Good PR Hunting OR Terrorist?

[Embattle]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_2039000/2039214.stm

 

[wolfeeh]

hmmm

while there is every probability that this dude is a fucking religious nut terrorist dude....

but the thing is here.... how much fucking BS is it that the states can just pick anyone they don't like, call them an enemy combatant, and detain them with no reason or explanation and that person could be held forever, or even executed, and have no hope of reprieve

 

[xane]

Re: hmmm

Aren't you being a tad too "liberal" here wolfeeh ? You think the world should go easy on people who want to let off nuclear devices amongst civilian populations ? He's hardly been a credit to society up till now.

Originally posted by Wolfeeh
but the thing is here.... how much fucking BS is it that the states can just pick anyone they don't like, call them an enemy combatant, and detain them with no reason or explanation and that person could be held forever, or even executed, and have no hope of reprieve

its as much BS any any other country doing it, the fact that most other countries are doing this kind of thing on a regular basis.

 

[Scouse]

or even executed

Dya just pull that out of your ass Wolfeeh?


And to keep ya honest Cam - a "dirty bomb" is not a "nuclear device"

 

[xane]

Originally posted by Scouse
And to keep ya honest Cam - a "dirty bomb" is not a "nuclear device"

Matter of opinion, and that does not lessen the gavity of the situation, imposing radioactive fallout on a civilian population by whatever means is no small matter.

 

[Embattle]

Camazotz is right about the fact a "dirty bomb" is nasty but at the end of the day there isn't any known proof that he was going to do any thing....you have to take the word of Mr Bush and the Agencies that failed in the first attack.

 

[xane]

Originally posted by Embattle
[..] but at the end of the day there isn't any known proof that he was going to do any thing....you have to take the word of Mr Bush and the Agencies that failed in the first attack.

Er, the fact that he has been a career criminal since early age, has met with a recognised Al-Queda leader, converted to Islam, and travelled to both Afghanistan and Pakistan, admittedly none of this is enough "proof" for a conviction but surely it is enough for a detention of a suspect ?

 

[Sar]

On what grounds, bad holiday and associate choices?

Last time I checked none of those was reason for illegally detaining somebody.

 

[Sar]

Originally posted by camazotz


Er, the fact that he has been a career criminal since early age, has met with a recognised Al-Queda leader, converted to Islam, and travelled to both Afghanistan and Pakistan, admittedly none of this is enough "proof" for a conviction but surely it is enough for a detention of a suspect ?

Oh and nearly all of those could probably be applied to most politicians:

Interpreting the law to suit themselves
Meeting with recognised terrorist leaders
Visiting middle eastern countries etc...

I say lock Bush up without any reason and swear in Al Gore.

 

[Scouse]

Cam's going from reasoned arguments to, more recently, a bit millitant

Travelling to Afghanistan or Pakistan shouldn't count against anyone.

Oh - and the fact that a dirty bomb isn't a nuclear device isn't a "matter of opinion" m8

 

[Embattle]

Originally posted by camazotz


Er, the fact that he has been a career criminal since early age, has met with a recognised Al-Queda leader, converted to Islam, and travelled to both Afghanistan and Pakistan, admittedly none of this is enough "proof" for a conviction but surely it is enough for a detention of a suspect ?

You forget the way he is being held:

"He is being detained without time limit, or the right to counsel. There aren't any formal charges and that is why the defence community is outraged," she said.

 

[xane]

Originally posted by Scouse
Cam's going from reasoned arguments to, more recently, a bit millitant

I rather think the problem is people being _too_ liberal here, the final proof is calling me "militant"

What do people have to do to get detained then ? Actually get caught at the check-in desk smuggling a batch of plutonium between their knees ? They'd probably go on to sue the american nuclear industry for providing it too hot and burning their thighs.

I can't believe people actually are trying to belittle this siruation to that of carrying a knife, this is a f*cking terrorist trying to nuke people.

I know people here are not friends with the USA, but exactly the same thing would have happened in this country, the anti-terrorism laws are not that different anywhere in the western world.

 

[Scouse]

Cam - I'm anything but a fucking airy-fairy liberal. But you *are* going a bit over the top:

.. this is a f*cking terrorist trying to nuke people

He is a terrorist (most likely) - but:

1) He wasn't trying to nuke people.

2) When we catch IRA terrorists we charge them, lock them up and then we take them to trial as terrorists.

When the US catches people they're locking them up and not trying to justify it. If they've got a case - charge him, prosecute him and kill the fucker (as they can in the states).

If they haven't then they can't sell themselves as a "civilized" country.

Now - don't get me wrong - I have no problems with the way they're treating people at Guantanamo Bay - they caught them all during military exercises. But they caught this fucker in a police/fbi/cia operation on US soil. He should be treated like the criminal he is - NOT a fucking soldier.

 

[xane]

I'd say an "airy-fairy liberal" is precisely the person who, under the purposes of this argument, tries to distinguish between a nuclear-triggered weapon spreading radiation fallout and a conventional-triggered one doing the same, who gives a sh*t ?

IRA terrorists, or any terrorists can be detained without trial for an indefinate period in this country, recent changes to the Terrorism Act made it clear that the IRA are no longer any different from any other kind of terrorist organisation. A lot of IRA are British citizens, but they'd still get locked up without trial.

Terrorism feeds on the liberal attitudes of out law system, by allowing suspects to walk free and possibly escape without retribution. In no way do I condemn this liberal attitude as I am principly against more draconian measures, but when people abuse our laws that have been designed to protect our rights, then I don't really think it should apply to them.

The only disputable point in this case is that the law enforcement have reclassified him so as to deliberately take advantage of the anti-terrorist procedures. If the americans had a law like we have then they'd apply it to anyone regardless of whether they were an american or not, it just that they have never had a case like it before.

 

[Embattle]

The only reason for classifying him as an enemy combatant is because they have no real evidence and it allows them to detain him indefinitely without trial....it also allows Bush and agencies to look good after they made such a balls up regarding the sept attacks.

Officials said he was stopped in the "initial planning stages" and no specific targets had been selected.

Isn't that kind of stupid since in general Police work etc you tend to want to catch them at a later stage when you have more evidence or some more of the group, equipment, information etc.

 

[xane]

Originally posted by Embattle
Isn't that kind of stupid since in general Police work etc you tend to want to catch them at a later stage when you have more evidence or some more of the group, equipment, information etc.

Considering the seriousness of the alleged attack method, no.

It's a great game trying to pick the stick with which you beat america's back, but this one is a sappy little twig. I don't particularly like the media-inspired politics of america, and I don't like their arrogance or the way they bend the rules to suit, but in this case defending yourself against such a potentially devistating attack there has got to be some sort of compromise.

As I said, in this country the accused would have been treated in the same way, apart from the fact that the law permits detention without having to reclassify as an "enemy". What is wrong is america's law that partitions terrorists between those who are citizens and those who are not.

 

[Embattle]

Originally posted by camazotz


Considering the seriousness of the alleged attack method, no.

Well sorry I have a totally different point of view since a "dirty bomb" attack is just as likely to happen as it ever was.

 

[xane]

Who would you say, other than Al-Qaeda, was considering using one then ?

 

[Embattle]

Originally posted by camazotz
Who would you say, other than Al-Qaeda, was considering using one then ?

Since when did this one man make up Al-Qaeda network and since when was he going to do this attack by himself if at all. Again the fact they caught him so early in the act means they won't find out who was going to help him....if its true at all.

 

[xane]

Originally posted by Embattle
Since when did this one man make up Al-Qaeda network and since when was he going to do this attack by himself if at all. Again the fact they caught him so early in the act means they won't find out who was going to help him....if its true at all.

The reports suggest the authorities have reasonable grounds to suspect him of being in league with a known terrorist organisation, that accusation is not being challenged by his lawyers, only the circumstances of his reclassification from "american citizen" to "enemy combatant".

Once again, I don't think you are properly considering the seriousness of this attack method, it matters not we may never know who is behind it, the prevention of such a potential loss of life is a far greater priority.

And besides, the foundation of the allegations come from people already in US custody, this is simply a "cleaning up" operation.

"Truth" only comes into play once the crime has been committed and a guilty party is to be put on trial, for a terrorist that is no problem and no deterrant, that is why this issue is of such miasma on the liberal american way of life.

 

[~YuckFou~]

I can't be arsed reading all of the above, but isn't it better to catch someone in the planning stages rather than after the fact. Also we don't know (yet) what evidence they US has, for all we know they could have taped conversations, photos etc.
If the guy is guilty even of planning to place a bomb then lock him up and throw away the key.

 

[Embattle]

Originally posted by camazotz
The reports suggest the authorities have reasonable grounds to suspect him of being in league with a known terrorist organisation, that accusation is not being challenged by his lawyers, only the circumstances of his reclassification from "american citizen" to "enemy combatant".

The reason why is down to the fact that those reasonable grounds wouldn't be enough to hold him for that long if at all if it gets reclassified.

Once again, I don't think you are properly considering the seriousness of this attack method, it matters not we may never know who is behind it, the prevention of such a potential loss of life is a far greater priority.

Yes I do and stop making out that it matters they caught one so called terrorist and that the possible attack has been prevented....it hasn't so the potential loss of life is still there and most probably always will be besides how many bombs America etc drops on people.

And besides, the foundation of the allegations come from people already in US custody, this is simply a "cleaning up" operation.

So they say, although how reliable there evidence is can be called in to question.

"Truth" only comes into play once the crime has been committed and a guilty party is to be put on trial, for a terrorist that is no problem and no deterrant, that is why this issue is of such miasma on the liberal american way of life.

Locking up a single individual, guilty or not, won't deter other terrorists either.

BTW It's innocent until proven guilty which is kind of hard being classified as a "enemy combatant".

 

[Embattle]

Originally posted by ~YuckFou~
I can't be arsed reading all of the above, but isn't it better to catch someone in the planning stages rather than after the fact. Also we don't know (yet) what evidence they US has, for all we know they could have taped conversations, photos etc.
If the guy is guilty even of planning to place a bomb then lock him up and throw away the key.

I personally would of prefered them to capture more than just a single individual...perhaps the suppliers of any possible "dirty bomb".

Yes we don't know what evidence they have nor will we since under his current classification the US isn't required to proved any.

If the guy is found guilty then throw away the key.

 

[xane]

Originally posted by Embattle
The reason why is down to the fact that those reasonable grounds wouldn't be enough to hold him for that long if at all if it gets reclassified.

The equivilent terrorism act in america, unlike over here, does not apply to US citizens, who are protected by the constitution by allowing access to a lawyer and can only be detained for a reasonable amount of time before trial.

In the abscence of such a law covering this instance, the americans have had to bend the rules, but why should that make them more "uncivilized" than this country that can legally detain its own citizens without trial in similar circumstances ?

Britain has been subjected to terrorist attacks for many decades, so we prepare this in our laws, but in america the phenomenon that foreign based NGOs are prepared to wage an all-out destructive war on its people and property, and have demonstrated the means to do it, is a new concept.

I'd be happy to concede that america is somewhat disrespectful, but I'm hardly surprized under the circumstances of its actions, in short this is just a knee jerk panic reaction, in time america will absolve this in law anyway.

Originally posted by Embattle
Yes I do and stop making out that it matters they caught one so called terrorist and that the possible attack has been prevented....it hasn't so the potential loss of life is still there and most probably always will be besides how many bombs America etc drops on people.

Such is the luxury of hindsight.

Originally posted by Embattle
So they say, although how reliable there evidence is can be called in to question.

Agreed, this is what trials are for, and the suspicion right now is that there is no evidence which is why a trial is being avoided. However, we can only determine this later when the authorities will have to eventually give some sort of reason.

You can't judge any evidence at this stage.

Originally posted by Embattle
BTW It's innocent until proven guilty which is kind of hard being classified as a "enemy combatant".

True, but only in criminal law. As far as dealing with international fanatical terrorists goes you have to use a different method.

 

[Embattle]

In the abscence of such a law covering this instance, the americans have had to bend the rules, but why should that make them more "uncivilized" than this country that can legally detain its own citizens without trial in similar circumstances ?

I never said they were uncivilized and I find many Americans fine but the I do have a problem with Bush and his Agencies trying to look better after such a massive blunder.

Agreed, this is what trials are for, and the suspicion right now is that there is no evidence which is why a trial is being avoided. However, we can only determine this later when the authorities will have to eventually give some sort of reason.

You can't judge any evidence at this stage.

Naturally we can't judge any evidence...they haven't provided any.

True, but only in criminal law. As far as dealing with international fanatical terrorists goes you have to use a different method.

Again you believe what the US governement says, many here and in the US have doubts.

 

[xane]

Originally posted by Embattle
Naturally we can't judge any evidence...they haven't provided any.

They don't have to give any either, until a trial, which may not happen. Discussing the legality of undisclosed evidence, or even its existance, is pointless.

Originally posted by Embattle
Again you believe what the US governement says, many here and in the US have doubts.

Whether I _believe_ is irrelevant, they have provided an excuse and thats enough for the conditions under which the suspect is being held.

Again, what is at debate here is how the authorities have reclassified his status, otherwise, considering his new status as "enemy combatant", everything is consistant with what any other western government would have done, america is no different.

And once again, hindsight is a wonderful thing, if this guy had been arrested two years ago on suspicion of plotting to fly hijacked planes into skyscrapers, we'd all be twiddling our thumbs and mumbling how overdramatic and paranoid the americans had become.

Limited nuclear, biological and chemical weaponry, are a reality and well within the reach of well financed NGOs like al Qaeda, there is no doubt in my mind that action needs to be taken, whilst I neither want to see liberal values eroded in western societies, there is a definite limit to how far you can extend the measure of goodwill to people committed to destroying you.

I don't think the americans have overdone it in this situation. Maybe if they invaded Iraq tomorrow I'd be suspicious they were extending their authority.

 

[Embattle]

Originally posted by camazotz

They don't have to give any either, until a trial, which may not happen. Discussing the legality of undisclosed evidence, or even its existance, is pointless.

Actually its about whether it exists at all not the legality and its not pointless but I'm sure you will fire the same reply back.

Whether I _believe_ is irrelevant, they have provided an excuse and thats enough for the conditions under which the suspect is being held.

Actually then you shouldn't post any thing else since what you believe is irrelevant....if thats the case.

Again, what is at debate here is how the authorities have reclassified his status, otherwise, considering his new status as "enemy combatant", everything is consistant with what any other western government would have done, america is no different.

Again I agree to some extent but the long run for them is to change his classification, as stated before, and use the lack of evidence to get him released which would of been a little bit harder had they waited to get some more....although again this is irrelevant since we don't know what/if they have any evidence then again if they have evidence is irrelevant

And once again, hindsight is a wonderful thing, if this guy had been arrested two years ago on suspicion of plotting to fly hijacked planes into skyscrapers, we'd all be twiddling our thumbs and mumbling how overdramatic and paranoid the americans had become.

And once again I must reply to the repeated waffle...it's not about leaving him until he attacks but at least leaving him until you have followed him and at least tried to capture more people or information but instead capturing one person with non existant evidence will do.

Limited nuclear, biological and chemical weaponry, are a reality and well within the reach of well financed NGOs like al Qaeda, there is no doubt in my mind that action needs to be taken, whilst I neither want to see liberal values eroded in western societies, there is a definite limit to how far you can extend the measure of goodwill to people committed to destroying you.

See above point for the fact they could of possibly caught more but instead decided to capture one man with non existant evidence.

I don't think the americans have overdone it in this situation. Maybe if they invaded Iraq tomorrow I'd be suspicious they were extending their authority.

Nor do I but what I do see is the need to improve image and thus the capture of this man helps them but in the long term he may well get off depending on reclassification and even if he doesn't someone else will carry out what he was going to do since the "dirty bomb" will still be available.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

I find it frighteneing that Cama differentiates between this man and a citizen.

It's allright saying that this man doesn't deserve rights because he's a terrorist, but the rights you're saying he doesn't deserve are there to stop people being locked up for things they haven't done.

So if the police arrested you, claimed that you'd been planning a terrorist attack, and locked you up for an indefinite period of time without charge, would this be ok? Would you be happy because the government had said you're a terrorist?

What about this Algerian pilot that was locked up here. The US wanted to extradite him, and he was kept locked up for months untill the courts decided whether he should be extradited or not. It then became apparent that the US had no evidence whatsoever, hence the courts let him go. Now according to you, Cama, this is all fine, because he was accused of training terrorist. Does it not matter that he actually wasn't training terrorists?

I really think you're talking out of your arse.

True, but only in criminal law. As far as dealing with international fanatical terrorists goes you have to use a different method.
And who's to say he's a fanatical international terrorist? The whole point of Innocent until proven guilty isn't to give criminals an easy time, it's to decide whether someone is a terrorist(in this case anyway). If your reason for not giving him a fair trial, is that he's a terrorist, then how will you ever know if he is a terrorist?

 

[xane]

Originally posted by Embattle
Actually its about whether it exists at all not the legality and its not pointless but I'm sure you will fire the same reply back.

Yes, I will fire that back because you don't know if evidence exists or not in the first place, maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, the same "pointless" debate applies. The circumstances of his arrest mean no evidence needs to be supplied anyway, but that does not mean there is none.

Originally posted by Embattle
Actually then you shouldn't post any thing else since what you believe is irrelevant....if thats the case..

Stop wrapping my words, this was in answer to whether I believed what the american authorities was saying. The issue is that america has arrested an "enemy combatant" under suspicion, any country would do this regardless of whether the excuse is believable or not.

Originally posted by Embattle
Again I agree to some extent but the long run for them is to change his classification, as stated before, and use the lack of evidence to get him released which would of been a little bit harder had they waited to get some more....although again this is irrelevant since we don't know what/if they have any evidence then again if they have evidence is irrelevant

Evidence doesn't need to be given to _detain_ someone under these circumstances, so yes it _is_ irrelevant. Argue on the circumstances of his reclassification, THEN argue on the evidence, or lack of, which incidently has not been challanged yet by his lawyers.

Originally posted by Embattle
And once again I must reply to the repeated waffle...it's not about leaving him until he attacks but at least leaving him until you have followed him and at least tried to capture more people or information but instead capturing one person with non existant evidence will do.

See above point for the fact they could of possibly caught more but instead decided to capture one man with non existant evidence.

The foundations for the accusation have come from sources _already_ in US custody, he is the tail end of the operation.

Originally posted by Embattle
Nor do I but what I do see is the need to improve image and thus the capture of this man helps them but in the long term he may well get off depending on reclassification and even if he doesn't someone else will carry out what he was going to do since the "dirty bomb" will still be available.

Hardly likely, the suspect is an american citizen and is a unique asset to al Qaeda, heavy restrictions are in place for non-citizens, by removing an insider sympathetic to the cause is a major success in american eyes.

I certianly agree with the "image" situation, america is of the "justice seen to be done" brigade, but that does not defer away from the fact this guy is probably a terrorist willing to kill people.

 

[xane]

Originally posted by ShockingAlberto
It's allright saying that this man doesn't deserve rights because he's a terrorist, but the rights you're saying he doesn't deserve are there to stop people being locked up for things they haven't done.

Since when does anyone "deserve" rights ? The constitution of the US only determines the government must uphold a basic set of rights for its own citizens, in this case when dealing with "enemy combatants" it means protecting the law-abiding people within its borders, they are obligued to err on the side of the civilian population over that of a man preparing to kill the aforesaid civilians.

Extreme liberal views always fall down when you start having to protect the rights of those who are comitted to abuse the rights of others, that is my case here.

In the quote above you say "haven't done", this man has (allegedly) plotted to obtain radioactive material and detonate a device using it in a civilian centre, the mere plotting is a criminal act in itself.

Originally posted by ShockingAlberto
So if the police arrested you, claimed that you'd been planning a terrorist attack, and locked you up for an indefinite period of time without charge, would this be ok? Would you be happy because the government had said you're a terrorist? .

No, I would not be happy, but probably happier than if the police had not arrested a man on the same suspicions and he'd gone on to plant a bomb that killed or maimed my family.