patronising bollox imo.

<paraphrase>Arabs can't do democracy, they need violent rule, it's all they understand.</paraphrase>

 

[Tom]

What a load of bollocks Job.

 

[GekuL]

Only took him 3 months to work that post out

I agree with Wij btw, patronising speculation.