FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Shaker Aamer
Shaker Aamer
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
 | |||
"America: Land of the Free "Yeah but Cuba ain't! | |||
"Who was he hanging around with? I didn't really know who he was until I saw the interviews recently" He admitted visiting a few dodgy people and places-such as Abu Hamza etc. However whether that is enough to get an all expense paid holiday to Cuba raises some questions. | |||
"Who was he hanging around with? I didn't really know who he was until I saw the interviews recently He admitted visiting a few dodgy people and places-such as Abu Hamza etc. However whether that is enough to get an all expense paid holiday to Cuba raises some questions. " Fair enough, it's the 14 years I can't get my head around. It didn't take 14 years to assassinate Osama bin Laden ffs | |||
| |||
"It's the 14 years without trial that does not sit well with me. " One of my guilty pleasures is watching question time. I consider it a middle class version of Jeremy Kyle. Every week some toss pot points the finger at China's human rights record, where the fuck were his human rights? Bottom line is that it is illegal to travel to a war zone to commit terrorism offences so if he's guilty then charge the fucker. If not... | |||
"It's the 14 years without trial that does not sit well with me. " this.. and that 'we' are ok with it, respect not all of us.. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"America: Land of the Free
Yeah but Cuba ain't! "The United States assumed territorial control over the southern portion of Guantánamo Bay under the 1903 Cuban–American Treaty. The United States exercises complete jurisdiction and control over this territory, while recognizing that Cuba retains ultimate sovereignty. As such America | |||
| |||
"America: Land of the Free
Yeah but Cuba ain't!
The United States assumed territorial control over the southern portion of Guantánamo Bay under the 1903 Cuban–American Treaty. The United States exercises complete jurisdiction and control over this territory, while recognizing that Cuba retains ultimate sovereignty.
As such America"Agree, twas just a joke about Cuba being a rather odd place | |||
"If the 'other side' held a British/American/other interchangeable Western person with no charge, no trial and just that they felt the person was a potential security risk I wonder what would have happened? Of course he's the last but there were so many others. It has the makings of an alternate Homeland. " Yes the parallels with homeland aren't lost on me! I get that ISIS or Al-Queda would have killed one of ours, but they don't profess to believe in human rights and we're meant to have the moral high ground! | |||
"He entered Afghanistan with a fake passport and wished to live under the Taliban, entering Afghanistan at that time does make it look suspicious (during the conflict)." Which means that he's either guilty or very odd. Anyone who winds up in guantanamo is going to have a strange story. But either way, it's the 14 years we object to rather than him necessarily being innocent. | |||
| |||
"I can't believe he was an innocent. And 14 years is a long time. But do you know what - if he had plans to bomb or kill people, then tough shit. " Well that's kind of the purpose of a trial, so that we aren't sat around using words like 'if' and we can say 'beyond reasonable doubt' | |||
"I can't believe he was an innocent. And 14 years is a long time. But do you know what - if he had plans to bomb or kill people, then tough shit. Well that's kind of the purpose of a trial, so that we aren't sat around using words like 'if' and we can say 'beyond reasonable doubt' " Luckily he fell into the hands of the Americans, had he had fallen into the hands of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan they may have shot him on sight, yes 14 years without trial isn't right, but if he wanted to take his young sons to live in Afghanistan to live he does not come across as a man mentally stable on them actions. | |||
"I can't believe he was an innocent. And 14 years is a long time. But do you know what - if he had plans to bomb or kill people, then tough shit. Well that's kind of the purpose of a trial, so that we aren't sat around using words like 'if' and we can say 'beyond reasonable doubt' Luckily he fell into the hands of the Americans, had he had fallen into the hands of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan they may have shot him on sight, yes 14 years without trial isn't right, but if he wanted to take his young sons to live in Afghanistan to live he does not come across as a man mentally stable on them actions." Not to us but he grew up in Saudi Arabia so he's not exactly used to all the freedoms we enjoy. Apparently he couldn't get back into Saudi with his wife. I'm not defending him anyway, but things don't exactly turn out well for you and I when the state can go about imprisoning without trial, that was actually the norm here back in the early feudal age and you won't want seconds of that | |||
"I can't believe he was an innocent. And 14 years is a long time. But do you know what - if he had plans to bomb or kill people, then tough shit. Well that's kind of the purpose of a trial, so that we aren't sat around using words like 'if' and we can say 'beyond reasonable doubt' Luckily he fell into the hands of the Americans, had he had fallen into the hands of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan they may have shot him on sight, yes 14 years without trial isn't right, but if he wanted to take his young sons to live in Afghanistan to live he does not come across as a man mentally stable on them actions. Not to us but he grew up in Saudi Arabia so he's not exactly used to all the freedoms we enjoy. Apparently he couldn't get back into Saudi with his wife. I'm not defending him anyway, but things don't exactly turn out well for you and I when the state can go about imprisoning without trial, that was actually the norm here back in the early feudal age and you won't want seconds of that" That is the most worrying thing about it all, imprisonment without trial. He referred to himself as a hostage on one occasion. | |||
| |||
"America will have to live forever with the shame of Guantanamo Bay. Let's not forget, the last British guy might be free, but there are still people held there. Human beings, regardless of citizenship. It is shameful. -Courtney" Wasn't closing it going to be the first thing Obama did when he got into office? | |||
"America will have to live forever with the shame of Guantanamo Bay. Let's not forget, the last British guy might be free, but there are still people held there. Human beings, regardless of citizenship. It is shameful. -Courtney Wasn't closing it going to be the first thing Obama did when he got into office? " Yes, but then he realized what the Justice Department had known all along: (1) many of the people who were not guilty would likely turn to terrorism upon release because of what we did to them; and (2) many who were guilty had evidence extracted through torture, which is inadmissible in court. So what was he going to do about it? We made our bed the minute we put the first prisoner there. -Courtney | |||
"America will have to live forever with the shame of Guantanamo Bay. Let's not forget, the last British guy might be free, but there are still people held there. Human beings, regardless of citizenship. It is shameful. -Courtney Wasn't closing it going to be the first thing Obama did when he got into office? Yes, but then he realized what the Justice Department had known all along: (1) many of the people who were not guilty would likely turn to terrorism upon release because of what we did to them; and (2) many who were guilty had evidence extracted through torture, which is inadmissible in court. So what was he going to do about it? We made our bed the minute we put the first prisoner there. -Courtney" Oh, and just to be clear, when I say "we" I speak as an American. I am aware that this isn't the UK's problem to answer for. -Courtney | |||
"I can't believe he was an innocent. And 14 years is a long time. But do you know what - if he had plans to bomb or kill people, then tough shit. Well that's kind of the purpose of a trial, so that we aren't sat around using words like 'if' and we can say 'beyond reasonable doubt' Luckily he fell into the hands of the Americans, had he had fallen into the hands of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan they may have shot him on sight, yes 14 years without trial isn't right, but if he wanted to take his young sons to live in Afghanistan to live he does not come across as a man mentally stable on them actions. Not to us but he grew up in Saudi Arabia so he's not exactly used to all the freedoms we enjoy. Apparently he couldn't get back into Saudi with his wife. I'm not defending him anyway, but things don't exactly turn out well for you and I when the state can go about imprisoning without trial, that was actually the norm here back in the early feudal age and you won't want seconds of that That is the most worrying thing about it all, imprisonment without trial. He referred to himself as a hostage on one occasion." The most worrying part? He's lucky he wasn't shot on the spot - as a non uniformed combatant in a war zone. | |||
| |||
"I can't believe he was an innocent. And 14 years is a long time. But do you know what - if he had plans to bomb or kill people, then tough shit. Well that's kind of the purpose of a trial, so that we aren't sat around using words like 'if' and we can say 'beyond reasonable doubt' Luckily he fell into the hands of the Americans, had he had fallen into the hands of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan they may have shot him on sight, yes 14 years without trial isn't right, but if he wanted to take his young sons to live in Afghanistan to live he does not come across as a man mentally stable on them actions. Not to us but he grew up in Saudi Arabia so he's not exactly used to all the freedoms we enjoy. Apparently he couldn't get back into Saudi with his wife. I'm not defending him anyway, but things don't exactly turn out well for you and I when the state can go about imprisoning without trial, that was actually the norm here back in the early feudal age and you won't want seconds of that That is the most worrying thing about it all, imprisonment without trial. He referred to himself as a hostage on one occasion. The most worrying part? He's lucky he wasn't shot on the spot - as a non uniformed combatant in a war zone. " Nothing about his story strikes me as lucky. Some people would rather be shot than be tortured for 14 years. | |||
"America will have to live forever with the shame of Guantanamo Bay. Let's not forget, the last British guy might be free, but there are still people held there. Human beings, regardless of citizenship. It is shameful. -Courtney Wasn't closing it going to be the first thing Obama did when he got into office? Yes, but then he realized what the Justice Department had known all along: (1) many of the people who were not guilty would likely turn to terrorism upon release because of what we did to them; and (2) many who were guilty had evidence extracted through torture, which is inadmissible in court. So what was he going to do about it? We made our bed the minute we put the first prisoner there. -Courtney" Ah that's make sense. So the classic pre-election promise and subsequent climb down. We'll we've all been there! Gordon Brown had put an end to "Tory Boom and Bust" don't you know. George was going to get rid of defecit by 2015 and tuition fees did go up didn't they Mr Clegg... | |||
| |||
| |||
"you have to remember that the British government used the exact same tactic of imprisonment without trial in the 70s they just called it interment. " George Orwell approves of this post | |||
"you have to remember that the British government used the exact same tactic of imprisonment without trial in the 70s they just called it interment. " We first suspended Habeus corpus during the French Revolution. Nothing new under the sun | |||
| |||
"That he left the UK because people would comment on his wifes dress..had a week in Turkey,(Muslim country)didnt see a single woman in the full dress there! That he says Abu Hamza isa `nice,normal man`.. Very odd and dont believe he is being truthfull. Yes 14 years without trial isnt right but consider this; If he was / is a terrorist or at least has terrorist sympathies,how long is reasonable when you consider he has a strong faith ? He could continue with his lies indefinately ( because of his belief in what he is doing) He may well be `innocent` in which case he is a fool( which i find hard to believe) and a controlling man believing in a feudal system totally out of touch with a modern world.. " Rather ironically acceptance of imprisonment without trial was part of the feudal system. How long is reasonable - 30 days to decide whether to charge him is more than adequate. Have in mind that the police have 24 hours in this country to charge you or release you! | |||
"you have to remember that the British government used the exact same tactic of imprisonment without trial in the 70s they just called it interment. " In WW2 Britain interned Germans and Italians and America interned ethnic Japanese. Internment is always an option when national security is threatened. | |||
| |||
" Internment is always an option when national security is threatened." Kim Jong-un approves of this post | |||
"That he left the UK because people would comment on his wifes dress..had a week in Turkey,(Muslim country)didnt see a single woman in the full dress there! That he says Abu Hamza isa `nice,normal man`.. Very odd and dont believe he is being truthfull. Yes 14 years without trial isnt right but consider this; If he was / is a terrorist or at least has terrorist sympathies,how long is reasonable when you consider he has a strong faith ? He could continue with his lies indefinately ( because of his belief in what he is doing) He may well be `innocent` in which case he is a fool( which i find hard to believe) and a controlling man believing in a feudal system totally out of touch with a modern world.. Rather ironically acceptance of imprisonment without trial was part of the feudal system. How long is reasonable - 30 days to decide whether to charge him is more than adequate. Have in mind that the police have 24 hours in this country to charge you or release you!" Thank you.. If somebody has a strong faith i would assume they could easily pass the 30 day mark.. If i were to assume someone WAS guilty (obviously a huge assumption prior to being charged and tried) then i just thank god that they are on the radar before that dirty bomb goes off in London,Paris,New York... Its obviously NOT ideal..but the world has changed massively since 9/11 and we need change with that,as unpaletable as that may be.  | |||
| |||
"There are 1000's of people all over the world who are in detention and have been for decades, never having been on trial, just that the general public doesn't know about them. " extraordinary rendition, anyone? 
-Courtney | |||
"It's the 14 years without trial that does not sit well with me. this.. and that 'we' are ok with it, respect not all of us.. " Well I'm sure as hell sure that I'm not OK with it. Anyone who considers themselves to be a true supporter of individual liberty would have problems with it. Who is the 'we' that you claim is 'ok' with it? | |||
"That he left the UK because people would comment on his wifes dress..had a week in Turkey,(Muslim country)didnt see a single woman in the full dress there! That he says Abu Hamza isa `nice,normal man`.. Very odd and dont believe he is being truthfull. Yes 14 years without trial isnt right but consider this; If he was / is a terrorist or at least has terrorist sympathies,how long is reasonable when you consider he has a strong faith ? He could continue with his lies indefinately ( because of his belief in what he is doing) He may well be `innocent` in which case he is a fool( which i find hard to believe) and a controlling man believing in a feudal system totally out of touch with a modern world.. Rather ironically acceptance of imprisonment without trial was part of the feudal system. How long is reasonable - 30 days to decide whether to charge him is more than adequate. Have in mind that the police have 24 hours in this country to charge you or release you! Thank you.. If somebody has a strong faith i would assume they could easily pass the 30 day mark.. If i were to assume someone WAS guilty (obviously a huge assumption prior to being charged and tried) then i just thank god that they are on the radar before that dirty bomb goes off in London,Paris,New York... Its obviously NOT ideal..but the world has changed massively since 9/11 and we need change with that,as unpaletable as that may be. "Sorry I'm not getting the 30 day relevance to beliefs / lasting? If they hold him for 30 days then that's how long they've got to charge him. Assuming there's some evidence they can then continue to hold him after charging him until his trial where he gets a defence. | |||
"There are 1000's of people all over the world who are in detention and have been for decades, never having been on trial, just that the general public doesn't know about them. " Yes, about 200,000 in North Korea alone but when we said we'd never allow concentration camps again there must have been a small print that said "(in europe)" | |||
| |||
"If the 'other side' held a British/American/other interchangeable Western person with no charge, no trial and just that they felt the person was a potential security risk I wonder what would have happened? Of course he's the last but there were so many others. It has the makings of an alternate Homeland. " He's the last Brit (that we know off) but he's not the last person held in Guantanamo with out enough evidence to bring charges. | |||
"I can't believe he was an innocent. And 14 years is a long time. But do you know what - if he had plans to bomb or kill people, then tough shit. " But did he? Where's the proof. And if there is non then what's stopping them from locking you or me up just because we might kill or bomb someone. | |||
"I can't believe he was an innocent. And 14 years is a long time. But do you know what - if he had plans to bomb or kill people, then tough shit. Well that's kind of the purpose of a trial, so that we aren't sat around using words like 'if' and we can say 'beyond reasonable doubt' "  You've nailed it. | |||
 | |||
"you have to remember that the British government used the exact same tactic of imprisonment without trial in the 70s they just called it interment. " And with nearly equally disastrous results for the conflict in Northern Ireland. | |||
"That he left the UK because people would comment on his wifes dress..had a week in Turkey,(Muslim country)didnt see a single woman in the full dress there! That he says Abu Hamza isa `nice,normal man`.. Very odd and dont believe he is being truthfull. Yes 14 years without trial isnt right but consider this; If he was / is a terrorist or at least has terrorist sympathies,how long is reasonable when you consider he has a strong faith ? He could continue with his lies indefinately ( because of his belief in what he is doing) He may well be `innocent` in which case he is a fool( which i find hard to believe) and a controlling man believing in a feudal system totally out of touch with a modern world.. " The word 'if'. What happened to 'beyond reasonable doubt'. We can never know for sure that someone may not be something but, if it can't be proofed beyond reasonable doubt we shouldn't just lock 'em up for 14 years. | |||
"I can't believe he was an innocent. And 14 years is a long time. But do you know what - if he had plans to bomb or kill people, then tough shit. Well that's kind of the purpose of a trial, so that we aren't sat around using words like 'if' and we can say 'beyond reasonable doubt' You've nailed it."In an ideal world you mean,thats straightforward and much less complicated. Anybody who believes its just and righteous to set light to a caged man covered in petrol,(that poor Jordanian pilot)is someone who can probably undergo much more time in detention than you and I ever could. | |||
"That he left the UK because people would comment on his wifes dress..had a week in Turkey,(Muslim country)didnt see a single woman in the full dress there! That he says Abu Hamza isa `nice,normal man`.. Very odd and dont believe he is being truthfull. Yes 14 years without trial isnt right but consider this; If he was / is a terrorist or at least has terrorist sympathies,how long is reasonable when you consider he has a strong faith ? He could continue with his lies indefinately ( because of his belief in what he is doing) He may well be `innocent` in which case he is a fool( which i find hard to believe) and a controlling man believing in a feudal system totally out of touch with a modern world.. Rather ironically acceptance of imprisonment without trial was part of the feudal system. How long is reasonable - 30 days to decide whether to charge him is more than adequate. Have in mind that the police have 24 hours in this country to charge you or release you! Thank you.. If somebody has a strong faith i would assume they could easily pass the 30 day mark.. If i were to assume someone WAS guilty (obviously a huge assumption prior to being charged and tried) then i just thank god that they are on the radar before that dirty bomb goes off in London,Paris,New York... Its obviously NOT ideal..but the world has changed massively since 9/11 and we need change with that,as unpaletable as that may be. "What's to stop me, or them, assuming that you are guilty. Doesn't really matter of what, I'm pretty sure your guilty of something or will be at sometime. Best just lock you up, just to be on the safe side. | |||
"The military can and do intern people for as long as they deem necessary. The point about the military camp being in Cuba is the way the US legally get away with it, if they brought him to mainland us territory then I'd have no doubt his rights would apply, not because us leaders would give them him but the fact the country is set up in such a legal frame work that it would apply equally!. Personally I don't have any sympathy for the guy at all, he's either a fucking idiot or a complaisant terrorist, however I'd rather not lower our standards to meet theirs! I don't agree with the assassination of UK citizens abroad by government mandate or government torture. 2 wrongs don't make a right and all that malarkey "I think you're missing the point a bit. Human rights don't get eroded quickly, it's a gradual process. The people in these fringe cases will always be fucking idiots (guilty or not) because the definition of "fucking idiot" changes over time. Once human rights get a good fucking over in the fringe cases, then the boundaries of normal close in a bit more and it's only a matter of time before you find yourself on the fringe. | |||
"I can't believe he was an innocent. And 14 years is a long time. But do you know what - if he had plans to bomb or kill people, then tough shit. Well that's kind of the purpose of a trial, so that we aren't sat around using words like 'if' and we can say 'beyond reasonable doubt' You've nailed it.
In an ideal world you mean,thats straightforward and much less complicated.
Anybody who believes its just and righteous to set light to a caged man covered in petrol,(that poor Jordanian pilot)is someone who can probably undergo much more time in detention than you and I ever could.
"Well there's a false dichotomy if ever I saw one! What is the necessity for someone to undergo detention without trial? I don't see the relevance of where he can endure it or not. | |||
"I can't believe he was an innocent. And 14 years is a long time. But do you know what - if he had plans to bomb or kill people, then tough shit. Well that's kind of the purpose of a trial, so that we aren't sat around using words like 'if' and we can say 'beyond reasonable doubt' You've nailed it.
In an ideal world you mean,thats straightforward and much less complicated.
Anybody who believes its just and righteous to set light to a caged man covered in petrol,(that poor Jordanian pilot)is someone who can probably undergo much more time in detention than you and I ever could.
"I wasn't aware he's ever said that that was ok or what he believes. Can you provide a link or some other evidence that supports that claim? | |||
| |||
"I can't believe he was an innocent. And 14 years is a long time. But do you know what - if he had plans to bomb or kill people, then tough shit. Well that's kind of the purpose of a trial, so that we aren't sat around using words like 'if' and we can say 'beyond reasonable doubt' You've nailed it.
In an ideal world you mean,thats straightforward and much less complicated.
Anybody who believes its just and righteous to set light to a caged man covered in petrol,(that poor Jordanian pilot)is someone who can probably undergo much more time in detention than you and I ever could.
Well there's a false dichotomy if ever I saw one! What is the necessity for someone to undergo detention without trial? I don't see the relevance of where he can endure it or not. "The relevance is in ,because his faith demands it,its not such a big deal to him .. Im not that sympathetic to him as his body language was off and he wasnt being truthfull..Not the mark of an honest man. I support the job our brave forces guys and girls do,and the dirty work the americans do (out of necessity ) becuase we sure as hell wont. It would be ideal to charge and take to trial in every instance but i suspect thats a naive view of the world we live in. I dont believe the Americans are so evil that they just wanna incarcerate people on a whim ,especially when it is so counter productive allowing the terrorists and supporters huge PR gains( rather like this discussion and the many others in forums all over the net) | |||
"I can't believe he was an innocent. And 14 years is a long time. But do you know what - if he had plans to bomb or kill people, then tough shit. Well that's kind of the purpose of a trial, so that we aren't sat around using words like 'if' and we can say 'beyond reasonable doubt' You've nailed it.
In an ideal world you mean,thats straightforward and much less complicated.
Anybody who believes its just and righteous to set light to a caged man covered in petrol,(that poor Jordanian pilot)is someone who can probably undergo much more time in detention than you and I ever could.
I wasn't aware he's ever said that that was ok or what he believes. Can you provide a link or some other evidence that supports that claim?"Lets hear him denounce Abu Hamza,I.S et al......You never will..Maybe ask yourself why.. | |||
"Gosh I sound like a fucking tree hugger on this thread" Everybody loves trees.. | |||
"I can't believe he was an innocent. And 14 years is a long time. But do you know what - if he had plans to bomb or kill people, then tough shit. Well that's kind of the purpose of a trial, so that we aren't sat around using words like 'if' and we can say 'beyond reasonable doubt' You've nailed it.
In an ideal world you mean,thats straightforward and much less complicated.
Anybody who believes its just and righteous to set light to a caged man covered in petrol,(that poor Jordanian pilot)is someone who can probably undergo much more time in detention than you and I ever could.
Well there's a false dichotomy if ever I saw one! What is the necessity for someone to undergo detention without trial? I don't see the relevance of where he can endure it or not.
The relevance is in ,because his faith demands it,its not such a big deal to him .. Im not that sympathetic to him as his body language was off and he wasnt being truthfull..Not the mark of an honest man.
I support the job our brave forces guys and girls do,and the dirty work the americans do (out of necessity
) becuase we sure as hell wont.
It would be ideal to charge and take to trial in every instance but i suspect thats a naive view of the world we live in.
I dont believe the Americans are so evil that they just wanna incarcerate people on a whim ,especially when it is so counter productive allowing the terrorists and supporters huge PR gains( rather like this discussion and the many others in forums all over the net) "Why is it naive to expect a trial in every case? Do you think it's a big deal to his four children, not having their dad for 14 years? | |||
"I can't believe he was an innocent. And 14 years is a long time. But do you know what - if he had plans to bomb or kill people, then tough shit. Well that's kind of the purpose of a trial, so that we aren't sat around using words like 'if' and we can say 'beyond reasonable doubt' You've nailed it.
In an ideal world you mean,thats straightforward and much less complicated.
Anybody who believes its just and righteous to set light to a caged man covered in petrol,(that poor Jordanian pilot)is someone who can probably undergo much more time in detention than you and I ever could.
Well there's a false dichotomy if ever I saw one! What is the necessity for someone to undergo detention without trial? I don't see the relevance of where he can endure it or not.
The relevance is in ,because his faith demands it,its not such a big deal to him .. Im not that sympathetic to him as his body language was off and he wasnt being truthfull..Not the mark of an honest man.
I support the job our brave forces guys and girls do,and the dirty work the americans do (out of necessity
) becuase we sure as hell wont.
It would be ideal to charge and take to trial in every instance but i suspect thats a naive view of the world we live in.
I dont believe the Americans are so evil that they just wanna incarcerate people on a whim ,especially when it is so counter productive allowing the terrorists and supporters huge PR gains( rather like this discussion and the many others in forums all over the net)
Why is it naive to expect a trial in every case?
Do you think it's a big deal to his four children, not having their dad for 14 years? "Its naive because we do not live in a perfect world. and dont be ridiculous,of course its a big deal to his (or any)kids not having a dad around?FFs... 
| |||
| |||
"He seems shady as fuck to me, but 14 years without trial is just appalling. " Simply this for me. We're not allowed to hold suspects without charge for more than 14 days, and that's for VERY serious offenses, so 14 years without question is appalling. | |||
| |||
"The military can and do intern people for as long as they deem necessary. The point about the military camp being in Cuba is the way the US legally get away with it, if they brought him to mainland us territory then I'd have no doubt his rights would apply, not because us leaders would give them him but the fact the country is set up in such a legal frame work that it would apply equally!. Personally I don't have any sympathy for the guy at all, he's either a fucking idiot or a complaisant terrorist, however I'd rather not lower our standards to meet theirs! I don't agree with the assassination of UK citizens abroad by government mandate or government torture. 2 wrongs don't make a right and all that malarkey
I think you're missing the point a bit. Human rights don't get eroded quickly, it's a gradual process.
The people in these fringe cases will always be fucking idiots (guilty or not) because the definition of "fucking idiot" changes over time.
Once human rights get a good fucking over in the fringe cases, then the boundaries of normal close in a bit more and it's only a matter of time before you find yourself on the fringe.". I can't actually think of any cases where human rights were eroded gradually, only very quickly by regime change, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Khmer rouge. I think that's worth bearing in mind while fighting a war against people who advocate regime change! You see all our civil liberties are designed to protect us from us not us from crazed religious ideologists. So the real question is how do you fight a crazed religious fanatic who has the ability to hide amongst the innocent population? | |||
"ok lets all agree the holding without trial,for whatever reason(s) is simply appalling. Now think ; What if your Top informant placed him/someone,at the heart of a plot to let off a nuclear device .. He has the intel,but no evidence is available.. Do you let him go,put him under surveilance,run the risk of losing him? Or do you say`its wrong to hold him but,can we afford to let him go`? " If a case can't be built in 14 years then you have to let him go. | |||
"ok lets all agree the holding without trial,for whatever reason(s) is simply appalling. Now think ; What if your Top informant placed him/someone,at the heart of a plot to let off a nuclear device .. He has the intel,but no evidence is available.. Do you let him go,put him under surveilance,run the risk of losing him? Or do you say`its wrong to hold him but,can we afford to let him go`? " But why would you hold him? Most people who actually study this will tell you that detention and torture is one of the least effective ways of getting reliable intelligence. And, as I've noted, any evidence you do then get is inadmissible in court, if the legal route is something that is a desirable end result. It is usually counterproductive. -Courtney | |||
"ok lets all agree the holding without trial,for whatever reason(s) is simply appalling. Now think ; What if your Top informant placed him/someone,at the heart of a plot to let off a nuclear device .. He has the intel,but no evidence is available.. Do you let him go,put him under surveilance,run the risk of losing him? Or do you say`its wrong to hold him but,can we afford to let him go`? " And that really is at the heart of it. While I would say that 14 years without trial is terrible and I think his case has been handled appallingly, what if it was the other way around? Say for example he was released early then rejoined a terrorist group. A year or two later he turns up in Paris or London or wherever, spraying bullets from an AK47 or detonating his suicide vest in a crowd. The security services would have hell to pay for letting him go. Enquiries would be held, lessons would be learned, but the body count would still be there. As someone above said. It is not a perfect world but sadly we all have to live in it. Yes Kim Jong Un interns people, but so did Franklin Delano Roosevelt. | |||
"ok lets all agree the holding without trial,for whatever reason(s) is simply appalling. Now think ; What if your Top informant placed him/someone,at the heart of a plot to let off a nuclear device .. He has the intel,but no evidence is available.. Do you let him go,put him under surveilance,run the risk of losing him? Or do you say`its wrong to hold him but,can we afford to let him go`? And that really is at the heart of it. While I would say that 14 years without trial is terrible and I think his case has been handled appallingly, what if it was the other way around? Say for example he was released early then rejoined a terrorist group. A year or two later he turns up in Paris or London or wherever, spraying bullets from an AK47 or detonating his suicide vest in a crowd. The security services would have hell to pay for letting him go. Enquiries would be held, lessons would be learned, but the body count would still be there. As someone above said. It is not a perfect world but sadly we all have to live in it. Yes Kim Jong Un interns people, but so did Franklin Delano Roosevelt. " . That's because standard wars, had a definition so to speak between one side and the other!. White/black, English/German, Chinese/Japanese The Vietnam war, was the test case for fighting ideological gorilla warfare. I'm afraid when I read people say ooo "boots on the ground" there just very misguided. So we've all got opinions on how not to fight the current problem, but you'll see very few people with actual solutions and certainly not many practical ones that won't involve us bending our own high civil rights/liberties. | |||
"The military can and do intern people for as long as they deem necessary. The point about the military camp being in Cuba is the way the US legally get away with it, if they brought him to mainland us territory then I'd have no doubt his rights would apply, not because us leaders would give them him but the fact the country is set up in such a legal frame work that it would apply equally!. Personally I don't have any sympathy for the guy at all, he's either a fucking idiot or a complaisant terrorist, however I'd rather not lower our standards to meet theirs! I don't agree with the assassination of UK citizens abroad by government mandate or government torture. 2 wrongs don't make a right and all that malarkey
I think you're missing the point a bit. Human rights don't get eroded quickly, it's a gradual process.
The people in these fringe cases will always be fucking idiots (guilty or not) because the definition of "fucking idiot" changes over time.
Once human rights get a good fucking over in the fringe cases, then the boundaries of normal close in a bit more and it's only a matter of time before you find yourself on the fringe..
I can't actually think of any cases where human rights were eroded gradually, only very quickly by regime change, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Khmer rouge.
I think that's worth bearing in mind while fighting a war against people who advocate regime change!
You see all our civil liberties are designed to protect us from us not us from crazed religious ideologists.
So the real question is how do you fight a crazed religious fanatic who has the ability to hide amongst the innocent population?"I'd argue that Hitler, Mao and the North Koreans happened gradually, a period of ~5 years of so anyway. | |||
"ok lets all agree the holding without trial,for whatever reason(s) is simply appalling. Now think ; What if your Top informant placed him/someone,at the heart of a plot to let off a nuclear device .. He has the intel,but no evidence is available.. Do you let him go,put him under surveilance,run the risk of losing him? Or do you say`its wrong to hold him but,can we afford to let him go`? " Intel and evidence are two different things now? I'm not trying to be difficult but I don't understand the concept of 'no evidence'. Release him doesn't mean he's free to go do whatever he wants either, there are other methods than surveillance. We could take a blonde agent who is attractive but shows weakness through her mental conditions making her strong but vulnerable at the same time and get her to pretend to be in love with him and turn him back around... | |||
| |||
"The military can and do intern people for as long as they deem necessary. The point about the military camp being in Cuba is the way the US legally get away with it, if they brought him to mainland us territory then I'd have no doubt his rights would apply, not because us leaders would give them him but the fact the country is set up in such a legal frame work that it would apply equally!. Personally I don't have any sympathy for the guy at all, he's either a fucking idiot or a complaisant terrorist, however I'd rather not lower our standards to meet theirs! I don't agree with the assassination of UK citizens abroad by government mandate or government torture. 2 wrongs don't make a right and all that malarkey
I think you're missing the point a bit. Human rights don't get eroded quickly, it's a gradual process.
The people in these fringe cases will always be fucking idiots (guilty or not) because the definition of "fucking idiot" changes over time.
Once human rights get a good fucking over in the fringe cases, then the boundaries of normal close in a bit more and it's only a matter of time before you find yourself on the fringe..
I can't actually think of any cases where human rights were eroded gradually, only very quickly by regime change, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Khmer rouge.
I think that's worth bearing in mind while fighting a war against people who advocate regime change!
You see all our civil liberties are designed to protect us from us not us from crazed religious ideologists.
So the real question is how do you fight a crazed religious fanatic who has the ability to hide amongst the innocent population?
I'd argue that Hitler, Mao and the North Koreans happened gradually, a period of ~5 years of so anyway. ". Lol that's quick to me... I think it's an age thing | |||
" That's because standard wars, had a definition so to speak between one side and the other!. White/black, English/German, Chinese/Japanese The Vietnam war, was the test case for fighting ideological gorilla warfare. I'm afraid when I read people say ooo "boots on the ground" there just very misguided. So we've all got opinions on how not to fight the current problem, but you'll see very few people with actual solutions and certainly not many practical ones that won't involve us bending our own high civil rights/liberties." English/ German? Hello buddy, it was Great Britain - yeah. Both times. That's Scotland/ England /Wales /norn iron. And in fact, we'd have been fucked if the USA didn't join in. That's why I took 5 years. I know there are bigger issues being discussed here - but if you can't even tie your laces properly , am not gonna hang about for the rest of your point | |||
"The military can and do intern people for as long as they deem necessary. The point about the military camp being in Cuba is the way the US legally get away with it, if they brought him to mainland us territory then I'd have no doubt his rights would apply, not because us leaders would give them him but the fact the country is set up in such a legal frame work that it would apply equally!. Personally I don't have any sympathy for the guy at all, he's either a fucking idiot or a complaisant terrorist, however I'd rather not lower our standards to meet theirs! I don't agree with the assassination of UK citizens abroad by government mandate or government torture. 2 wrongs don't make a right and all that malarkey
I think you're missing the point a bit. Human rights don't get eroded quickly, it's a gradual process.
The people in these fringe cases will always be fucking idiots (guilty or not) because the definition of "fucking idiot" changes over time.
Once human rights get a good fucking over in the fringe cases, then the boundaries of normal close in a bit more and it's only a matter of time before you find yourself on the fringe..
I can't actually think of any cases where human rights were eroded gradually, only very quickly by regime change, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Khmer rouge.
I think that's worth bearing in mind while fighting a war against people who advocate regime change!
You see all our civil liberties are designed to protect us from us not us from crazed religious ideologists.
So the real question is how do you fight a crazed religious fanatic who has the ability to hide amongst the innocent population?
I'd argue that Hitler, Mao and the North Koreans happened gradually, a period of ~5 years of so anyway. .
Lol that's quick to me...
I think it's an age thing"I know what you mean, I'm just saying that even the worst dictators tend to get progressively worse rather than day 1 - "right all Jews, priests, gypsies and faggots form an orderly que for the train" | |||
"ok lets all agree the holding without trial,for whatever reason(s) is simply appalling. Now think ; What if your Top informant placed him/someone,at the heart of a plot to let off a nuclear device .. He has the intel,but no evidence is available.. Do you let him go,put him under surveilance,run the risk of losing him? Or do you say`its wrong to hold him but,can we afford to let him go`? And that really is at the heart of it. While I would say that 14 years without trial is terrible and I think his case has been handled appallingly, what if it was the other way around? Say for example he was released early then rejoined a terrorist group. A year or two later he turns up in Paris or London or wherever, spraying bullets from an AK47 or detonating his suicide vest in a crowd. The security services would have hell to pay for letting him go. Enquiries would be held, lessons would be learned, but the body count would still be there. As someone above said. It is not a perfect world but sadly we all have to live in it. Yes Kim Jong Un interns people, but so did Franklin Delano Roosevelt. . That's because standard wars, had a definition so to speak between one side and the other!. White/black, English/German, Chinese/Japanese The Vietnam war, was the test case for fighting ideological gorilla warfare. I'm afraid when I read people say ooo "boots on the ground" there just very misguided. So we've all got opinions on how not to fight the current problem, but you'll see very few people with actual solutions and certainly not many practical ones that won't involve us bending our own high civil rights/liberties." Here's a solution: give him a trial. Here's a backup plan: kill him and make it look like he was trying to escape Pretty much anything other than go around the world telling everyone else how important human rights are and then broadcast your own violations on international TV | |||
"I can't believe he was an innocent. And 14 years is a long time. But do you know what - if he had plans to bomb or kill people, then tough shit. Well that's kind of the purpose of a trial, so that we aren't sat around using words like 'if' and we can say 'beyond reasonable doubt' You've nailed it.
In an ideal world you mean,thats straightforward and much less complicated.
Anybody who believes its just and righteous to set light to a caged man covered in petrol,(that poor Jordanian pilot)is someone who can probably undergo much more time in detention than you and I ever could.
Well there's a false dichotomy if ever I saw one! What is the necessity for someone to undergo detention without trial? I don't see the relevance of where he can endure it or not.
The relevance is in ,because his faith demands it,its not such a big deal to him .. Im not that sympathetic to him as his body language was off and he wasnt being truthfull..Not the mark of an honest man.
I support the job our brave forces guys and girls do,and the dirty work the americans do (out of necessity
) becuase we sure as hell wont.
It would be ideal to charge and take to trial in every instance but i suspect thats a naive view of the world we live in.
I dont believe the Americans are so evil that they just wanna incarcerate people on a whim ,especially when it is so counter productive allowing the terrorists and supporters huge PR gains( rather like this discussion and the many others in forums all over the net) "The fact that I don't agree with what the US has done in this instance should not lead you to believe that I think the US is evil. I don't, in fact quite the opposite. However that won't stop me from criticising them when I think they're wrong. That's partly what this 'War on Terror' is meant to be about, our right to free speech. | |||
"I can't believe he was an innocent. And 14 years is a long time. But do you know what - if he had plans to bomb or kill people, then tough shit. Well that's kind of the purpose of a trial, so that we aren't sat around using words like 'if' and we can say 'beyond reasonable doubt' You've nailed it.
In an ideal world you mean,thats straightforward and much less complicated.
Anybody who believes its just and righteous to set light to a caged man covered in petrol,(that poor Jordanian pilot)is someone who can probably undergo much more time in detention than you and I ever could.
I wasn't aware he's ever said that that was ok or what he believes. Can you provide a link or some other evidence that supports that claim?
Lets hear him denounce Abu Hamza,I.S et al......You never will..Maybe ask yourself why.."So, what you're saying is that there is no evidence or proof that he believes it's OK to burn a person in a cage but because he hasn't actually said it's not OK he's some how guilty of something. Does this new approach to justice just apply to Muslims, people with beards or all of us? | |||
" Does this new approach to justice just apply to Muslims, people with beards or all of us?" If it does then y'all better hope nobody shouts "witch" when the harvest doesn't go so well... | |||
"The military can and do intern people for as long as they deem necessary. The point about the military camp being in Cuba is the way the US legally get away with it, if they brought him to mainland us territory then I'd have no doubt his rights would apply, not because us leaders would give them him but the fact the country is set up in such a legal frame work that it would apply equally!. Personally I don't have any sympathy for the guy at all, he's either a fucking idiot or a complaisant terrorist, however I'd rather not lower our standards to meet theirs! I don't agree with the assassination of UK citizens abroad by government mandate or government torture. 2 wrongs don't make a right and all that malarkey
I think you're missing the point a bit. Human rights don't get eroded quickly, it's a gradual process.
The people in these fringe cases will always be fucking idiots (guilty or not) because the definition of "fucking idiot" changes over time.
Once human rights get a good fucking over in the fringe cases, then the boundaries of normal close in a bit more and it's only a matter of time before you find yourself on the fringe..
I can't actually think of any cases where human rights were eroded gradually, only very quickly by regime change, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Khmer rouge.
I think that's worth bearing in mind while fighting a war against people who advocate regime change!
You see all our civil liberties are designed to protect us from us not us from crazed religious ideologists.
So the real question is how do you fight a crazed religious fanatic who has the ability to hide amongst the innocent population?"Actually our civil liberties are not there to protect us from either religious fanatics or each other, they're there to protect us from the State. And without them the State can do you a lot more harm a lot more easily than any terrorist ever could. | |||
"The military can and do intern people for as long as they deem necessary. The point about the military camp being in Cuba is the way the US legally get away with it, if they brought him to mainland us territory then I'd have no doubt his rights would apply, not because us leaders would give them him but the fact the country is set up in such a legal frame work that it would apply equally!. Personally I don't have any sympathy for the guy at all, he's either a fucking idiot or a complaisant terrorist, however I'd rather not lower our standards to meet theirs! I don't agree with the assassination of UK citizens abroad by government mandate or government torture. 2 wrongs don't make a right and all that malarkey
I think you're missing the point a bit. Human rights don't get eroded quickly, it's a gradual process.
The people in these fringe cases will always be fucking idiots (guilty or not) because the definition of "fucking idiot" changes over time.
Once human rights get a good fucking over in the fringe cases, then the boundaries of normal close in a bit more and it's only a matter of time before you find yourself on the fringe..
I can't actually think of any cases where human rights were eroded gradually, only very quickly by regime change, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Khmer rouge.
I think that's worth bearing in mind while fighting a war against people who advocate regime change!
You see all our civil liberties are designed to protect us from us not us from crazed religious ideologists.
So the real question is how do you fight a crazed religious fanatic who has the ability to hide amongst the innocent population?
Actually our civil liberties are not there to protect us from either religious fanatics or each other, they're there to protect us from the State. And without them the State can do you a lot more harm a lot more easily than any terrorist ever could."Governments have killed more of their own citizens than terrorists ever have - by some margin | |||
"It's the 14 years without trial that does not sit well with me. this.. and that 'we' are ok with it, respect not all of us.. Well I'm sure as hell sure that I'm not OK with it. Anyone who considers themselves to be a true supporter of individual liberty would have problems with it. Who is the 'we' that you claim is 'ok' with it?" the 'we' was generic, you've been on here long enough to know some will be more than ok with such treatment (several purely because of his name sadly) and the not all of us includes myself, as yourself i assume.. | |||
"The military can and do intern people for as long as they deem necessary. The point about the military camp being in Cuba is the way the US legally get away with it, if they brought him to mainland us territory then I'd have no doubt his rights would apply, not because us leaders would give them him but the fact the country is set up in such a legal frame work that it would apply equally!. Personally I don't have any sympathy for the guy at all, he's either a fucking idiot or a complaisant terrorist, however I'd rather not lower our standards to meet theirs! I don't agree with the assassination of UK citizens abroad by government mandate or government torture. 2 wrongs don't make a right and all that malarkey
I think you're missing the point a bit. Human rights don't get eroded quickly, it's a gradual process.
The people in these fringe cases will always be fucking idiots (guilty or not) because the definition of "fucking idiot" changes over time.
Once human rights get a good fucking over in the fringe cases, then the boundaries of normal close in a bit more and it's only a matter of time before you find yourself on the fringe..
I can't actually think of any cases where human rights were eroded gradually, only very quickly by regime change, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Khmer rouge.
I think that's worth bearing in mind while fighting a war against people who advocate regime change!
You see all our civil liberties are designed to protect us from us not us from crazed religious ideologists.
So the real question is how do you fight a crazed religious fanatic who has the ability to hide amongst the innocent population?
Actually our civil liberties are not there to protect us from either religious fanatics or each other, they're there to protect us from the State. And without them the State can do you a lot more harm a lot more easily than any terrorist ever could.". The way you says "the state" makes it sound very sinister. The vast majority of "the state" are ordinary UK citizens even ooo I dunno, all the Tory party are uk citizens, they like our human rights, lots of them are gay, lots of them are criminals  .
To imagine that there desperate to erode hundreds of years of human rights is well... A little far fetched.
The point being UK human rights stop at the uk borders, this chap wished to travel around a war zone with a substantial amount of cash for what he claims to be humanitarian means, that's great I'm happy for his caring ways, but that's got nothing to do with him being picked up by foreign troops (us) and his uk civil rights
| |||
"The military can and do intern people for as long as they deem necessary. The point about the military camp being in Cuba is the way the US legally get away with it, if they brought him to mainland us territory then I'd have no doubt his rights would apply, not because us leaders would give them him but the fact the country is set up in such a legal frame work that it would apply equally!. Personally I don't have any sympathy for the guy at all, he's either a fucking idiot or a complaisant terrorist, however I'd rather not lower our standards to meet theirs! I don't agree with the assassination of UK citizens abroad by government mandate or government torture. 2 wrongs don't make a right and all that malarkey
I think you're missing the point a bit. Human rights don't get eroded quickly, it's a gradual process.
The people in these fringe cases will always be fucking idiots (guilty or not) because the definition of "fucking idiot" changes over time.
Once human rights get a good fucking over in the fringe cases, then the boundaries of normal close in a bit more and it's only a matter of time before you find yourself on the fringe..
I can't actually think of any cases where human rights were eroded gradually, only very quickly by regime change, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Khmer rouge.
I think that's worth bearing in mind while fighting a war against people who advocate regime change!
You see all our civil liberties are designed to protect us from us not us from crazed religious ideologists.
So the real question is how do you fight a crazed religious fanatic who has the ability to hide amongst the innocent population?
Actually our civil liberties are not there to protect us from either religious fanatics or each other, they're there to protect us from the State. And without them the State can do you a lot more harm a lot more easily than any terrorist ever could.
Governments have killed more of their own citizens than terrorists ever have - by some margin". Not elected democratic ones! Your thinking of those unhinged crazed religious states with unelected barbaric human rights.. That are mostly liked by their very own citizens, or at least they don't like saying they don't like it!. | |||
"So the last British resident of Guantanamo bay is home. I can't get over how normal he is after what he's been through! I'm all for stopping terrorists but held for 14 years without charge is inexcusable. Any one else got an opinion on it? " Nope | |||
"It's the 14 years without trial that does not sit well with me. this.. and that 'we' are ok with it, respect not all of us.. Well I'm sure as hell sure that I'm not OK with it. Anyone who considers themselves to be a true supporter of individual liberty would have problems with it. Who is the 'we' that you claim is 'ok' with it? the 'we' was generic, you've been on here long enough to know some will be more than ok with such treatment (several purely because of his name sadly) and the not all of us includes myself, as yourself i assume.." Agree that 'some' will but I hope and think the majority 'we' won't. | |||
" That's because standard wars, had a definition so to speak between one side and the other!. White/black, English/German, Chinese/Japanese The Vietnam war, was the test case for fighting ideological gorilla warfare. I'm afraid when I read people say ooo "boots on the ground" there just very misguided. So we've all got opinions on how not to fight the current problem, but you'll see very few people with actual solutions and certainly not many practical ones that won't involve us bending our own high civil rights/liberties. English/ German? Hello buddy, it was Great Britain - yeah. Both times. That's Scotland/ England /Wales /norn iron. And in fact, we'd have been fucked if the USA didn't join in. That's why I took 5 years. I know there are bigger issues being discussed here - but if you can't even tie your laces properly , am not gonna hang about for the rest of your point" . I was talking about the language used by the sides as differences, there's actually no physical differences that's obvious from UK/German | |||
" The way you says "the state" makes it sound very sinister. The vast majority of "the state" are ordinary UK citizens even ooo I dunno, all the Tory party are uk citizens, they like our human rights, lots of them are gay, lots of them are criminals .
To imagine that there desperate to erode hundreds of years of human rights is well... A little far fetched.
"History suggests it's not that far fetched.... | |||
"The military can and do intern people for as long as they deem necessary. The point about the military camp being in Cuba is the way the US legally get away with it, if they brought him to mainland us territory then I'd have no doubt his rights would apply, not because us leaders would give them him but the fact the country is set up in such a legal frame work that it would apply equally!. Personally I don't have any sympathy for the guy at all, he's either a fucking idiot or a complaisant terrorist, however I'd rather not lower our standards to meet theirs! I don't agree with the assassination of UK citizens abroad by government mandate or government torture. 2 wrongs don't make a right and all that malarkey
I think you're missing the point a bit. Human rights don't get eroded quickly, it's a gradual process.
The people in these fringe cases will always be fucking idiots (guilty or not) because the definition of "fucking idiot" changes over time.
Once human rights get a good fucking over in the fringe cases, then the boundaries of normal close in a bit more and it's only a matter of time before you find yourself on the fringe..
I can't actually think of any cases where human rights were eroded gradually, only very quickly by regime change, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Khmer rouge.
I think that's worth bearing in mind while fighting a war against people who advocate regime change!
You see all our civil liberties are designed to protect us from us not us from crazed religious ideologists.
So the real question is how do you fight a crazed religious fanatic who has the ability to hide amongst the innocent population?
Actually our civil liberties are not there to protect us from either religious fanatics or each other, they're there to protect us from the State. And without them the State can do you a lot more harm a lot more easily than any terrorist ever could.
Governments have killed more of their own citizens than terrorists ever have - by some margin.
Not elected democratic ones!
Your thinking of those unhinged crazed religious states with unelected barbaric human rights.. That are mostly liked by their very own citizens, or at least they don't like saying they don't like it!."Mostly but not totally. Germany and Italy were both democracies before they turned to the fascist states we fought in WW2. Britain's response to Irish terrorism in the 70's was not really in-line with the best ideals of liberty and the rule of law. The US and McCarthyism in the 50's. It's not just dictators and tyrants that use the power of the state to either suppress those they oppose or for their own self advantage, democracies can fall victim to. Especially when their people are scared, which currently we rightly are. | |||
"The military can and do intern people for as long as they deem necessary. The point about the military camp being in Cuba is the way the US legally get away with it, if they brought him to mainland us territory then I'd have no doubt his rights would apply, not because us leaders would give them him but the fact the country is set up in such a legal frame work that it would apply equally!. Personally I don't have any sympathy for the guy at all, he's either a fucking idiot or a complaisant terrorist, however I'd rather not lower our standards to meet theirs! I don't agree with the assassination of UK citizens abroad by government mandate or government torture. 2 wrongs don't make a right and all that malarkey
I think you're missing the point a bit. Human rights don't get eroded quickly, it's a gradual process.
The people in these fringe cases will always be fucking idiots (guilty or not) because the definition of "fucking idiot" changes over time.
Once human rights get a good fucking over in the fringe cases, then the boundaries of normal close in a bit more and it's only a matter of time before you find yourself on the fringe..
I can't actually think of any cases where human rights were eroded gradually, only very quickly by regime change, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Khmer rouge.
I think that's worth bearing in mind while fighting a war against people who advocate regime change!
You see all our civil liberties are designed to protect us from us not us from crazed religious ideologists.
So the real question is how do you fight a crazed religious fanatic who has the ability to hide amongst the innocent population?
Actually our civil liberties are not there to protect us from either religious fanatics or each other, they're there to protect us from the State. And without them the State can do you a lot more harm a lot more easily than any terrorist ever could.
Governments have killed more of their own citizens than terrorists ever have - by some margin.
Not elected democratic ones!
Your thinking of those unhinged crazed religious states with unelected barbaric human rights.. That are mostly liked by their very own citizens, or at least they don't like saying they don't like it!.
Mostly but not totally. Germany and Italy were both democracies before they turned to the fascist states we fought in WW2. Britain's response to Irish terrorism in the 70's was not really in-line with the best ideals of liberty and the rule of law. The US and McCarthyism in the 50's. It's not just dictators and tyrants that use the power of the state to either suppress those they oppose or for their own self advantage, democracies can fall victim to. Especially when their people are scared, which currently we rightly are.". Exactly how many atrocities were done by these savage governments during the McCarthy era or the ira years... Honestly your barking up the wrong tree, it's not that I disagree with what your saying, I think your absolutely right in it, its just right now in my mind, I know where the real problem lies and its not with David Cameron coming round and rounding my family up on trumped up charges!. I'm more worried about climate change! And right after that I'm worried about some capitalist tit selling some religious tit a very ugly weapon! David Cameron I can deal with, probably by a sharp slap to his bum! | |||
" The way you says "the state" makes it sound very sinister. The vast majority of "the state" are ordinary UK citizens even ooo I dunno, all the Tory party are uk citizens, they like our human rights, lots of them are gay, lots of them are criminals .
To imagine that there desperate to erode hundreds of years of human rights is well... A little far fetched.
History suggests it's not that far fetched.... "And that it's normally done in the believe that those doing are actually defending freedom. | |||
"The military can and do intern people for as long as they deem necessary. The point about the military camp being in Cuba is the way the US legally get away with it, if they brought him to mainland us territory then I'd have no doubt his rights would apply, not because us leaders would give them him but the fact the country is set up in such a legal frame work that it would apply equally!. Personally I don't have any sympathy for the guy at all, he's either a fucking idiot or a complaisant terrorist, however I'd rather not lower our standards to meet theirs! I don't agree with the assassination of UK citizens abroad by government mandate or government torture. 2 wrongs don't make a right and all that malarkey
I think you're missing the point a bit. Human rights don't get eroded quickly, it's a gradual process.
The people in these fringe cases will always be fucking idiots (guilty or not) because the definition of "fucking idiot" changes over time.
Once human rights get a good fucking over in the fringe cases, then the boundaries of normal close in a bit more and it's only a matter of time before you find yourself on the fringe..
I can't actually think of any cases where human rights were eroded gradually, only very quickly by regime change, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Khmer rouge.
I think that's worth bearing in mind while fighting a war against people who advocate regime change!
You see all our civil liberties are designed to protect us from us not us from crazed religious ideologists.
So the real question is how do you fight a crazed religious fanatic who has the ability to hide amongst the innocent population?
Actually our civil liberties are not there to protect us from either religious fanatics or each other, they're there to protect us from the State. And without them the State can do you a lot more harm a lot more easily than any terrorist ever could.
Governments have killed more of their own citizens than terrorists ever have - by some margin.
Not elected democratic ones!
Your thinking of those unhinged crazed religious states with unelected barbaric human rights.. That are mostly liked by their very own citizens, or at least they don't like saying they don't like it!.
Mostly but not totally. Germany and Italy were both democracies before they turned to the fascist states we fought in WW2. Britain's response to Irish terrorism in the 70's was not really in-line with the best ideals of liberty and the rule of law. The US and McCarthyism in the 50's. It's not just dictators and tyrants that use the power of the state to either suppress those they oppose or for their own self advantage, democracies can fall victim to. Especially when their people are scared, which currently we rightly are."There was nothing religious about Hitler, Mao or Stalin and they killed about 106 million of their own citizens... | |||
" The way you says "the state" makes it sound very sinister. The vast majority of "the state" are ordinary UK citizens even ooo I dunno, all the Tory party are uk citizens, they like our human rights, lots of them are gay, lots of them are criminals .
To imagine that there desperate to erode hundreds of years of human rights is well... A little far fetched.
History suggests it's not that far fetched.... ". This is beginning to sound like tea party conference! FFS liberals get a grip on your priorities | |||
"The military can and do intern people for as long as they deem necessary. The point about the military camp being in Cuba is the way the US legally get away with it, if they brought him to mainland us territory then I'd have no doubt his rights would apply, not because us leaders would give them him but the fact the country is set up in such a legal frame work that it would apply equally!. Personally I don't have any sympathy for the guy at all, he's either a fucking idiot or a complaisant terrorist, however I'd rather not lower our standards to meet theirs! I don't agree with the assassination of UK citizens abroad by government mandate or government torture. 2 wrongs don't make a right and all that malarkey
I think you're missing the point a bit. Human rights don't get eroded quickly, it's a gradual process.
The people in these fringe cases will always be fucking idiots (guilty or not) because the definition of "fucking idiot" changes over time.
Once human rights get a good fucking over in the fringe cases, then the boundaries of normal close in a bit more and it's only a matter of time before you find yourself on the fringe..
I can't actually think of any cases where human rights were eroded gradually, only very quickly by regime change, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Khmer rouge.
I think that's worth bearing in mind while fighting a war against people who advocate regime change!
You see all our civil liberties are designed to protect us from us not us from crazed religious ideologists.
So the real question is how do you fight a crazed religious fanatic who has the ability to hide amongst the innocent population?
Actually our civil liberties are not there to protect us from either religious fanatics or each other, they're there to protect us from the State. And without them the State can do you a lot more harm a lot more easily than any terrorist ever could.
Governments have killed more of their own citizens than terrorists ever have - by some margin.
Not elected democratic ones!
Your thinking of those unhinged crazed religious states with unelected barbaric human rights.. That are mostly liked by their very own citizens, or at least they don't like saying they don't like it!.
Mostly but not totally. Germany and Italy were both democracies before they turned to the fascist states we fought in WW2. Britain's response to Irish terrorism in the 70's was not really in-line with the best ideals of liberty and the rule of law. The US and McCarthyism in the 50's. It's not just dictators and tyrants that use the power of the state to either suppress those they oppose or for their own self advantage, democracies can fall victim to. Especially when their people are scared, which currently we rightly are.
There was nothing religious about Hitler, Mao or Stalin and they killed about 106 million of their own citizens...". Two weren't elected one was elected and then assumed dictatorship! The all had crazed ideological beliefs based on bullshit... That puts them firmly in the religious category as far as I'm concerned | |||
" The way you says "the state" makes it sound very sinister. The vast majority of "the state" are ordinary UK citizens even ooo I dunno, all the Tory party are uk citizens, they like our human rights, lots of them are gay, lots of them are criminals .
To imagine that there desperate to erode hundreds of years of human rights is well... A little far fetched.
History suggests it's not that far fetched.... .
This is beginning to sound like tea party conference!
FFS liberals get a grip on your priorities "Try being falsely accused of a crime and it'll change your perception of how lovely and neutral our state is... | |||
"The military can and do intern people for as long as they deem necessary. The point about the military camp being in Cuba is the way the US legally get away with it, if they brought him to mainland us territory then I'd have no doubt his rights would apply, not because us leaders would give them him but the fact the country is set up in such a legal frame work that it would apply equally!. Personally I don't have any sympathy for the guy at all, he's either a fucking idiot or a complaisant terrorist, however I'd rather not lower our standards to meet theirs! I don't agree with the assassination of UK citizens abroad by government mandate or government torture. 2 wrongs don't make a right and all that malarkey
I think you're missing the point a bit. Human rights don't get eroded quickly, it's a gradual process.
The people in these fringe cases will always be fucking idiots (guilty or not) because the definition of "fucking idiot" changes over time.
Once human rights get a good fucking over in the fringe cases, then the boundaries of normal close in a bit more and it's only a matter of time before you find yourself on the fringe..
I can't actually think of any cases where human rights were eroded gradually, only very quickly by regime change, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Khmer rouge.
I think that's worth bearing in mind while fighting a war against people who advocate regime change!
You see all our civil liberties are designed to protect us from us not us from crazed religious ideologists.
So the real question is how do you fight a crazed religious fanatic who has the ability to hide amongst the innocent population?
Actually our civil liberties are not there to protect us from either religious fanatics or each other, they're there to protect us from the State. And without them the State can do you a lot more harm a lot more easily than any terrorist ever could.
Governments have killed more of their own citizens than terrorists ever have - by some margin.
Not elected democratic ones!
Your thinking of those unhinged crazed religious states with unelected barbaric human rights.. That are mostly liked by their very own citizens, or at least they don't like saying they don't like it!.
Mostly but not totally. Germany and Italy were both democracies before they turned to the fascist states we fought in WW2. Britain's response to Irish terrorism in the 70's was not really in-line with the best ideals of liberty and the rule of law. The US and McCarthyism in the 50's. It's not just dictators and tyrants that use the power of the state to either suppress those they oppose or for their own self advantage, democracies can fall victim to. Especially when their people are scared, which currently we rightly are..
Exactly how many atrocities were done by these savage governments during the McCarthy era or the ira years... Honestly your barking up the wrong tree, it's not that I disagree with what your saying, I think your absolutely right in it, its just right now in my mind, I know where the real problem lies and its not with David Cameron coming round and rounding my family up on trumped up charges!.
I'm more worried about climate change!
And right after that I'm worried about some capitalist tit selling some religious tit a very ugly weapon!
David Cameron I can deal with, probably by a sharp slap to his bum!"I'm not suggesting that Dave Cameron or anyone else is hell bent on limiting our freedoms. I am saying that right now we need to be vigilant that, whilst trying to protect our liberties, we do not actually just give them up in the hope we'll be more secure. The way I see it, if a man can be locked up by a country that is meant to be bound by the principles of liberty and the rule of law, for 14 years without trial then something is very, very wrong. | |||
" The way you says "the state" makes it sound very sinister. The vast majority of "the state" are ordinary UK citizens even ooo I dunno, all the Tory party are uk citizens, they like our human rights, lots of them are gay, lots of them are criminals .
To imagine that there desperate to erode hundreds of years of human rights is well... A little far fetched.
History suggests it's not that far fetched.... .
This is beginning to sound like tea party conference!
FFS liberals get a grip on your priorities
Try being falsely accused of a crime and it'll change your perception of how lovely and neutral our state is... ". Micheal Jackson was falsely accused... I'm not leaving my kids with him just to make you feel better about human rights | |||
" The way you says "the state" makes it sound very sinister. The vast majority of "the state" are ordinary UK citizens even ooo I dunno, all the Tory party are uk citizens, they like our human rights, lots of them are gay, lots of them are criminals .
To imagine that there desperate to erode hundreds of years of human rights is well... A little far fetched.
History suggests it's not that far fetched.... .
This is beginning to sound like tea party conference!
FFS liberals get a grip on your priorities "How do you mean..? It's evident that the priorities of all sides of the argument are the same...peace of mind and the desire to feel safe. You feel that the situation has developed such that liberties can be sacrificed.... Others on the thread recognise this song may have been played before and it didn't end well - particular for the fear stricken, liberty stripped citizens we may be in danger of becoming. | |||
"The military can and do intern people for as long as they deem necessary. The point about the military camp being in Cuba is the way the US legally get away with it, if they brought him to mainland us territory then I'd have no doubt his rights would apply, not because us leaders would give them him but the fact the country is set up in such a legal frame work that it would apply equally!. Personally I don't have any sympathy for the guy at all, he's either a fucking idiot or a complaisant terrorist, however I'd rather not lower our standards to meet theirs! I don't agree with the assassination of UK citizens abroad by government mandate or government torture. 2 wrongs don't make a right and all that malarkey
I think you're missing the point a bit. Human rights don't get eroded quickly, it's a gradual process.
The people in these fringe cases will always be fucking idiots (guilty or not) because the definition of "fucking idiot" changes over time.
Once human rights get a good fucking over in the fringe cases, then the boundaries of normal close in a bit more and it's only a matter of time before you find yourself on the fringe..
I can't actually think of any cases where human rights were eroded gradually, only very quickly by regime change, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Khmer rouge.
I think that's worth bearing in mind while fighting a war against people who advocate regime change!
You see all our civil liberties are designed to protect us from us not us from crazed religious ideologists.
So the real question is how do you fight a crazed religious fanatic who has the ability to hide amongst the innocent population?
Actually our civil liberties are not there to protect us from either religious fanatics or each other, they're there to protect us from the State. And without them the State can do you a lot more harm a lot more easily than any terrorist ever could.
Governments have killed more of their own citizens than terrorists ever have - by some margin.
Not elected democratic ones!
Your thinking of those unhinged crazed religious states with unelected barbaric human rights.. That are mostly liked by their very own citizens, or at least they don't like saying they don't like it!.
Mostly but not totally. Germany and Italy were both democracies before they turned to the fascist states we fought in WW2. Britain's response to Irish terrorism in the 70's was not really in-line with the best ideals of liberty and the rule of law. The US and McCarthyism in the 50's. It's not just dictators and tyrants that use the power of the state to either suppress those they oppose or for their own self advantage, democracies can fall victim to. Especially when their people are scared, which currently we rightly are..
Exactly how many atrocities were done by these savage governments during the McCarthy era or the ira years... Honestly your barking up the wrong tree, it's not that I disagree with what your saying, I think your absolutely right in it, its just right now in my mind, I know where the real problem lies and its not with David Cameron coming round and rounding my family up on trumped up charges!.
I'm more worried about climate change!
And right after that I'm worried about some capitalist tit selling some religious tit a very ugly weapon!
David Cameron I can deal with, probably by a sharp slap to his bum!
I'm not suggesting that Dave Cameron or anyone else is hell bent on limiting our freedoms. I am saying that right now we need to be vigilant that, whilst trying to protect our liberties, we do not actually just give them up in the hope we'll be more secure. The way I see it, if a man can be locked up by a country that is meant to be bound by the principles of liberty and the rule of law, for 14 years without trial then something is very, very wrong.". He wasn't!!! He was interned in a military camp on foreign soil for being in a war zone with shed loads of cash and no good answers! Yeah it failed his human rights! But it wasn't the uk government and it wasn't the uk military (so they say). | |||
" The way you says "the state" makes it sound very sinister. The vast majority of "the state" are ordinary UK citizens even ooo I dunno, all the Tory party are uk citizens, they like our human rights, lots of them are gay, lots of them are criminals .
To imagine that there desperate to erode hundreds of years of human rights is well... A little far fetched.
History suggests it's not that far fetched.... .
This is beginning to sound like tea party conference!
FFS liberals get a grip on your priorities "Someone is calling me a liberal. I'll take that as a compliment; normally just get call 'right wing Tory scum on here' But on a serious note, this has nothing to do with being liberal and everything to do with defending my own freedoms. I would have thought libertarian would be closer to the mark. | |||
" The way you says "the state" makes it sound very sinister. The vast majority of "the state" are ordinary UK citizens even ooo I dunno, all the Tory party are uk citizens, they like our human rights, lots of them are gay, lots of them are criminals .
To imagine that there desperate to erode hundreds of years of human rights is well... A little far fetched.
History suggests it's not that far fetched.... .
This is beginning to sound like tea party conference!
FFS liberals get a grip on your priorities
Try being falsely accused of a crime and it'll change your perception of how lovely and neutral our state is... .
Micheal Jackson was falsely accused... I'm not leaving my kids with him just to make you feel better about human rights"You only know he was innocent because he got a fair trial! We could have just presumed he was guilty and locked him up for 14 years. Presumed pedophiles are sort on par with pressumed terrorists in the court of public opinion. | |||
| |||
"The military can and do intern people for as long as they deem necessary. The point about the military camp being in Cuba is the way the US legally get away with it, if they brought him to mainland us territory then I'd have no doubt his rights would apply, not because us leaders would give them him but the fact the country is set up in such a legal frame work that it would apply equally!. Personally I don't have any sympathy for the guy at all, he's either a fucking idiot or a complaisant terrorist, however I'd rather not lower our standards to meet theirs! I don't agree with the assassination of UK citizens abroad by government mandate or government torture. 2 wrongs don't make a right and all that malarkey
I think you're missing the point a bit. Human rights don't get eroded quickly, it's a gradual process.
The people in these fringe cases will always be fucking idiots (guilty or not) because the definition of "fucking idiot" changes over time.
Once human rights get a good fucking over in the fringe cases, then the boundaries of normal close in a bit more and it's only a matter of time before you find yourself on the fringe..
I can't actually think of any cases where human rights were eroded gradually, only very quickly by regime change, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Khmer rouge.
I think that's worth bearing in mind while fighting a war against people who advocate regime change!
You see all our civil liberties are designed to protect us from us not us from crazed religious ideologists.
So the real question is how do you fight a crazed religious fanatic who has the ability to hide amongst the innocent population?
Actually our civil liberties are not there to protect us from either religious fanatics or each other, they're there to protect us from the State. And without them the State can do you a lot more harm a lot more easily than any terrorist ever could.
Governments have killed more of their own citizens than terrorists ever have - by some margin.
Not elected democratic ones!
Your thinking of those unhinged crazed religious states with unelected barbaric human rights.. That are mostly liked by their very own citizens, or at least they don't like saying they don't like it!.
Mostly but not totally. Germany and Italy were both democracies before they turned to the fascist states we fought in WW2. Britain's response to Irish terrorism in the 70's was not really in-line with the best ideals of liberty and the rule of law. The US and McCarthyism in the 50's. It's not just dictators and tyrants that use the power of the state to either suppress those they oppose or for their own self advantage, democracies can fall victim to. Especially when their people are scared, which currently we rightly are..
Exactly how many atrocities were done by these savage governments during the McCarthy era or the ira years... Honestly your barking up the wrong tree, it's not that I disagree with what your saying, I think your absolutely right in it, its just right now in my mind, I know where the real problem lies and its not with David Cameron coming round and rounding my family up on trumped up charges!.
I'm more worried about climate change!
And right after that I'm worried about some capitalist tit selling some religious tit a very ugly weapon!
David Cameron I can deal with, probably by a sharp slap to his bum!
I'm not suggesting that Dave Cameron or anyone else is hell bent on limiting our freedoms. I am saying that right now we need to be vigilant that, whilst trying to protect our liberties, we do not actually just give them up in the hope we'll be more secure. The way I see it, if a man can be locked up by a country that is meant to be bound by the principles of liberty and the rule of law, for 14 years without trial then something is very, very wrong..
He wasn't!!!
He was interned in a military camp on foreign soil for being in a war zone with shed loads of cash and no good answers!
Yeah it failed his human rights! But it wasn't the uk government and it wasn't the uk military (so they say).
"There is an allegation that British authorities were Complaisant in his alleged mistreatment. | |||
" The way you says "the state" makes it sound very sinister. The vast majority of "the state" are ordinary UK citizens even ooo I dunno, all the Tory party are uk citizens, they like our human rights, lots of them are gay, lots of them are criminals .
To imagine that there desperate to erode hundreds of years of human rights is well... A little far fetched.
History suggests it's not that far fetched.... .
This is beginning to sound like tea party conference!
FFS liberals get a grip on your priorities
How do you mean..?
It's evident that the priorities of all sides of the argument are the same...peace of mind and the desire to feel safe.
You feel that the situation has developed such that liberties can be sacrificed.... Others on the thread recognise this song may have been played before and it didn't end well - particular for the fear stricken, liberty stripped citizens we may be in danger of becoming.
". Your absolutely right! I don't feel threatened by the uk government and theres very little evidence for me to be worried to be quite honest with you... I'll agree that if I wish to wander around war zones with money and no good answers as to why I'm there... I'll get fucking worried!. I'm seeing plenty of evidence for crazed religious islamists who wish to... Kill fucking journalists for cartoons... No I don't remember Dave doing that. I see plenty of evidence for crazed religious islamists running amok with Kalashnikov's in shopping malls, hacking peoples heads off on main streets in London, whole sale rape camps of women and children, burning captured troops alive in cages, throwing acid in children's faces, issuing death threats for book writers.... And noooooooooooooooooooooo... I don't see Dave doing that.. In fact I don't even see any evidence except holding a guy for 14 years without trial. So forgive me if I'm getting my priorities all out of whack. | |||
"The military can and do intern people for as long as they deem necessary. The point about the military camp being in Cuba is the way the US legally get away with it, if they brought him to mainland us territory then I'd have no doubt his rights would apply, not because us leaders would give them him but the fact the country is set up in such a legal frame work that it would apply equally!. Personally I don't have any sympathy for the guy at all, he's either a fucking idiot or a complaisant terrorist, however I'd rather not lower our standards to meet theirs! I don't agree with the assassination of UK citizens abroad by government mandate or government torture. 2 wrongs don't make a right and all that malarkey
I think you're missing the point a bit. Human rights don't get eroded quickly, it's a gradual process.
The people in these fringe cases will always be fucking idiots (guilty or not) because the definition of "fucking idiot" changes over time.
Once human rights get a good fucking over in the fringe cases, then the boundaries of normal close in a bit more and it's only a matter of time before you find yourself on the fringe..
I can't actually think of any cases where human rights were eroded gradually, only very quickly by regime change, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Khmer rouge.
I think that's worth bearing in mind while fighting a war against people who advocate regime change!
You see all our civil liberties are designed to protect us from us not us from crazed religious ideologists.
So the real question is how do you fight a crazed religious fanatic who has the ability to hide amongst the innocent population?
Actually our civil liberties are not there to protect us from either religious fanatics or each other, they're there to protect us from the State. And without them the State can do you a lot more harm a lot more easily than any terrorist ever could.
Governments have killed more of their own citizens than terrorists ever have - by some margin.
Not elected democratic ones!
Your thinking of those unhinged crazed religious states with unelected barbaric human rights.. That are mostly liked by their very own citizens, or at least they don't like saying they don't like it!.
Mostly but not totally. Germany and Italy were both democracies before they turned to the fascist states we fought in WW2. Britain's response to Irish terrorism in the 70's was not really in-line with the best ideals of liberty and the rule of law. The US and McCarthyism in the 50's. It's not just dictators and tyrants that use the power of the state to either suppress those they oppose or for their own self advantage, democracies can fall victim to. Especially when their people are scared, which currently we rightly are..
Exactly how many atrocities were done by these savage governments during the McCarthy era or the ira years... Honestly your barking up the wrong tree, it's not that I disagree with what your saying, I think your absolutely right in it, its just right now in my mind, I know where the real problem lies and its not with David Cameron coming round and rounding my family up on trumped up charges!.
I'm more worried about climate change!
And right after that I'm worried about some capitalist tit selling some religious tit a very ugly weapon!
David Cameron I can deal with, probably by a sharp slap to his bum!
I'm not suggesting that Dave Cameron or anyone else is hell bent on limiting our freedoms. I am saying that right now we need to be vigilant that, whilst trying to protect our liberties, we do not actually just give them up in the hope we'll be more secure. The way I see it, if a man can be locked up by a country that is meant to be bound by the principles of liberty and the rule of law, for 14 years without trial then something is very, very wrong..
He wasn't!!!
He was interned in a military camp on foreign soil for being in a war zone with shed loads of cash and no good answers!
Yeah it failed his human rights! But it wasn't the uk government and it wasn't the uk military (so they say).
There is an allegation that British authorities were Complaisant in his alleged mistreatment.". Here's another allegation He's a crazy Muslim fruitbat who would like to see you burn in hell! | |||
" The way you says "the state" makes it sound very sinister. The vast majority of "the state" are ordinary UK citizens even ooo I dunno, all the Tory party are uk citizens, they like our human rights, lots of them are gay, lots of them are criminals .
To imagine that there desperate to erode hundreds of years of human rights is well... A little far fetched.
History suggests it's not that far fetched.... .
This is beginning to sound like tea party conference!
FFS liberals get a grip on your priorities
How do you mean..?
It's evident that the priorities of all sides of the argument are the same...peace of mind and the desire to feel safe.
You feel that the situation has developed such that liberties can be sacrificed.... Others on the thread recognise this song may have been played before and it didn't end well - particular for the fear stricken, liberty stripped citizens we may be in danger of becoming.
.
Your absolutely right!
I don't feel threatened by the uk government and theres very little evidence for me to be worried to be quite honest with you... I'll agree that if I wish to wander around war zones with money and no good answers as to why I'm there...
I'll get fucking worried!.
I'm seeing plenty of evidence for crazed religious islamists who wish to... Kill fucking journalists for cartoons... No I don't remember Dave doing that.
I see plenty of evidence for crazed religious islamists running amok with Kalashnikov's in shopping malls, hacking peoples heads off on main streets in London, whole sale rape camps of women and children, burning captured troops alive in cages, throwing acid in children's faces, issuing death threats for book writers.... And noooooooooooooooooooooo...
I don't see Dave doing that.. In fact I don't even see any evidence except holding a guy for 14 years without trial.
So forgive me if I'm getting my priorities all out of whack.
"But it ain't one of the other! We don't have to choose between ISIS and a government that thinks human rights are a group on X-Factor. Just one question: why couldn't he have a trial? | |||
" The way you says "the state" makes it sound very sinister. The vast majority of "the state" are ordinary UK citizens even ooo I dunno, all the Tory party are uk citizens, they like our human rights, lots of them are gay, lots of them are criminals .
To imagine that there desperate to erode hundreds of years of human rights is well... A little far fetched.
History suggests it's not that far fetched.... .
This is beginning to sound like tea party conference!
FFS liberals get a grip on your priorities
Try being falsely accused of a crime and it'll change your perception of how lovely and neutral our state is... .
Micheal Jackson was falsely accused... I'm not leaving my kids with him just to make you feel better about human rights
You only know he was innocent because he got a fair trial! We could have just presumed he was guilty and locked him up for 14 years. Presumed pedophiles are sort on par with pressumed terrorists in the court of public opinion.". A fair trial!! Yeah like oj Simpson got a fair trial or miners or SAS individuals making life and death decisions. Gimme a break, the world's not perfect, but we live in the best bit of it and that's because we learnt you can say whatever you like without having your head cut off... Right now I've got a choice between Dave and Mohammed I'm sticking my tenner on Dave  | |||
" The way you says "the state" makes it sound very sinister. The vast majority of "the state" are ordinary UK citizens even ooo I dunno, all the Tory party are uk citizens, they like our human rights, lots of them are gay, lots of them are criminals .
To imagine that there desperate to erode hundreds of years of human rights is well... A little far fetched.
History suggests it's not that far fetched.... .
This is beginning to sound like tea party conference!
FFS liberals get a grip on your priorities
How do you mean..?
It's evident that the priorities of all sides of the argument are the same...peace of mind and the desire to feel safe.
You feel that the situation has developed such that liberties can be sacrificed.... Others on the thread recognise this song may have been played before and it didn't end well - particular for the fear stricken, liberty stripped citizens we may be in danger of becoming.
.
Your absolutely right!
I don't feel threatened by the uk government and theres very little evidence for me to be worried to be quite honest with you... I'll agree that if I wish to wander around war zones with money and no good answers as to why I'm there...
I'll get fucking worried!.
I'm seeing plenty of evidence for crazed religious islamists who wish to... Kill fucking journalists for cartoons... No I don't remember Dave doing that.
I see plenty of evidence for crazed religious islamists running amok with Kalashnikov's in shopping malls, hacking peoples heads off on main streets in London, whole sale rape camps of women and children, burning captured troops alive in cages, throwing acid in children's faces, issuing death threats for book writers.... And noooooooooooooooooooooo...
I don't see Dave doing that.. In fact I don't even see any evidence except holding a guy for 14 years without trial.
So forgive me if I'm getting my priorities all out of whack.
But it ain't one of the other! We don't have to choose between ISIS and a government that thinks human rights are a group on X-Factor.
Just one question: why couldn't he have a trial? ". You say that but you offer no solutions to the other!! So come on hit me with your best solutions for tackling religious nutballs hell bent on going to mecca and sending me to hell! | |||
"The military can and do intern people for as long as they deem necessary. The point about the military camp being in Cuba is the way the US legally get away with it, if they brought him to mainland us territory then I'd have no doubt his rights would apply, not because us leaders would give them him but the fact the country is set up in such a legal frame work that it would apply equally!. Personally I don't have any sympathy for the guy at all, he's either a fucking idiot or a complaisant terrorist, however I'd rather not lower our standards to meet theirs! I don't agree with the assassination of UK citizens abroad by government mandate or government torture. 2 wrongs don't make a right and all that malarkey
I think you're missing the point a bit. Human rights don't get eroded quickly, it's a gradual process.
The people in these fringe cases will always be fucking idiots (guilty or not) because the definition of "fucking idiot" changes over time.
Once human rights get a good fucking over in the fringe cases, then the boundaries of normal close in a bit more and it's only a matter of time before you find yourself on the fringe..
I can't actually think of any cases where human rights were eroded gradually, only very quickly by regime change, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Khmer rouge.
I think that's worth bearing in mind while fighting a war against people who advocate regime change!
You see all our civil liberties are designed to protect us from us not us from crazed religious ideologists.
So the real question is how do you fight a crazed religious fanatic who has the ability to hide amongst the innocent population?
Actually our civil liberties are not there to protect us from either religious fanatics or each other, they're there to protect us from the State. And without them the State can do you a lot more harm a lot more easily than any terrorist ever could.
Governments have killed more of their own citizens than terrorists ever have - by some margin.
Not elected democratic ones!
Your thinking of those unhinged crazed religious states with unelected barbaric human rights.. That are mostly liked by their very own citizens, or at least they don't like saying they don't like it!.
Mostly but not totally. Germany and Italy were both democracies before they turned to the fascist states we fought in WW2. Britain's response to Irish terrorism in the 70's was not really in-line with the best ideals of liberty and the rule of law. The US and McCarthyism in the 50's. It's not just dictators and tyrants that use the power of the state to either suppress those they oppose or for their own self advantage, democracies can fall victim to. Especially when their people are scared, which currently we rightly are..
Exactly how many atrocities were done by these savage governments during the McCarthy era or the ira years... Honestly your barking up the wrong tree, it's not that I disagree with what your saying, I think your absolutely right in it, its just right now in my mind, I know where the real problem lies and its not with David Cameron coming round and rounding my family up on trumped up charges!.
I'm more worried about climate change!
And right after that I'm worried about some capitalist tit selling some religious tit a very ugly weapon!
David Cameron I can deal with, probably by a sharp slap to his bum!
I'm not suggesting that Dave Cameron or anyone else is hell bent on limiting our freedoms. I am saying that right now we need to be vigilant that, whilst trying to protect our liberties, we do not actually just give them up in the hope we'll be more secure. The way I see it, if a man can be locked up by a country that is meant to be bound by the principles of liberty and the rule of law, for 14 years without trial then something is very, very wrong..
He wasn't!!!
He was interned in a military camp on foreign soil for being in a war zone with shed loads of cash and no good answers!
Yeah it failed his human rights! But it wasn't the uk government and it wasn't the uk military (so they say).
There is an allegation that British authorities were Complaisant in his alleged mistreatment..
Here's another allegation
He's a crazy Muslim fruitbat who would like to see you burn in hell!"Or he maybe a religious fanatic who just wants to live his life the way he believes to be right and is no more interested in me or if I burn in hell than most other Muslims, orthodox Jews, Catholics or any other religious group has. | |||
"The military can and do intern people for as long as they deem necessary. The point about the military camp being in Cuba is the way the US legally get away with it, if they brought him to mainland us territory then I'd have no doubt his rights would apply, not because us leaders would give them him but the fact the country is set up in such a legal frame work that it would apply equally!. Personally I don't have any sympathy for the guy at all, he's either a fucking idiot or a complaisant terrorist, however I'd rather not lower our standards to meet theirs! I don't agree with the assassination of UK citizens abroad by government mandate or government torture. 2 wrongs don't make a right and all that malarkey
I think you're missing the point a bit. Human rights don't get eroded quickly, it's a gradual process.
The people in these fringe cases will always be fucking idiots (guilty or not) because the definition of "fucking idiot" changes over time.
Once human rights get a good fucking over in the fringe cases, then the boundaries of normal close in a bit more and it's only a matter of time before you find yourself on the fringe..
I can't actually think of any cases where human rights were eroded gradually, only very quickly by regime change, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Khmer rouge.
I think that's worth bearing in mind while fighting a war against people who advocate regime change!
You see all our civil liberties are designed to protect us from us not us from crazed religious ideologists.
So the real question is how do you fight a crazed religious fanatic who has the ability to hide amongst the innocent population?
Actually our civil liberties are not there to protect us from either religious fanatics or each other, they're there to protect us from the State. And without them the State can do you a lot more harm a lot more easily than any terrorist ever could.
Governments have killed more of their own citizens than terrorists ever have - by some margin.
Not elected democratic ones!
Your thinking of those unhinged crazed religious states with unelected barbaric human rights.. That are mostly liked by their very own citizens, or at least they don't like saying they don't like it!.
Mostly but not totally. Germany and Italy were both democracies before they turned to the fascist states we fought in WW2. Britain's response to Irish terrorism in the 70's was not really in-line with the best ideals of liberty and the rule of law. The US and McCarthyism in the 50's. It's not just dictators and tyrants that use the power of the state to either suppress those they oppose or for their own self advantage, democracies can fall victim to. Especially when their people are scared, which currently we rightly are..
Exactly how many atrocities were done by these savage governments during the McCarthy era or the ira years... Honestly your barking up the wrong tree, it's not that I disagree with what your saying, I think your absolutely right in it, its just right now in my mind, I know where the real problem lies and its not with David Cameron coming round and rounding my family up on trumped up charges!.
I'm more worried about climate change!
And right after that I'm worried about some capitalist tit selling some religious tit a very ugly weapon!
David Cameron I can deal with, probably by a sharp slap to his bum!
I'm not suggesting that Dave Cameron or anyone else is hell bent on limiting our freedoms. I am saying that right now we need to be vigilant that, whilst trying to protect our liberties, we do not actually just give them up in the hope we'll be more secure. The way I see it, if a man can be locked up by a country that is meant to be bound by the principles of liberty and the rule of law, for 14 years without trial then something is very, very wrong..
He wasn't!!!
He was interned in a military camp on foreign soil for being in a war zone with shed loads of cash and no good answers!
Yeah it failed his human rights! But it wasn't the uk government and it wasn't the uk military (so they say).
There is an allegation that British authorities were Complaisant in his alleged mistreatment..
Here's another allegation
He's a crazy Muslim fruitbat who would like to see you burn in hell!
Or he maybe a religious fanatic who just wants to live his life the way he believes to be right and is no more interested in me or if I burn in hell than most other Muslims, orthodox Jews, Catholics or any other religious group has.". Well then maybe the British authority's are innocent too Personally I doubt either of them are | |||
" The way you says "the state" makes it sound very sinister. The vast majority of "the state" are ordinary UK citizens even ooo I dunno, all the Tory party are uk citizens, they like our human rights, lots of them are gay, lots of them are criminals .
To imagine that there desperate to erode hundreds of years of human rights is well... A little far fetched.
History suggests it's not that far fetched.... .
This is beginning to sound like tea party conference!
FFS liberals get a grip on your priorities
How do you mean..?
It's evident that the priorities of all sides of the argument are the same...peace of mind and the desire to feel safe.
You feel that the situation has developed such that liberties can be sacrificed.... Others on the thread recognise this song may have been played before and it didn't end well - particular for the fear stricken, liberty stripped citizens we may be in danger of becoming.
.
Your absolutely right!
I don't feel threatened by the uk government and theres very little evidence for me to be worried to be quite honest with you... I'll agree that if I wish to wander around war zones with money and no good answers as to why I'm there...
I'll get fucking worried!.
I'm seeing plenty of evidence for crazed religious islamists who wish to... Kill fucking journalists for cartoons... No I don't remember Dave doing that.
I see plenty of evidence for crazed religious islamists running amok with Kalashnikov's in shopping malls, hacking peoples heads off on main streets in London, whole sale rape camps of women and children, burning captured troops alive in cages, throwing acid in children's faces, issuing death threats for book writers.... And noooooooooooooooooooooo...
I don't see Dave doing that.. In fact I don't even see any evidence except holding a guy for 14 years without trial.
So forgive me if I'm getting my priorities all out of whack.
But it ain't one of the other! We don't have to choose between ISIS and a government that thinks human rights are a group on X-Factor.
Just one question: why couldn't he have a trial? .
You say that but you offer no solutions to the other!!
So come on hit me with your best solutions for tackling religious nutballs hell bent on going to mecca and sending me to hell!"To the other what? We give him a trial, he's probably guilty - he goes to prison and then he ain't killing anyone. What part of that plan doesn't work? | |||
" The way you says "the state" makes it sound very sinister. The vast majority of "the state" are ordinary UK citizens even ooo I dunno, all the Tory party are uk citizens, they like our human rights, lots of them are gay, lots of them are criminals .
To imagine that there desperate to erode hundreds of years of human rights is well... A little far fetched.
History suggests it's not that far fetched.... .
This is beginning to sound like tea party conference!
FFS liberals get a grip on your priorities
How do you mean..?
It's evident that the priorities of all sides of the argument are the same...peace of mind and the desire to feel safe.
You feel that the situation has developed such that liberties can be sacrificed.... Others on the thread recognise this song may have been played before and it didn't end well - particular for the fear stricken, liberty stripped citizens we may be in danger of becoming.
.
Your absolutely right!
I don't feel threatened by the uk government and theres very little evidence for me to be worried to be quite honest with you... I'll agree that if I wish to wander around war zones with money and no good answers as to why I'm there...
I'll get fucking worried!.
I'm seeing plenty of evidence for crazed religious islamists who wish to... Kill fucking journalists for cartoons... No I don't remember Dave doing that.
I see plenty of evidence for crazed religious islamists running amok with Kalashnikov's in shopping malls, hacking peoples heads off on main streets in London, whole sale rape camps of women and children, burning captured troops alive in cages, throwing acid in children's faces, issuing death threats for book writers.... And noooooooooooooooooooooo...
I don't see Dave doing that.. In fact I don't even see any evidence except holding a guy for 14 years without trial.
So forgive me if I'm getting my priorities all out of whack.
But it ain't one of the other! We don't have to choose between ISIS and a government that thinks human rights are a group on X-Factor.
Just one question: why couldn't he have a trial? .
You say that but you offer no solutions to the other!!
So come on hit me with your best solutions for tackling religious nutballs hell bent on going to mecca and sending me to hell!"Why don't you tell us how locking up a person for 14 years with no evidence that they have done anything illegal is helping to stop religious nutballs hell bent on going to Mecca and sending you, me or anyone else to hell actually helps. Maybe if they hadn't waisted their time and efforts on him they might have been able to put a real guilty terrorist behind those bars. | |||
" The way you says "the state" makes it sound very sinister. The vast majority of "the state" are ordinary UK citizens even ooo I dunno, all the Tory party are uk citizens, they like our human rights, lots of them are gay, lots of them are criminals .
To imagine that there desperate to erode hundreds of years of human rights is well... A little far fetched.
History suggests it's not that far fetched.... .
This is beginning to sound like tea party conference!
FFS liberals get a grip on your priorities
How do you mean..?
It's evident that the priorities of all sides of the argument are the same...peace of mind and the desire to feel safe.
You feel that the situation has developed such that liberties can be sacrificed.... Others on the thread recognise this song may have been played before and it didn't end well - particular for the fear stricken, liberty stripped citizens we may be in danger of becoming.
.
Your absolutely right!
I don't feel threatened by the uk government and theres very little evidence for me to be worried to be quite honest with you... I'll agree that if I wish to wander around war zones with money and no good answers as to why I'm there...
I'll get fucking worried!.
I'm seeing plenty of evidence for crazed religious islamists who wish to... Kill fucking journalists for cartoons... No I don't remember Dave doing that.
I see plenty of evidence for crazed religious islamists running amok with Kalashnikov's in shopping malls, hacking peoples heads off on main streets in London, whole sale rape camps of women and children, burning captured troops alive in cages, throwing acid in children's faces, issuing death threats for book writers.... And noooooooooooooooooooooo...
I don't see Dave doing that.. In fact I don't even see any evidence except holding a guy for 14 years without trial.
So forgive me if I'm getting my priorities all out of whack.
But it ain't one of the other! We don't have to choose between ISIS and a government that thinks human rights are a group on X-Factor.
Just one question: why couldn't he have a trial? .
You say that but you offer no solutions to the other!!
So come on hit me with your best solutions for tackling religious nutballs hell bent on going to mecca and sending me to hell!
Why don't you tell us how locking up a person for 14 years with no evidence that they have done anything illegal is helping to stop religious nutballs hell bent on going to Mecca and sending you, me or anyone else to hell actually helps. Maybe if they hadn't waisted their time and efforts on him they might have been able to put a real guilty terrorist behind those bars.". See your assuming and its one big massive fucking assumption... That they haven't stopped dozens and dozens of terrorists with those tactics! | |||
" Just one question: why couldn't he have a trial? . You say that but you offer no solutions to the other!! So come on hit me with your best solutions for tackling religious nutballs hell bent on going to mecca and sending me to hell! Why don't you tell us how locking up a person for 14 years with no evidence that they have done anything illegal is helping to stop religious nutballs hell bent on going to Mecca and sending you, me or anyone else to hell actually helps. Maybe if they hadn't waisted their time and efforts on him they might have been able to put a real guilty terrorist behind those bars.. See your assuming and its one big massive fucking assumption... That they haven't stopped dozens and dozens of terrorists with those tactics!" Yeah but here's the rub - by sticking him in guantanamo bay he's a recruiting tool for future terrorists - "look how America treats Muslims" If you honestly believe that he is guilty but you can't prove it then the answer is that you put a bullet in the back of his head and then make up some lame excuse "he attacked a guard / he tried to escape bla bla". That's real politics for you. If he's really such a national security threat then you kill him like Saddam or Osama. Those are the real choices - kill or trial. Not some stupid, half assed middle ground that clearly works against our national interest and proported values. | |||
" The way you says "the state" makes it sound very sinister. The vast majority of "the state" are ordinary UK citizens even ooo I dunno, all the Tory party are uk citizens, they like our human rights, lots of them are gay, lots of them are criminals .
To imagine that there desperate to erode hundreds of years of human rights is well... A little far fetched.
History suggests it's not that far fetched.... .
This is beginning to sound like tea party conference!
FFS liberals get a grip on your priorities
How do you mean..?
It's evident that the priorities of all sides of the argument are the same...peace of mind and the desire to feel safe.
You feel that the situation has developed such that liberties can be sacrificed.... Others on the thread recognise this song may have been played before and it didn't end well - particular for the fear stricken, liberty stripped citizens we may be in danger of becoming.
.
Your absolutely right!
I don't feel threatened by the uk government and theres very little evidence for me to be worried to be quite honest with you... I'll agree that if I wish to wander around war zones with money and no good answers as to why I'm there...
I'll get fucking worried!.
I'm seeing plenty of evidence for crazed religious islamists who wish to... Kill fucking journalists for cartoons... No I don't remember Dave doing that.
I see plenty of evidence for crazed religious islamists running amok with Kalashnikov's in shopping malls, hacking peoples heads off on main streets in London, whole sale rape camps of women and children, burning captured troops alive in cages, throwing acid in children's faces, issuing death threats for book writers.... And noooooooooooooooooooooo...
I don't see Dave doing that.. In fact I don't even see any evidence except holding a guy for 14 years without trial.
So forgive me if I'm getting my priorities all out of whack.
But it ain't one of the other! We don't have to choose between ISIS and a government that thinks human rights are a group on X-Factor.
Just one question: why couldn't he have a trial? .
You say that but you offer no solutions to the other!!
So come on hit me with your best solutions for tackling religious nutballs hell bent on going to mecca and sending me to hell!
Why don't you tell us how locking up a person for 14 years with no evidence that they have done anything illegal is helping to stop religious nutballs hell bent on going to Mecca and sending you, me or anyone else to hell actually helps. Maybe if they hadn't waisted their time and efforts on him they might have been able to put a real guilty terrorist behind those bars..
See your assuming and its one big massive fucking assumption... That they haven't stopped dozens and dozens of terrorists with those tactics!"The only thing I'm assuming is that there is, and never was, evidence to support locking this person up for 14 years. I don't know if he was a terrorist or not, just as I don't know if you're a terrorist or not. And that's the real point. | |||
" Just one question: why couldn't he have a trial? . You say that but you offer no solutions to the other!! So come on hit me with your best solutions for tackling religious nutballs hell bent on going to mecca and sending me to hell! Why don't you tell us how locking up a person for 14 years with no evidence that they have done anything illegal is helping to stop religious nutballs hell bent on going to Mecca and sending you, me or anyone else to hell actually helps. Maybe if they hadn't waisted their time and efforts on him they might have been able to put a real guilty terrorist behind those bars.. See your assuming and its one big massive fucking assumption... That they haven't stopped dozens and dozens of terrorists with those tactics! Yeah but here's the rub - by sticking him in guantanamo bay he's a recruiting tool for future terrorists - "look how America treats Muslims" If you honestly believe that he is guilty but you can't prove it then the answer is that you put a bullet in the back of his head and then make up some lame excuse "he attacked a guard / he tried to escape bla bla". That's real politics for you. If he's really such a national security threat then you kill him like Saddam or Osama. Those are the real choices - kill or trial. Not some stupid, half assed middle ground that clearly works against our national interest and proported values. " . News for you, Islamic fundamentalism or Muslims who take Islamic fundamentals seriously. They don't give a shit about human rights, they certainly don't give a shit about how we treat Muslims, there killing more Muslims than the west has ever done! They just want you dead... Everything else is incidental bollocks. This western bullshit self flagellation of oooo look how awful we treat Muslims look how poor they are, look how we look down on there culture, surely this will turn them into terrorists. Err no not according to the recent events. | |||
" Just one question: why couldn't he have a trial? . You say that but you offer no solutions to the other!! So come on hit me with your best solutions for tackling religious nutballs hell bent on going to mecca and sending me to hell! Why don't you tell us how locking up a person for 14 years with no evidence that they have done anything illegal is helping to stop religious nutballs hell bent on going to Mecca and sending you, me or anyone else to hell actually helps. Maybe if they hadn't waisted their time and efforts on him they might have been able to put a real guilty terrorist behind those bars.. See your assuming and its one big massive fucking assumption... That they haven't stopped dozens and dozens of terrorists with those tactics! Yeah but here's the rub - by sticking him in guantanamo bay he's a recruiting tool for future terrorists - "look how America treats Muslims" If you honestly believe that he is guilty but you can't prove it then the answer is that you put a bullet in the back of his head and then make up some lame excuse "he attacked a guard / he tried to escape bla bla". That's real politics for you. If he's really such a national security threat then you kill him like Saddam or Osama. Those are the real choices - kill or trial. Not some stupid, half assed middle ground that clearly works against our national interest and proported values. . News for you, Islamic fundamentalism or Muslims who take Islamic fundamentals seriously. They don't give a shit about human rights, they certainly don't give a shit about how we treat Muslims, there killing more Muslims than the west has ever done! They just want you dead... Everything else is incidental bollocks. This western bullshit self flagellation of oooo look how awful we treat Muslims look how poor they are, look how we look down on there culture, surely this will turn them into terrorists. Err no not according to the recent events." So kill em then - as I said. Or you can explain how guantanamo bay helps national security? | |||
" Just one question: why couldn't he have a trial? . You say that but you offer no solutions to the other!! So come on hit me with your best solutions for tackling religious nutballs hell bent on going to mecca and sending me to hell! Why don't you tell us how locking up a person for 14 years with no evidence that they have done anything illegal is helping to stop religious nutballs hell bent on going to Mecca and sending you, me or anyone else to hell actually helps. Maybe if they hadn't waisted their time and efforts on him they might have been able to put a real guilty terrorist behind those bars.. See your assuming and its one big massive fucking assumption... That they haven't stopped dozens and dozens of terrorists with those tactics! Yeah but here's the rub - by sticking him in guantanamo bay he's a recruiting tool for future terrorists - "look how America treats Muslims" If you honestly believe that he is guilty but you can't prove it then the answer is that you put a bullet in the back of his head and then make up some lame excuse "he attacked a guard / he tried to escape bla bla". That's real politics for you. If he's really such a national security threat then you kill him like Saddam or Osama. Those are the real choices - kill or trial. Not some stupid, half assed middle ground that clearly works against our national interest and proported values. . News for you, Islamic fundamentalism or Muslims who take Islamic fundamentals seriously. They don't give a shit about human rights, they certainly don't give a shit about how we treat Muslims, there killing more Muslims than the west has ever done! They just want you dead... Everything else is incidental bollocks. This western bullshit self flagellation of oooo look how awful we treat Muslims look how poor they are, look how we look down on there culture, surely this will turn them into terrorists. Err no not according to the recent events." You seem to be arguing with people who aren't here. I'm not self flagellating either myself or the west. I'm also totally aware that some Islamists have no regard for human rights or life whether theirs or anyone else's. That's what were meant to be fighting against, isn't it? I'm just not of the opinion that throwing away our commitment to human rights, liberty and the rule of law is the best way of defeating them. | |||
" Just one question: why couldn't he have a trial? . You say that but you offer no solutions to the other!! So come on hit me with your best solutions for tackling religious nutballs hell bent on going to mecca and sending me to hell! Why don't you tell us how locking up a person for 14 years with no evidence that they have done anything illegal is helping to stop religious nutballs hell bent on going to Mecca and sending you, me or anyone else to hell actually helps. Maybe if they hadn't waisted their time and efforts on him they might have been able to put a real guilty terrorist behind those bars.. See your assuming and its one big massive fucking assumption... That they haven't stopped dozens and dozens of terrorists with those tactics! Yeah but here's the rub - by sticking him in guantanamo bay he's a recruiting tool for future terrorists - "look how America treats Muslims" If you honestly believe that he is guilty but you can't prove it then the answer is that you put a bullet in the back of his head and then make up some lame excuse "he attacked a guard / he tried to escape bla bla". That's real politics for you. If he's really such a national security threat then you kill him like Saddam or Osama. Those are the real choices - kill or trial. Not some stupid, half assed middle ground that clearly works against our national interest and proported values. . News for you, Islamic fundamentalism or Muslims who take Islamic fundamentals seriously. They don't give a shit about human rights, they certainly don't give a shit about how we treat Muslims, there killing more Muslims than the west has ever done! They just want you dead... Everything else is incidental bollocks. This western bullshit self flagellation of oooo look how awful we treat Muslims look how poor they are, look how we look down on there culture, surely this will turn them into terrorists. Err no not according to the recent events. You seem to be arguing with people who aren't here. I'm not self flagellating either myself or the west. I'm also totally aware that some Islamists have no regard for human rights or life whether theirs or anyone else's. That's what were meant to be fighting against, isn't it? I'm just not of the opinion that throwing away our commitment to human rights, liberty and the rule of law is the best way of defeating them." And I'm taking a slightly different logic that advertising our throwing away of liberty is the worst of all options | |||
" Just one question: why couldn't he have a trial? . You say that but you offer no solutions to the other!! So come on hit me with your best solutions for tackling religious nutballs hell bent on going to mecca and sending me to hell! Why don't you tell us how locking up a person for 14 years with no evidence that they have done anything illegal is helping to stop religious nutballs hell bent on going to Mecca and sending you, me or anyone else to hell actually helps. Maybe if they hadn't waisted their time and efforts on him they might have been able to put a real guilty terrorist behind those bars.. See your assuming and its one big massive fucking assumption... That they haven't stopped dozens and dozens of terrorists with those tactics! Yeah but here's the rub - by sticking him in guantanamo bay he's a recruiting tool for future terrorists - "look how America treats Muslims" If you honestly believe that he is guilty but you can't prove it then the answer is that you put a bullet in the back of his head and then make up some lame excuse "he attacked a guard / he tried to escape bla bla". That's real politics for you. If he's really such a national security threat then you kill him like Saddam or Osama. Those are the real choices - kill or trial. Not some stupid, half assed middle ground that clearly works against our national interest and proported values. . News for you, Islamic fundamentalism or Muslims who take Islamic fundamentals seriously. They don't give a shit about human rights, they certainly don't give a shit about how we treat Muslims, there killing more Muslims than the west has ever done! They just want you dead... Everything else is incidental bollocks. This western bullshit self flagellation of oooo look how awful we treat Muslims look how poor they are, look how we look down on there culture, surely this will turn them into terrorists. Err no not according to the recent events. You seem to be arguing with people who aren't here. I'm not self flagellating either myself or the west. I'm also totally aware that some Islamists have no regard for human rights or life whether theirs or anyone else's. That's what were meant to be fighting against, isn't it? I'm just not of the opinion that throwing away our commitment to human rights, liberty and the rule of law is the best way of defeating them. And I'm taking a slightly different logic that advertising our throwing away of liberty is the worst of all options" . Why? Why do you think people who couldn't give a shit about human rights would care what we do with our human rights!. I often read that bombing Syria will create more terrorists, err why exactly? I must have missed the bit about most of them going there and killing thousands of Syrians! There poor, there uneducated, well no, most of them are not poor living bad lifestyles or uneducated, in fact nearly all the suicide nutjobs of 911 were well off, well educated and never been bombed in their lives! You'd be more honest to say well payed, well educated, more than likely engineers or doctors.. The only other similarity they have is there all Muslims of the devout nature. Beliefs have consequences and crazy beliefs have crazy consequences, to imagine that the reason they all wanna behead, shoot, maim, rape, burn, kill, torture and more to the point, remove every right you've got.. Is all the fault of western intervention is honestly, the biggest load of bollocks ive ever heard. There ideologically flawed from birth with religious doctrine that anybody with any remote bit of honesty will tell you is at absolute contradiction of western values. This problem was always coming, all the west is responsible for, is speeding the process up by removing the dictatorships that held the brutal barbaric fundermental religious beliefs at bay. Do I feel bad about some guys civil rights.. Yeah Do I wish they wouldn't happen... Yeah Do I think western elected democratic governments are comparable to Stalin, Hitler and Mao.... No, for Christ's sake, Margret Thatcher broke more citizens rights over the miners strike! Do I think it's highly likely that to fight a war with islamists who will hide amongst innocents, that rights will be broke occasionally. Unfortunately yeah | |||
| |||
"Why? Because we aren't appealing to the ISIS hardcore, we're trying to appeal to the civilian population who mainly sit on the fence, but have the ability to make our troops lives a lot easier. If I was unsure about whether to believe someone telling me that the west hates Muslims then id be pretty persuaded by the sight of TV images with a whole bunch of people that look like me wearing orange jump suits kneeling in boiling heat at gun point. Hence why it's better to pull the trigger - in private or give them a trial. " . So what disturbs them more, an orange boilersuit in the heat with a gun at their head, or an orange boilersuit in a cage on fire? There sitting on the fence about this!... It's worse than I thought!. According to the pew polls which I was flicking through the other week. 70% of Indonesians want sharia 80% of Afghanis 74% of Pakistanis 65% of Iranians 12% of Turks... Turks there a secular nation. Only about 25% of Muslims live in Muslim countries, so there's a blessing well no actually. 32% of Russian Muslims want sharia To get really low figures of Muslims not wishing to have sharia you have to go to eastern Europe where it drops below the 5 and 10% range. It's really not the tiny minority of Muslims with crazy beliefs of stoning adulteress, stoning rape victims, butchering gay people, devaluing women and absolutely no talk of free speech, civil liberties, freedom of thought, the right to religious practise and free cartoon drawing sessions on Monday afternoons!. But no... My big worry should be a Saudi national who was caught in a war zone, with dubious reasons, who was legally rendered by the US military, who offered to release him to Saudi Arabia years ago and I may add the uk government which made numerous calls for his release from internment and now is offering him, free law, free housing, residency, free health care, benefits... I'm sorry, I just don't see the evidence for the uk government becoming Stalin or Mao in two years time or twenty years time! | |||
| |||
"You get that Sharia isn't like the bible right? There's no unified, agreed upon definition of what Sharia even is. It's like going around asking people "hey, do you want a fair tax system" - guess what 100% of people do! " . There's disagreements on detail not alot on the main issues... It's why there's no gay clubs in Palestine but loads in Israel! We could go through the long long long list of various Muslim sects and I'll agree this ones less crazy than that one and that ones way more crazy than the other and yada yada yada! And yes I get that sharia isn't like the bible or the Qur'an even! And I get that cannon law isn't the bible either And I get that unlike cannon law which is only concerned for Catholics,sharia is actually meant for every single person on earth, regardless of whether they wish to live under it or not! Not all religions are equal Jain's for instance are so obsessed with following the doctrine of peace and hurting no living creature that when they get really really nuts and completely fundermentalist they spend all their time watching where they walk, for fear of walking on insects, or putting scarf's around their mouths to stop them breathing in fly's... Funnily enough The more fundermentalist they get, the less I have to worry about them beheading me for saying Jain's are dicks following a dickish ridiculous practise based on bollocks!. | |||
"You get that Sharia isn't like the bible right? There's no unified, agreed upon definition of what Sharia even is. It's like going around asking people "hey, do you want a fair tax system" - guess what 100% of people do! . There's disagreements on detail not alot on the main issues... It's why there's no gay clubs in Palestine but loads in Israel! We could go through the long long long list of various Muslim sects and I'll agree this ones less crazy than that one and that ones way more crazy than the other and yada yada yada! And yes I get that sharia isn't like the bible or the Qur'an even! And I get that cannon law isn't the bible either And I get that unlike cannon law which is only concerned for Catholics,sharia is actually meant for every single person on earth, regardless of whether they wish to live under it or not! Not all religions are equal Jain's for instance are so obsessed with following the doctrine of peace and hurting no living creature that when they get really really nuts and completely fundermentalist they spend all their time watching where they walk, for fear of walking on insects, or putting scarf's around their mouths to stop them breathing in fly's... Funnily enough The more fundermentalist they get, the less I have to worry about them beheading me for saying Jain's are dicks following a dickish ridiculous practise based on bollocks!. " No gay clubs in Palestine? Where do they go for a hassle free night out without the aggro of a straight bar? | |||
"You get that Sharia isn't like the bible right? There's no unified, agreed upon definition of what Sharia even is. It's like going around asking people "hey, do you want a fair tax system" - guess what 100% of people do! . There's disagreements on detail not alot on the main issues... It's why there's no gay clubs in Palestine but loads in Israel! We could go through the long long long list of various Muslim sects and I'll agree this ones less crazy than that one and that ones way more crazy than the other and yada yada yada! And yes I get that sharia isn't like the bible or the Qur'an even! And I get that cannon law isn't the bible either And I get that unlike cannon law which is only concerned for Catholics,sharia is actually meant for every single person on earth, regardless of whether they wish to live under it or not! Not all religions are equal Jain's for instance are so obsessed with following the doctrine of peace and hurting no living creature that when they get really really nuts and completely fundermentalist they spend all their time watching where they walk, for fear of walking on insects, or putting scarf's around their mouths to stop them breathing in fly's... Funnily enough The more fundermentalist they get, the less I have to worry about them beheading me for saying Jain's are dicks following a dickish ridiculous practise based on bollocks!. No gay clubs in Palestine? Where do they go for a hassle free night out without the aggro of a straight bar? " . Israel! | |||
" Just one question: why couldn't he have a trial? . You say that but you offer no solutions to the other!! So come on hit me with your best solutions for tackling religious nutballs hell bent on going to mecca and sending me to hell! Why don't you tell us how locking up a person for 14 years with no evidence that they have done anything illegal is helping to stop religious nutballs hell bent on going to Mecca and sending you, me or anyone else to hell actually helps. Maybe if they hadn't waisted their time and efforts on him they might have been able to put a real guilty terrorist behind those bars.. See your assuming and its one big massive fucking assumption... That they haven't stopped dozens and dozens of terrorists with those tactics! Yeah but here's the rub - by sticking him in guantanamo bay he's a recruiting tool for future terrorists - "look how America treats Muslims" If you honestly believe that he is guilty but you can't prove it then the answer is that you put a bullet in the back of his head and then make up some lame excuse "he attacked a guard / he tried to escape bla bla". That's real politics for you. If he's really such a national security threat then you kill him like Saddam or Osama. Those are the real choices - kill or trial. Not some stupid, half assed middle ground that clearly works against our national interest and proported values. . News for you, Islamic fundamentalism or Muslims who take Islamic fundamentals seriously. They don't give a shit about human rights, they certainly don't give a shit about how we treat Muslims, there killing more Muslims than the west has ever done! They just want you dead... Everything else is incidental bollocks. This western bullshit self flagellation of oooo look how awful we treat Muslims look how poor they are, look how we look down on there culture, surely this will turn them into terrorists. Err no not according to the recent events. You seem to be arguing with people who aren't here. I'm not self flagellating either myself or the west. I'm also totally aware that some Islamists have no regard for human rights or life whether theirs or anyone else's. That's what were meant to be fighting against, isn't it? I'm just not of the opinion that throwing away our commitment to human rights, liberty and the rule of law is the best way of defeating them." . Sorry I missed this post! If I'm arguing with somebody who's not here, then your arguing about things that haven't even happened...I replied before with this. It applies to your implied logic as well, because we aren't throwing our commitment away to human rights as far as I can tell... But no... My big worry should be a Saudi national who was caught in a war zone, with dubious reasons, who was legally rendered by the US military, who offered to release him to Saudi Arabia years ago and I may add the uk government which made numerous calls for his release from internment and now is offering him, free law, free housing, residency, free health care, benefits... I'm sorry, I just don't see the evidence for the uk government becoming Stalin or Mao in two years time or twenty years time! | |||
| |||
" Just one question: why couldn't he have a trial? . You say that but you offer no solutions to the other!! So come on hit me with your best solutions for tackling religious nutballs hell bent on going to mecca and sending me to hell! Why don't you tell us how locking up a person for 14 years with no evidence that they have done anything illegal is helping to stop religious nutballs hell bent on going to Mecca and sending you, me or anyone else to hell actually helps. Maybe if they hadn't waisted their time and efforts on him they might have been able to put a real guilty terrorist behind those bars.. See your assuming and its one big massive fucking assumption... That they haven't stopped dozens and dozens of terrorists with those tactics! Yeah but here's the rub - by sticking him in guantanamo bay he's a recruiting tool for future terrorists - "look how America treats Muslims" If you honestly believe that he is guilty but you can't prove it then the answer is that you put a bullet in the back of his head and then make up some lame excuse "he attacked a guard / he tried to escape bla bla". That's real politics for you. If he's really such a national security threat then you kill him like Saddam or Osama. Those are the real choices - kill or trial. Not some stupid, half assed middle ground that clearly works against our national interest and proported values. . News for you, Islamic fundamentalism or Muslims who take Islamic fundamentals seriously. They don't give a shit about human rights, they certainly don't give a shit about how we treat Muslims, there killing more Muslims than the west has ever done! They just want you dead... Everything else is incidental bollocks. This western bullshit self flagellation of oooo look how awful we treat Muslims look how poor they are, look how we look down on there culture, surely this will turn them into terrorists. Err no not according to the recent events. You seem to be arguing with people who aren't here. I'm not self flagellating either myself or the west. I'm also totally aware that some Islamists have no regard for human rights or life whether theirs or anyone else's. That's what were meant to be fighting against, isn't it? I'm just not of the opinion that throwing away our commitment to human rights, liberty and the rule of law is the best way of defeating them.. Sorry I missed this post! If I'm arguing with somebody who's not here, then your arguing about things that haven't even happened...I replied before with this. It applies to your implied logic as well, because we aren't throwing our commitment away to human rights as far as I can tell... But no... My big worry should be a Saudi national who was caught in a war zone, with dubious reasons, who was legally rendered by the US military, who offered to release him to Saudi Arabia years ago and I may add the uk government which made numerous calls for his release from internment and now is offering him, free law, free housing, residency, free health care, benefits... I'm sorry, I just don't see the evidence for the uk government becoming Stalin or Mao in two years time or twenty years time!" I don't think I ever said that it should be your biggest worry or even that it's as big a worry as some other things. I've also never said that the UK government is in danger of becoming Stalinist or Maoist. Both those things have actually only be said by you. What I have said, and I absolutely stand by it, is that if a man, any man, can be placed in prison for 14 years with no evidence that he has actually done anything illegal or wrong, and with no charges being brought against him for anything, then that is a worry. The fact that I think that that is a worry does not mean that I think David Cameron is the new Hitler, nor that I think the west and it's actions are the sole or even the main cause of Islamists terrorism, nor that I think Britain or the west is on a inevitable road to some sort of 1984 / Brave New World of tyranny and totalitarianism. It just means that I think imprisoning people for long periods of time without trial is wrong and a step in the wrong direction. Stop throwing up straw dog, Aunt Sally arguments and address the actual arguments put and the questions raised, which is, how does locking away anyone, who's not legally guilty of anything, help defend liberty and the rule of law or help to defeat terrorism? | |||
" Just one question: why couldn't he have a trial? . You say that but you offer no solutions to the other!! So come on hit me with your best solutions for tackling religious nutballs hell bent on going to mecca and sending me to hell! Why don't you tell us how locking up a person for 14 years with no evidence that they have done anything illegal is helping to stop religious nutballs hell bent on going to Mecca and sending you, me or anyone else to hell actually helps. Maybe if they hadn't waisted their time and efforts on him they might have been able to put a real guilty terrorist behind those bars.. See your assuming and its one big massive fucking assumption... That they haven't stopped dozens and dozens of terrorists with those tactics! Yeah but here's the rub - by sticking him in guantanamo bay he's a recruiting tool for future terrorists - "look how America treats Muslims" If you honestly believe that he is guilty but you can't prove it then the answer is that you put a bullet in the back of his head and then make up some lame excuse "he attacked a guard / he tried to escape bla bla". That's real politics for you. If he's really such a national security threat then you kill him like Saddam or Osama. Those are the real choices - kill or trial. Not some stupid, half assed middle ground that clearly works against our national interest and proported values. . News for you, Islamic fundamentalism or Muslims who take Islamic fundamentals seriously. They don't give a shit about human rights, they certainly don't give a shit about how we treat Muslims, there killing more Muslims than the west has ever done! They just want you dead... Everything else is incidental bollocks. This western bullshit self flagellation of oooo look how awful we treat Muslims look how poor they are, look how we look down on there culture, surely this will turn them into terrorists. Err no not according to the recent events. You seem to be arguing with people who aren't here. I'm not self flagellating either myself or the west. I'm also totally aware that some Islamists have no regard for human rights or life whether theirs or anyone else's. That's what were meant to be fighting against, isn't it? I'm just not of the opinion that throwing away our commitment to human rights, liberty and the rule of law is the best way of defeating them.. Sorry I missed this post! If I'm arguing with somebody who's not here, then your arguing about things that haven't even happened...I replied before with this. It applies to your implied logic as well, because we aren't throwing our commitment away to human rights as far as I can tell... But no... My big worry should be a Saudi national who was caught in a war zone, with dubious reasons, who was legally rendered by the US military, who offered to release him to Saudi Arabia years ago and I may add the uk government which made numerous calls for his release from internment and now is offering him, free law, free housing, residency, free health care, benefits... I'm sorry, I just don't see the evidence for the uk government becoming Stalin or Mao in two years time or twenty years time! I don't think I ever said that it should be your biggest worry or even that it's as big a worry as some other things. I've also never said that the UK government is in danger of becoming Stalinist or Maoist. Both those things have actually only be said by you. What I have said, and I absolutely stand by it, is that if a man, any man, can be placed in prison for 14 years with no evidence that he has actually done anything illegal or wrong, and with no charges being brought against him for anything, then that is a worry. The fact that I think that that is a worry does not mean that I think David Cameron is the new Hitler, nor that I think the west and it's actions are the sole or even the main cause of Islamists terrorism, nor that I think Britain or the west is on a inevitable road to some sort of 1984 / Brave New World of tyranny and totalitarianism. It just means that I think imprisoning people for long periods of time without trial is wrong and a step in the wrong direction. Stop throwing up straw dog, Aunt Sally arguments and address the actual arguments put and the questions raised, which is, how does locking away anyone, who's not legally guilty of anything, help defend liberty and the rule of law or help to defeat terrorism?" . I like a man who takes his time to really think about his reply! You do realise that nobody in the uk had anything to do with this guys interment, nobody in the uk has brought in draconian powers to limit anybody's civil liberties, nobody has even attempted to mention it in conversation anywhere in government. In fact the UK government on several occasions has made numerous calls for his release! So your point is how a foreign military can intern this man for 14 years without trial in another country and that this will somehow interfere with my uk civil liberties... Lol what's that you were saying about strawman! So now you want me to answer something I've already said I disagreed with, I don't agree with locking people up without trial! My point was how this has came about and why I'm less fussed about which danger I'm in fear of. Like I said Margret Thatcher broke more uk citizens civil rights, right here in the UK. So does it come down to just breaking a persons civil rights in a small way being less damaging than the large ones as you pointed out earlier... In which case start with Thatcher for eroding the rights in the first place, you see that's where your personal ideological thought process fails, because your a Tory, you approve of those civil rights being eroded, "it's good for the country" to stop striking and improve our economy! See you looked at facts and made an assumption that it's ok eroding those rights because it's in our long term interests(besides all those miners were white you couldn't have been possibly labeled a racist or a minerist for saying those crazy miners and they're ideological stupidity of just thinking we can keep paying them from taxs forever). If you've honestly only just realised that the UK government sometimes gets a bit near the knuckle with civil rights, well I can only presume you've not been bothered or not been looking for quite awhile. So back to the original question you posed me (I hate hypothetical scenarios they tend to lead you down the right wing of tolerance) anyhow how does locking up this guy without trial prevent terrorism, it rarely will is the honest answer, why they torture him when they know full well that the information that he'll give will be useless, well I won't state my thoughts here but if you really want to know pm me. The one thing I will state in the defence of the state is it's set up in such away that checks and balances will nearly always correct temporary excursions! | |||
| |||
| |||
"Say something nice about Thatcher, something good that she achieved - I dare you ""I dare you, motherfucker! Double dare you!" | |||
| |||
"Say something nice about Thatcher, something good that she achieved - I dare you ". Mmmmm let me think??? She fought the ira with the only manner she knew would work! She took no shit from Argentina and suspended all human rights thoughts while torpedoing an enemy ship she had no proof was going to be a threat! She said the eu would never work as northern Europe has different cultural practises than southern Europe She foresaw the end of manufacturing in the uk long before anyone else realised it was over! | |||
"I thought this was the 4k thread I was completely lost how we got to thatcher" I know. It was very interesting and then I lost the will to live. | |||
| |||
"I thought this was the 4k thread I was completely lost how we got to thatcher I know. It was very interesting and then I lost the will to live. " . That's just what Socrates said! Bloody splitter | |||
"Say something nice about Thatcher, something good that she achieved - I dare you .
Mmmmm let me think???
She fought the ira with the only manner she knew would work!
She took no shit from Argentina and suspended all human rights thoughts while torpedoing an enemy ship she had no proof was going to be a threat!
She said the eu would never work as northern Europe has different cultural practises than southern Europe
She foresaw the end of manufacturing in the uk long before anyone else realised it was over!"Well done. I don't actually agree with the last one but still, that can't have been easy for you | |||
"Say something nice about Thatcher, something good that she achieved - I dare you .
Mmmmm let me think???
She fought the ira with the only manner she knew would work!
She took no shit from Argentina and suspended all human rights thoughts while torpedoing an enemy ship she had no proof was going to be a threat!
She said the eu would never work as northern Europe has different cultural practises than southern Europe
She foresaw the end of manufacturing in the uk long before anyone else realised it was over!
Well done. I don't actually agree with the last one but still, that can't have been easy for you ". Yeah your correct, I should have put heavy manufacturing! You know me to well young man  | |||
"Say something nice about Thatcher, something good that she achieved - I dare you .
Mmmmm let me think???
She fought the ira with the only manner she knew would work!
She took no shit from Argentina and suspended all human rights thoughts while torpedoing an enemy ship she had no proof was going to be a threat!
She said the eu would never work as northern Europe has different cultural practises than southern Europe
She foresaw the end of manufacturing in the uk long before anyone else realised it was over!
Well done. I don't actually agree with the last one but still, that can't have been easy for you .
Yeah your correct, I should have put heavy manufacturing!
You know me to well young man "I'm not really sure where the boundary is exactly but I don't see any fundamental competitive advantage that Germany has that means we couldn't compete with it in manufacturing had 'we' made the right decisions at the right time. The stuff that's gone to Asia, well yeah that was on the way out but there are plenty of products that can be manufactured in economies with higher wages, the trend has been that wages account for an increasingly smaller proportion of product costs. | |||
"ok lets all agree the holding without trial,for whatever reason(s) is simply appalling. Now think ; What if your Top informant placed him/someone,at the heart of a plot to let off a nuclear device .. He has the intel,but no evidence is available.. Do you let him go,put him under surveilance,run the risk of losing him? Or do you say`its wrong to hold him but,can we afford to let him go`? " If Intel and top informants can't build a case in, oh let's say a year, then there is something wrong and they have to let him go. | |||
| |||
" If Intel and top informants can't build a case in, oh let's say a year, then there is something wrong and they have to let him go. " My thoughts entirely | |||
"ok lets all agree the holding without trial,for whatever reason(s) is simply appalling. Now think ; What if your Top informant placed him/someone,at the heart of a plot to let off a nuclear device .. He has the intel,but no evidence is available.. Do you let him go,put him under surveilance,run the risk of losing him? Or do you say`its wrong to hold him but,can we afford to let him go`? If Intel and top informants can't build a case in, oh let's say a year, then there is something wrong and they have to let him go. " I belive unlike the UK the USA does not have secret courts where the defandant cannot be told the evidence against him. So if the Intel came from a source they wanted to keep safe then they have no way to try him. Not that I agree with gitmo at all before you jump on me. | |||
" I don't think I ever said that it should be your biggest worry or even that it's as big a worry as some other things. I've also never said that the UK government is in danger of becoming Stalinist or Maoist. Both those things have actually only be said by you. What I have said, and I absolutely stand by it, is that if a man, any man, can be placed in prison for 14 years with no evidence that he has actually done anything illegal or wrong, and with no charges being brought against him for anything, then that is a worry. The fact that I think that that is a worry does not mean that I think David Cameron is the new Hitler, nor that I think the west and it's actions are the sole or even the main cause of Islamists terrorism, nor that I think Britain or the west is on a inevitable road to some sort of 1984 / Brave New World of tyranny and totalitarianism. It just means that I think imprisoning people for long periods of time without trial is wrong and a step in the wrong direction. Stop throwing up straw dog, Aunt Sally arguments and address the actual arguments put and the questions raised, which is, how does locking away anyone, who's not legally guilty of anything, help defend liberty and the rule of law or help to defeat terrorism?. I like a man who takes his time to really think about his reply! You do realise that nobody in the uk had anything to do with this guys interment, nobody in the uk has brought in draconian powers to limit anybody's civil liberties, nobody has even attempted to mention it in conversation anywhere in government. In fact the UK government on several occasions has made numerous calls for his release! " I don't really see the relevance here. The question is not whether the UK government was right to detain him for 14 years without trial but whether it is right for any country to detain anyone indefinitely without providing evidence which can be tested in a court of law. The UK and it's government is only relevant if it can be proved that it was somehow compliant in either his capture, treatment or continued incarceration. " So your point is how a foreign military can intern this man for 14 years without trial in another country and that this will somehow interfere with my uk civil liberties... Lol what's that you were saying about strawman! " No, my point is is that a man was held for 14 years without being charged with any offence and no evidence has ever been put forward to show that he has done anything either illegal or wrong. The country that did this is a country that has a legal system based on the same premise as ours (rule of law, common law, Democratic oversight) and we should say that it's wrong because if it can happen there then it could happen here. " So now you want me to answer something I've already said I disagreed with, I don't agree with locking people up without trial! " Then just say that and stop adding all the equivocal ifs, buts, maybes and sometimes. " My point was how this has came about and why I'm less fussed about which danger I'm in fear of. Like I said Margret Thatcher broke more uk citizens civil rights, right here in the UK. So does it come down to just breaking a persons civil rights in a small way being less damaging than the large ones as you pointed out earlier... In which case start with Thatcher for eroding the rights in the first place, you see that's where your personal ideological thought process fails, because your a Tory, you approve of those civil rights being eroded, "it's good for the country" to stop striking and improve our economy! " Actually it's your thought process and analysis that is very seriously failing on this point. I have never been a particularly great fan of Mrs. T and, whilst I did agree with the stand against extreme socialism and Arthur Scargil in particular, I definitely did not and still do not approve of the way the police were used in the miner's strike. In fact I'm a firm believer that what happened during that strike is partly responsible for the lack of respect that many seem to now hold for the police in general. " See you looked at facts and made an assumption that it's ok eroding those rights because it's in our long term interests(besides all those miners were white you couldn't have been possibly labeled a racist or a minerist for saying those crazy miners and they're ideological stupidity of just thinking we can keep paying them from taxs forever). " You really need to stop putting words you think people might say into their mouths. I've never said or argued any of those things and never would. I definitely don't believe that the ends justifies the means. That's why I'm opposed to locking this guy, or indeed anyone, up for 14 years without either a trial or any evidence that he has done anything illegal or wrong. It seems to me that it's you that seems to think human rights, individual liberty and the rule of law don't matter if it's either not directly affecting you, in another country or to reach an end that you consider desirable. " If you've honestly only just realised that the UK government sometimes gets a bit near the knuckle with civil rights, well I can only presume you've not been bothered or not been looking for quite awhile. " The fact that I oppose this infringement of a person's human rights is has nothing to do with whether I'm aware or otherwise about other infringements. However, if you read my posts on this thread, you'll see that I have already mentioned other cases both here, in the US and Europe. " So back to the original question you posed me (I hate hypothetical scenarios they tend to lead you down the right wing of tolerance) anyhow how does locking up this guy without trial prevent terrorism, it rarely will is the honest answer, why they torture him when they know full well that the information that he'll give will be useless, well I won't state my thoughts here but if you really want to know pm me. " When you agree with what someone is saying it's often a lot easier to just say you agree than try and tell them that they're saying things they never actually said. " The one thing I will state in the defence of the state is it's set up in such away that checks and balances will nearly always correct temporary excursions!" I agree but only when the faults and errors are actually pointed out. | |||
"ok lets all agree the holding without trial,for whatever reason(s) is simply appalling. Now think ; What if your Top informant placed him/someone,at the heart of a plot to let off a nuclear device .. He has the intel,but no evidence is available.. Do you let him go,put him under surveilance,run the risk of losing him? Or do you say`its wrong to hold him but,can we afford to let him go`? If Intel and top informants can't build a case in, oh let's say a year, then there is something wrong and they have to let him go. I belive unlike the UK the USA does not have secret courts where the defandant cannot be told the evidence against him. So if the Intel came from a source they wanted to keep safe then they have no way to try him. Not that I agree with gitmo at all before you jump on me. " I'm not totally happy with the idea of secret courts either to be honest with you. They cause enough problems in the family courts, God forbid that we should extend them even further into the criminal courts system. | |||
"Say something nice about Thatcher, something good that she achieved - I dare you .
Mmmmm let me think???
She fought the ira with the only manner she knew would work!
She took no shit from Argentina and suspended all human rights thoughts while torpedoing an enemy ship she had no proof was going to be a threat!
She said the eu would never work as northern Europe has different cultural practises than southern Europe
She foresaw the end of manufacturing in the uk long before anyone else realised it was over!
Well done. I don't actually agree with the last one but still, that can't have been easy for you .
Yeah your correct, I should have put heavy manufacturing!
You know me to well young man
I'm not really sure where the boundary is exactly but I don't see any fundamental competitive advantage that Germany has that means we couldn't compete with it in manufacturing had 'we' made the right decisions at the right time.
The stuff that's gone to Asia, well yeah that was on the way out but there are plenty of products that can be manufactured in economies with higher wages, the trend has been that wages account for an increasingly smaller proportion of product costs. ". Heavy industry is energy intensive! After the 74 and 79 energy crises, it made it impossible to continue with it unless its efficiency was hugely improved.. In reality Germany and Japan had massive gains from losing the war, complete rebuild of infrastructure, debts wiped off, no army, no nuclear weapons to pay for and a complete national outlook change of where to go and what to do moving forward!. | |||
| |||
"Say something nice about Thatcher, something good that she achieved - I dare you .
Mmmmm let me think???
She fought the ira with the only manner she knew would work!
She took no shit from Argentina and suspended all human rights thoughts while torpedoing an enemy ship she had no proof was going to be a threat!
She said the eu would never work as northern Europe has different cultural practises than southern Europe
She foresaw the end of manufacturing in the uk long before anyone else realised it was over!
Well done. I don't actually agree with the last one but still, that can't have been easy for you .
Yeah your correct, I should have put heavy manufacturing!
You know me to well young man
I'm not really sure where the boundary is exactly but I don't see any fundamental competitive advantage that Germany has that means we couldn't compete with it in manufacturing had 'we' made the right decisions at the right time.
The stuff that's gone to Asia, well yeah that was on the way out but there are plenty of products that can be manufactured in economies with higher wages, the trend has been that wages account for an increasingly smaller proportion of product costs. .
Heavy industry is energy intensive!
After the 74 and 79 energy crises, it made it impossible to continue with it unless its efficiency was hugely improved.. In reality Germany and Japan had massive gains from losing the war, complete rebuild of infrastructure, debts wiped off, no army, no nuclear weapons to pay for and a complete national outlook change of where to go and what to do moving forward!."Well nuclear weapons aren't particularly expensive in the grand scheme of things so not sure why they needed to be singled out. They come out our defence budget, which is half our NHS budget, which is smaller than our DWP budget. National outlook, energy prices I agree with and infrastructure is just a choice 'we' made | |||
"Say something nice about Thatcher, something good that she achieved - I dare you .
Mmmmm let me think???
She fought the ira with the only manner she knew would work!
She took no shit from Argentina and suspended all human rights thoughts while torpedoing an enemy ship she had no proof was going to be a threat!
She said the eu would never work as northern Europe has different cultural practises than southern Europe
She foresaw the end of manufacturing in the uk long before anyone else realised it was over!
Well done. I don't actually agree with the last one but still, that can't have been easy for you .
Yeah your correct, I should have put heavy manufacturing!
You know me to well young man
I'm not really sure where the boundary is exactly but I don't see any fundamental competitive advantage that Germany has that means we couldn't compete with it in manufacturing had 'we' made the right decisions at the right time.
The stuff that's gone to Asia, well yeah that was on the way out but there are plenty of products that can be manufactured in economies with higher wages, the trend has been that wages account for an increasingly smaller proportion of product costs. .
Heavy industry is energy intensive!
After the 74 and 79 energy crises, it made it impossible to continue with it unless its efficiency was hugely improved.. In reality Germany and Japan had massive gains from losing the war, complete rebuild of infrastructure, debts wiped off, no army, no nuclear weapons to pay for and a complete national outlook change of where to go and what to do moving forward!.
Well nuclear weapons aren't particularly expensive in the grand scheme of things so not sure why they needed to be singled out. They come out our defence budget, which is half our NHS budget, which is smaller than our DWP budget.
National outlook, energy prices I agree with and infrastructure is just a choice 'we' made". I'm not pointing fingers I'm just pointing out that both Japan and Germany were demolished and started again and more to the point the allieds paid for it all. Nuclear weapons aren't expensive perse, but our nuclear rush for weapons comes with huge experiments in nuclear power stations to provide the plutonium for the bombs!... Anyhow in a nutshell that's how Germany and Japan avoided the worse aspects of the 70s energy crises, although I would point out they haven't avoided it forever, you only have to look how the Japanese have been exporting there heavy industry for the last ten years... And that gets us right back on cue to why we had awful alliances with dictatorships in Muslim countries. We needed the energy and we needed somebody to control the chaos!. | |||
"ok lets all agree the holding without trial,for whatever reason(s) is simply appalling. Now think ; What if your Top informant placed him/someone,at the heart of a plot to let off a nuclear device .. He has the intel,but no evidence is available.. Do you let him go,put him under surveilance,run the risk of losing him? Or do you say`its wrong to hold him but,can we afford to let him go`? Intel and evidence are two different things now? I'm not trying to be difficult but I don't understand the concept of 'no evidence'. Release him doesn't mean he's free to go do whatever he wants either, there are other methods than surveillance. We could take a blonde agent who is attractive but shows weakness through her mental conditions making her strong but vulnerable at the same time and get her to pretend to be in love with him and turn him back around..." Is this condition particular to just blondes? Bugger if your target likes red heads | |||
"He entered Afghanistan with a fake passport and wished to live under the Taliban, entering Afghanistan at that time does make it look suspicious (during the conflict)." | |||
"ok lets all agree the holding without trial,for whatever reason(s) is simply appalling. Now think ; What if your Top informant placed him/someone,at the heart of a plot to let off a nuclear device .. He has the intel,but no evidence is available.. Do you let him go,put him under surveilance,run the risk of losing him? Or do you say`its wrong to hold him but,can we afford to let him go`? Intel and evidence are two different things now? I'm not trying to be difficult but I don't understand the concept of 'no evidence'. Release him doesn't mean he's free to go do whatever he wants either, there are other methods than surveillance. We could take a blonde agent who is attractive but shows weakness through her mental conditions making her strong but vulnerable at the same time and get her to pretend to be in love with him and turn him back around... Is this condition particular to just blondes? Bugger if your target likes red heads "My understanding is that middle eastern men go crazy for blondes because of the novelty. However, red hair would probably be a novelty too... | |||
"He entered Afghanistan with a fake passport and wished to live under the Taliban, entering Afghanistan at that time does make it look suspicious (during the conflict). "We have all agreed he's a "fucking idiot" | |||
"ok lets all agree the holding without trial,for whatever reason(s) is simply appalling. Now think ; What if your Top informant placed him/someone,at the heart of a plot to let off a nuclear device .. He has the intel,but no evidence is available.. Do you let him go,put him under surveilance,run the risk of losing him? Or do you say`its wrong to hold him but,can we afford to let him go`? Intel and evidence are two different things now? I'm not trying to be difficult but I don't understand the concept of 'no evidence'. Release him doesn't mean he's free to go do whatever he wants either, there are other methods than surveillance. We could take a blonde agent who is attractive but shows weakness through her mental conditions making her strong but vulnerable at the same time and get her to pretend to be in love with him and turn him back around... Is this condition particular to just blondes? Bugger if your target likes red heads
My understanding is that middle eastern men go crazy for blondes because of the novelty. However, red hair would probably be a novelty too... "Actually Redheads are quite common in Egypt and North Africa. Before the Arabs arrived it was populated, like most of Europe also, by Celts (or so some people believe). | |||
"ok lets all agree the holding without trial,for whatever reason(s) is simply appalling. Now think ; What if your Top informant placed him/someone,at the heart of a plot to let off a nuclear device .. He has the intel,but no evidence is available.. Do you let him go,put him under surveilance,run the risk of losing him? Or do you say`its wrong to hold him but,can we afford to let him go`? Intel and evidence are two different things now? I'm not trying to be difficult but I don't understand the concept of 'no evidence'. Release him doesn't mean he's free to go do whatever he wants either, there are other methods than surveillance. We could take a blonde agent who is attractive but shows weakness through her mental conditions making her strong but vulnerable at the same time and get her to pretend to be in love with him and turn him back around... Is this condition particular to just blondes? Bugger if your target likes red heads
My understanding is that middle eastern men go crazy for blondes because of the novelty. However, red hair would probably be a novelty too...
Actually Redheads are quite common in Egypt and North Africa. Before the Arabs arrived it was populated, like most of Europe also, by Celts (or so some people believe)."Wouldn't they get horribly sunburnt? | |||
"It sickens me to my core that America chose to abuse it's position by detaining people in Cuba without charge. They can be referred to as hostages. The real sadness is that any fair minded individual is willing to accept propaganda that this thuggish behaviour was remotely justifiable. China, Saudi Arabia and extreme organisations such as ISIS can with justification say that our actions speak louder than our words. We should be ashamed. " very true but - 'so what's new'? It's ingrained throughout our history, - very sad! | |||
