Al-Qaeda "terrorists" released

[shereads]

Isn't that a better advertisement for democracy and the rule of law than sending suspected terrorists to GITMO for years?

Og

Yes. And it won't matter one whit in this thread, because the most vocal proponents of Freedom here are terrified of freedom.

Free societies are a bad deal for people whose primary interest is being kept safe by their government. Police states are safe. Free societies are fraught with risk.

 

[wmrs2]

Yes. And it won't matter one whit in this thread, because the most vocal proponents of Freedom here are terrified of freedom.

Free societies are a bad deal for people whose primary interest is being kept safe by their government. Police states are safe. Free societies are fraught with risk.

When you and Ogg hijack my thread you say all that needs to be said about your respect for freedom. You talk a good game but you both are like a $3 bill. You people only like freedom for you.

 

[amicus]

Ishtat...thank you again, the wiki piece was interesting, as is this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republican_Army

The 'Origins' part especially so as it truly relates just how long the conflict has been ongoing...I was not aware of that.

For others who may read but not follow the links, there were more than just American weapons purchased by the IRA, Libya and several European nations also sold weapons to agents of the IRA.

And...as a sidenote...while my sailboat was anchored in Nassau Bay, the QE2 left Port, just as a local fishing boat was drifting out with the tide, a rather large one, about 50 foot I guessed...rowed my lil dingy out, fired up the fishing boats engine and maneuvered it out of the way of the approaching QE2...was an interesting and somewhat exciting experience.



amicus

 

[JamesSD]

So...think as you may that the Islamic world is static and non threatening, I think otherwise.

Like you, I personally have a problem with the policies of many countries with oppressive governments. North Korea, China, Iran, Cuba and Venezuala to name a number of countries where democracy is stifled by a largely totalitarian regime.

We're not at war with any of those countries. Nor are we at war with Islam. Again, I point to Turkey as a sort of "Model moderate Muslim country". I've brought this point up before, and you always duck it. Are we, in your opinion, at war with Turkey? If so, please explain their membership in NATO.

 

[amicus]

That is a sticky wicket, JamesSD, one that I am reluctant to grab hold of.

Many years ago, reading a War Strategy report from the Pentagon, with the secure portions redacted of course, Turkey was expected to be the zone of contention between the Muslim Iraq and the Kurdish Turks. It was predicted that the conflict would draw Europe into the fray and cause repercussions throughout East and West.

There is, even in the last few days, hints that Turkey may invade Iraq to reclaim Kirkuk, which would be a huge conflict as, and you noted, Turkey is in NATO.

There was a time I was current on contemporary events around the globe, had to be, got questioned before a live audience for four hours every day and could not afford not to know.

I no longer make such an effort but do try to keep current.

Thank you...

Amicus

 

[ishtat]

How sad that the 'innocenty until proven guilty' principle was not applied to the Principal Jesuit of England, Father Henry Garnet.

Nonsense, by the standards of the day Garnet was as guilty as he could be. And you can hardly accuse the English of being partisan, they executed their own Archbishop Laud 40 years later by a Bill of attainder when they realised they would never win a guilty verdict.

 

[R. Richard]

Alright, lets's get to the meat of the matter.

The argument presented was that the terrorists are innocent until proven guilty, under UK law. The authorities had no cause to arrest and/or detain them until they had committed a crime. And, implicitly, all legal UK residents have the same rights.

Where I live, there's a law that says the legal limit is one wife. [I assume that you have the same law in the UK.] There's a local troublemaker who has three wives. I tried to have the troublemaker arested. Herman Q. Asskisser leaped up- and told the people, "Our policy is that we will permit a man to have more than one wife, if the plural marriages were legal where they were done." I then said, "Of course, the man may then divorce any of his plural wives by simply saying 'I divorce thee,' three times." Herman Q. Asskisser walked out of the meeting. [Ol' HQA don't mind selling out, just don't bring it up in public.]

My point is, certain religions have more rights than other citizens. This last is contrary to the very basis of English [and, by extension,] US law.

Fomenting armed overthrow of the government is against the law in the US. I assume that the same law is in effect in jolly old. What the Pakistanis were doing was to advocate at least the begining of violent overthrow of the government. [Bombing citizens in the underground is advocating at least the begining of violent overthrow of the government.] Yet, the English government and their scumbags take no action. Why not?

 

[oggbashan]

Alright, lets's get to the meat of the matter.

The argument presented was that the terrorists are innocent until proven guilty, under UK law. The authorities had no cause to arrest and/or detain them until they had committed a crime. And, implicitly, all legal UK residents have the same rights.

...

My point is, certain religions have more rights than other citizens. This last is contrary to the very basis of English [and, by extension,] US law.

Fomenting armed overthrow of the government is against the law in the US. I assume that the same law is in effect in jolly old. What the Pakistanis were doing was to advocate at least the begining of violent overthrow of the government. [Bombing citizens in the underground is advocating at least the begining of violent overthrow of the government.] Yet, the English government and their scumbags take no action. Why not?

Under the Terrorism Act the UK authories HAVE the right to arrest and detain for longer periods than normally allowed, subject to rigorous safeguards. After that time, they have to charge or release the people suspected of terrorism. The authorities must put up, or shut up.

Religions do not have more rights in the UK than other citizens. Some groups may have asked for "rights" but none have been granted.

By consent between contending parties, Jewish or Sharia Law or any other method can be used to settle disputes on the same basis as consensual neighbourhood conciliation. If there is evidence that one party has been coerced into using a different practice than UK law then those doing the coercion can be prosecuted.

We don't know yet what the Pakistanis were doing. Perhaps we will find out over the next few weeks or months because there will be an independent enquiry into this matter.

Grumbling about the government, stating that certain ministers should be hung, drawn and quartered is normal free speech. Talking about revolution over a few beers (the beers are unlikely because it appears the 12 people were practitioners of a particular strict fundamentalist Muslim minority) isn't the same as preparing to attack and kill at random.

We don't know what the 12 were planning. We don't know whether they were planning anything. We don't know whether they were expressing views even as intemperate as some expressed here.

It appears that nothing has been found in writing, in emails, in text messages that could justify prosecution.

All that is left is suspicion that they were up to no good but no proof. Deporting them back to Pakistan and refusing them re-entry is probably the best option.

If they had been planning a real terrorist attack in the UK some evidence should have been found by now (and no, the UK security services are not, neither are the Police in the business of manufacturing evidence).

We don't know. We can't prove. We can only suspect and suspicion, while enough to deport them, isn't enough for any other action in English Law.

Og

 

[R. Richard]

Religions do not have more rights in the UK than other citizens. Some groups may have asked for "rights" but none have been granted.

I will again state, that according to what I read in the UK press, there are bigamists living in London with the full knowledge and at least the implied consent of the English government. The lack of legal action is due to the religion of the bigamists. [We have the same thing in the US.]

Grumbling about the government, stating that certain ministers should be hung, drawn and quartered is normal free speech. Talking about revolution over a few beers (the beers are unlikely because it appears the 12 people were practitioners of a particular strict fundamentalist Muslim minority) isn't the same as preparing to attack and kill at random.

Og

"that certain ministers should be hung," I myself don't believe that 'being hung' should be an issue as far as electability is concerned. However, if it is a requirement that a public official be 'hung' to be eligible for public office, then I demand a public display! I don't vote based upon rumor.

Tio the best of my knowledge, the English government did deport some religious asshole who advocated the overthrow of the English government. The grounds for deportation was that the religious asshole did publically advocate the overthrow of the English government. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[wmrs2]

Under the Terrorism Act the UK authories HAVE the right to arrest and detain for longer periods than normally allowed, subject to rigorous safeguards. After that time, they have to charge or release the people suspected of terrorism. The authorities must put up, or shut up.

Religions do not have more rights in the UK than other citizens. Some groups may have asked for "rights" but none have been granted.

By consent between contending parties, Jewish or Sharia Law or any other method can be used to settle disputes on the same basis as consensual neighbourhood conciliation. If there is evidence that one party has been coerced into using a different practice than UK law then those doing the coercion can be prosecuted.

We don't know yet what the Pakistanis were doing. Perhaps we will find out over the next few weeks or months because there will be an independent enquiry into this matter.

Grumbling about the government, stating that certain ministers should be hung, drawn and quartered is normal free speech. Talking about revolution over a few beers (the beers are unlikely because it appears the 12 people were practitioners of a particular strict fundamentalist Muslim minority) isn't the same as preparing to attack and kill at random.

We don't know what the 12 were planning. We don't know whether they were planning anything. We don't know whether they were expressing views even as intemperate as some expressed here.

It appears that nothing has been found in writing, in emails, in text messages that could justify prosecution.

All that is left is suspicion that they were up to no good but no proof. Deporting them back to Pakistan and refusing them re-entry is probably the best option.

If they had been planning a real terrorist attack in the UK some evidence should have been found by now (and no, the UK security services are not, neither are the Police in the business of manufacturing evidence).

We don't know. We can't prove. We can only suspect and suspicion, while enough to deport them, isn't enough for any other action in English Law.

Og

Ogg. did you ever hear of Voltaire who said “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”? Do you agree with this philosophy? I don't know much about Voltaire because they did not teach about him in the 6th grade but even then they quoted him as making this wonderful statement about freedom.

If actions speak louder than words, you certainly have shown this forum that you disagree strongly with Voltaire. Why have you taken sides with intellectual terrorist who shut down my thread on Uncloaking? The "gang of AH", as they called themselves, made over 167 responses that effectively kept me from voicing my opinion. You made several of these unsolicited remarks and supported very undemocratic and unethical behavior. Therefore, you have forfeited any right you think you have to make any comment about freedom and especially academic freedom.

This is not about you being a liberal because most liberals in the academic world would never support what you did. It is all about character, which you obviously lack; it is about honesty, which you are obviously not; it is about intellectual terrorist, which you obviously are! Welcome to your private club of RABD.

 

[wmrs2]

Can we get a little support over here? Freedom of speech has been challenged and somebody should step forward to comment on the issue.

Here boy! Here Boy! Fetch

 

[oggbashan]

I will again state, that according to what I read in the UK press, there are bigamists living in London with the full knowledge and at least the implied consent of the English government. The lack of legal action is due to the religion of the bigamists. [We have the same thing in the US.]


"that certain ministers should be hung," I myself don't believe that 'being hung' should be an issue as far as electability is concerned. However, if it is a requirement that a public official be 'hung' to be eligible for public office, then I demand a public display! I don't vote based upon rumor.

Tio the best of my knowledge, the English government did deport some religious asshole who advocated the overthrow of the English government. The grounds for deportation was that the religious asshole did publically advocate the overthrow of the English government. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The asshole advocated killing non-believers and voiced complete support of the UK suicide bombers and those responsible for 9/11. That was why he was deported - for preaching hatred and justifying killing those not of his particular weird interpretation of Islam. He was not deported for advocating the overthrow of the UK government. If he had been, at least half the UK electorate would need to be deported at any time.

As for bigamists, UK (and international law) recognises that resident and visiting foreigners can have marriages that are legal by the constitution and laws of the state in which the marriage took place, but would not be legal if the marriage had taken place in the UK (or US). If we, and the international community, did not accept that, we might have to refuse to accept a minority of ambassadors and envoys. If such a person wants say to divorce one of his wives, that divorce would have to be conducted by the laws of his country. If someone with more than one wife wants to become a UK citizen then he would have legal difficulties.

It isn't the religion that is the problem but the differences in marriage laws and customs between countries. In the UK it is legal for people aged 16 to marry if they have parental consent. That caused a problem for a former UK policeman who emigrated to the States. His wife had been 17 when they married. He had been just 18 and a few days. Their first child was born before the wife was 18. That is perfectably legal and acceptable in the UK. However they became US citizens and he wanted to be a policeman in the state they were living in. He had to get a formal pardon for sex with a minor before he could become a policeman.

When Jerry Lee Lewis visited the UK in the 1960s he caused considerable anger because he had married and brought with him his 13-year-old cousin. That marriage was then permissible by the laws of the US state in which they married but upset some people here who made a great fuss in the media. His performances were picketed by disapproving matrons carrying placards condemning him for pedophilia and child rape.

When in Rome, do as the Romans do is still a truism but if your pre-existing family relationships might cause offence it is better to keep a low profile.

Og

 

[amicus]

Yes. And it won't matter one whit in this thread, because the most vocal proponents of Freedom here are terrified of freedom.

Free societies are a bad deal for people whose primary interest is being kept safe by their government. Police states are safe. Free societies are fraught with risk.

~~~

Hello, shereads...it isn't like this is the first time we have expressed conflicting opinions, and this is no exception.

Those who advocate freedom are not in the least 'terrified' of human individual freedom.

Free societies are a bad deal for people whose primary interest is being taken care of by government. Police states destroy the individual. And yes, free societies offer the individual the opportunity to exercise that freedom, which does indeed contain risks.

The essential difference between us is that you believe that 'rights' are granted by government, and I 'know' that rights are inherent, innate, and possessed by the individual and only 'protected' by government.

A free man requires no assistance from government above the enumerated obligations of government to protect his rights.

We possess total opposite mindsets and in issue after issue, I defend freedom, you defend slavery.

Such a deal.

Amicus

 

[oggbashan]

~~~

I say again, with emphasis, you do a great disservice to your nation and mine with your petty feminine bickering over self defense.

Amicus

And from the thread on OPR:

- but, like a woman -

Amicus

This appears to be a new departure for Amicus. "Feminine" and "like a woman" is his new term of abuse for me. I think he must feel outnumbered in the Authors' Hangout if a male poster who disagrees with him must be "feminine".

It is part of his ego trip that he sees his individual freedom as something he can always defend with deadly force.

I hope he never becomes old and frail, unable to lift his penis substitute when threatened by a female robber.

Unregulated individual freedom without any controls can leave many people at the mercy of the thug, bully or criminal. Not every person can defend themselves with deadly force. Can young children defend themselves from a predatory pedophile? Can disabled people, or old and frail people, defend themselves from a street robber? Can every woman fight off a rapist?

Amicus's individual freedom seems to ignore weaker people. Not all stronger, better armed people are knights in shining armour. Nor are they necessarily male.

Og

 

[amicus]

And from the thread on OPR:


This appears to be a new departure for Amicus. "Feminine" and "like a woman" is his new term of abuse for me. I think he must feel outnumbered in the Authors' Hangout if a male poster who disagrees with him must be "feminine".

It is part of his ego trip that he sees his individual freedom as something he can always defend with deadly force.

I hope he never becomes old and frail, unable to lift his penis substitute when threatened by a female robber.

Unregulated individual freedom without any controls can leave many people at the mercy of the thug, bully or criminal. Not every person can defend themselves with deadly force. Can young children defend themselves from a predatory pedophile? Can disabled people, or old and frail people, defend themselves from a street robber? Can every woman fight off a rapist?

Amicus's individual freedom seems to ignore weaker people. Not all stronger, better armed people are knights in shining armour. Nor are they necessarily male.

Og

~~~

Most of the so-called men on this forum speak with a feminine, passive voice, which leads me to believe that 'maleness' is not their strong suit. Even some of the 'straight' men, show aspects of feminine sensitivity, most likely because they were raised by a single parent female and grew up mimicking their ways in the absence of a male role model.

It wasn't so long ago that British 'bobbies' were forbidden to carry firearms on duty, a far cry from the local police, county sheriffs and state police who are fully armed and are hired to protect those weak women and children and older citizens who are no longer capable of defending themselves although many do with mace, pepper spray and personal firearms to amplify the effects of an efficient law enforcement community.

Your lack of understanding of, 'unregulated individual freedom', indicates a failure to comprehend the corollary responsibility to protect the weak and the dependent as a moral obligation inherent in the concept of freedom as it is never, 'free' and bears a heavy responsibility of mutual defense and service to our fellow free colleagues.

Living under a modified, but still antiquarian Monarchical system, ameliorated by a pesky Parliamentary system, the common British citizen has never tasted of the true freedom taken for granted in America.

The situation here has worsened of late with the economic downturn as 82 percent of those losing jobs have been men and women are on the verge of being the majority of the working public. Take that to imply that the already feminine approach to live in general and the work place in specific is even more pronounced than before.

So, yes, I detect and not and take advantage of the increasingly feminine tone of intercourse on the forum and I do not expect that to change any time soon.

Amicus...

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

AMICUS

Ever since blacks and Indians became THE WHITE MAN'S BURDEN, other groups sniffed the air wafting from Washington, liked the aroma, and invented plausible justifications to feed at the same trough...females, retards, cripples, queers, Vets, addicts, psychos, etc. Transactional Analysts call the game WOODEN LEG (What do you expect from someone with a wooden leg?). The Boyz with BB Balls are simply the latest applicants.

 

[Liar]

Like you, I personally have a problem with the policies of many countries with oppressive governments. North Korea, China, Iran, Cuba and Venezuala to name a number of countries where democracy is stifled by a largely totalitarian regime.

We're not at war with any of those countries. Nor are we at war with Islam. Again, I point to Turkey as a sort of "Model moderate Muslim country". I've brought this point up before, and you always duck it. Are we, in your opinion, at war with Turkey? If so, please explain their membership in NATO.

You are also not at war with India, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Egypt, Nigeria, Algeria and Morocco. Nor are you technically at war with Pakistan, it's more of a frenemies relationship, where some dangerous fringe yahoos in the north cause trouble that Pakistan is too politically and militarily crippled to deal with on their own.

So, out of the ten biggest Muslim countries in the world, only one, Iran, is solidly on the West's shit-list.

 

[R. Richard]

In the United States, there exists a religion called Mormonism. Mormonism is practiced by a fairly large number of people and is accepted as a 'real' religion, not just a cult. Back when, the Mormons practiced polygamy, as a part of their religion. The US Supreme Court decided that the Mormons were not allowed to practice polygamy. The Mormons, with a scumbag gun at their heads, decided to abandon polygamy [more or less, there are still a few holdouts.] Thus, polygamy is illegal in the United States, to this very day [more or less.]

If you're a Mormon and you attempt to practice polygamy, off you go to jail. However, if you are a Muslim, at least the proper kind of Muslim, you are allowed to practice polygamy in the United States. At least most of the Muslims who do practice polygamy in the United States are foreigners, not US citizens [there are US citizen Muslims who do manage to practice polygamy.] The scumbags will jail Mormons who try to practice polygamy [Google it up, they make a few arrests most every year.] The scumbags WON'T jail Muslims who practice polygamy. [I have had some monologues with the scumbags. regarding the matter, as well as other matters. I have attempted to excuse their dereliction of duty based upon the fact that they bitches sell it on the street (I have true copies of two wifely arrest records.) However, the scumbags refuse to respond or even listen. (They have their penis substitutes strapped to their belts, I have my .475 Wildey. Why does a scumbag carry a gun, if it isn't prepared to use it?) TIA.]

The scumbags don't enforce the law, if indeed there is such a thing as the law. They do enforce scumbag policy against unarmed slaves. They often don't attempt to enforce scumbag policy against armed citizens. [Probably just as well, most of they dearly beloved be baghos, can't make a living selling pussy at an outlaw motorcycle rally.]

By the way and just for the record, I don't much like scumbags.

 

[SimonBrooke]

If you're a Mormon and you attempt to practice polygamy, off you go to jail. However, if you are a Muslim, at least the proper kind of Muslim, you are allowed to practice polygamy in the United States. At least most of the Muslims who do practice polygamy in the United States are foreigners, not US citizens [there are US citizen Muslims who do manage to practice polygamy.]

This is simply untrue. Polygamous Mormons were demonstrating publicly on the streets of Salt Lake City last autumn with the police in attendance, and none were arrested or prosecuted. As far as I know the only polygamous Mormons who have been jailed in the past ten years are those who have been jailed for child sexual abuse, which is another matter altogether.

 

[R. Richard]

This is simply untrue. Polygamous Mormons were demonstrating publicly on the streets of Salt Lake City last autumn with the police in attendance, and none were arrested or prosecuted. As far as I know the only polygamous Mormons who have been jailed in the past ten years are those who have been jailed for child sexual abuse, which is another matter altogether.

According to Gordon B. Hinckley, 15th Prophet and President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, you are wrong.

Mormons, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, do not practice polygamy. The term "Mormon Polygamy" is incorrect, as anyone who follows this practice in our day is not a member of the Church but belongs instead to some fundamentalist or other religious denomination. Gordon B. Hinckley, 15th Prophet and President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, stated the following about polygamy in the Church's General Conference of October 1998:

I wish to state categorically that this Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of this Church. Most of them have never been members. They are in violation of the civil law. They know they are in violation of the law. They are subject to its penalties. The Church, of course, has no jurisdiction whatever in this matter.

If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church. An article of our faith is binding upon us. It states, 'We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law' (Articles of Faith 1:12). One cannot obey the law and disobey the law at the same time.

There is no such thing as a 'Mormon Fundamentalist.' It is a contradiction to use the two words together.

 

[shereads]

According to Gordon B. Hinckley, 15th Prophet and President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, you are wrong.

He must be wrong then, if Gordon B. Hinckley says it.

 

[R. Richard]

This is simply untrue. Polygamous Mormons were demonstrating publicly on the streets of Salt Lake City last autumn with the police in attendance, and none were arrested or prosecuted. As far as I know the only polygamous Mormons who have been jailed in the past ten years are those who have been jailed for child sexual abuse, which is another matter altogether.

FLDS leader Jessop arrested
Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Fredrick Merril Jessop - the patriarch of a Schleicher County polygamous compound accused of orchestrating or condoning at least 10 marriages alleged to have occurred between underage girls and adult men - turned himself in Monday to Schleicher County officials and was released on bond.

Jessop and two others, indicted Nov. 12 by a Schleicher County grand jury, arrived at the Schleicher County Sheriff's Office shortly before noon Monday and were released on bond soon after, sheriff's personnel said.

Jessop, 72, believed to be the leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints since the arrest of its self-styled prophet, Warren Jeffs, was indicted on a charge of conducting an unlawful marriage ceremony involving a minor, a third-degree felony. He was released after posting $30,000 bond.

Wendell Loy Nielsen, 68, was released on $30,000 bond - $10,000 each for three counts of bigamy, a third-degree felony.

Leroy Johnson Steed, 42, was released on $120,000 bond after being arrested on four charges - first-degree felony sexual assault of a child, which carries a $100,000 bond, and three others: second-degree felony bigamy, third-degree felony bigamy and third-degree felony tampering with physical evidence.

 

[shereads]

This appears to be a new departure for Amicus. "Feminine" and "like a woman" is his new term of abuse for me.

He's been exploring his feminine side under a new alt. Maybe they aren't getting along.

 

[JagFarlane]

So we sit here going on about Britains bashing GITMO, how much better it is to deport them, and how much more diplomatic they are. Wow...read much? Apparently not.

1) In 2001 Britain enacted an emergency law that allowed them to detain prisoners without charges at Belmarsh maximum security prison. This was only overturned in 2005 when the law lords declared this illegal. Tony Blair then announced his intentions to deport them.

2) The recent case of Abu Qatada continues this. He was one of the Belmarsh detainees. In 2005 the UK attempted to deport him to Jordan. He has been able to call for appeals and still resides in the UK to this day. In 2009 the law lords determined that he and 10 others should be deported to countries like Jordan. He has since filed yet another appeal, this one to the European courts, where it is expected to take yet another 2 years.

3) In April 2008 an appeals court in the UK determined that if Qatada is deported to Jordon, it is likely he will be arrested and face a trial where the evidence was obtained by torture by the Jordanian Intelligence Services.

Even the director of human rights policy at Justice says this on the agreements to not torture between the UK and Jordan, "At a time when the Obama administration is cleaning house and renouncing torture, todays ruling shows the UK still clinging to paper promises from torturers."

Yeah thats really democratic isn't it? Lets just send them off to get tortured somewheres else. Hell I don't like the terrorists any at all. I just don't like someone gloating around how democratic his country is, then doing a little digging and finding they're so democratic they will knowingly deport someone to a country where there is a high chance they'll be tortured. Yeah its great one of courts says they'll deport terrorists, hell ya'll been trying to do that for 4 years now. Successes: 1 to France, 10 to Algeria [where the UN acknowledges that torture still continues.]

Don't be surprised if I don't return to this thread. The amount of bullshit thats been flung by both Britains and Americans has filled this place waist deep.

Source: The Guardian, The Times, BBC, NY Times

 

[cloudy]

So we sit here going on about Britains bashing GITMO, how much better it is to deport them, and how much more diplomatic they are. Wow...read much? Apparently not.

1) In 2001 Britain enacted an emergency law that allowed them to detain prisoners without charges at Belmarsh maximum security prison. This was only overturned in 2005 when the law lords declared this illegal. Tony Blair then announced his intentions to deport them.

2) The recent case of Abu Qatada continues this. He was one of the Belmarsh detainees. In 2005 the UK attempted to deport him to Jordan. He has been able to call for appeals and still resides in the UK to this day. In 2009 the law lords determined that he and 10 others should be deported to countries like Jordan. He has since filed yet another appeal, this one to the European courts, where it is expected to take yet another 2 years.

3) In April 2008 an appeals court in the UK determined that if Qatada is deported to Jordon, it is likely he will be arrested and face a trial where the evidence was obtained by torture by the Jordanian Intelligence Services.

Even the director of human rights policy at Justice says this on the agreements to not torture between the UK and Jordan, "At a time when the Obama administration is cleaning house and renouncing torture, todays ruling shows the UK still clinging to paper promises from torturers."

Yeah thats really democratic isn't it? Lets just send them off to get tortured somewheres else. Hell I don't like the terrorists any at all. I just don't like someone gloating around how democratic his country is, then doing a little digging and finding they're so democratic they will knowingly deport someone to a country where there is a high chance they'll be tortured. Yeah its great one of courts says they'll deport terrorists, hell ya'll been trying to do that for 4 years now. Successes: 1 to France, 10 to Algeria [where the UN acknowledges that torture still continues.]

Don't be surprised if I don't return to this thread. The amount of bullshit thats been flung by both Britains and Americans has filled this place waist deep.

Source: The Guardian, The Times, BBC, NY Times

In other words, "Everybody does it, so we're not wrong to do it."