Al-Qaeda "terrorists" released

[oggbashan]

Jag, your example clearly demonstrates the difference between our systems.

Abu Qatada is treated like any other person in our courts.

He has the right to a fair trial, to appeal against deportation, to argue that he would not be fairly treated if deported to Jordan.

Abu Qatada is (probably) an asshole, is (probably) someone who has encouraged terrorists, definitely is someone Jordan doesn't want and no other country wants either, yet he has rights under English and European Law.

What rights have be given to those detained in GITMO, or those subject to extraordinary rendition, or those held in foreign countries at the request of the US administration?

Terrorists detained in the UK are treated as any other accused criminals despite Tony Blair trying to change the rules.

Which is a fairer system? One that treats every accused person, whether accused of terrorism or any other crime, as a person with a right to legal representation OR one that locks people up for years without them knowing what they are accused of, or whether they will ever be released?

Og

 

[SimonBrooke]

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.

Underage girls.

He was released after posting $30,000 bond.

He was released.

Leroy Johnson Steed, 42, was released on $120,000 bond after being arrested on four charges - first-degree felony sexual assault of a child,

sexual assault of a child, But he too was released.

So, where are these people who are being imprisoned just for bigamy?

On your own evidence, even the child molesters are being released.

 

[wmrs2]

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

Amicus deals with issues and your reply to him is a personal attack. He is outnumbered in the AH so why should he not feel the effects of the abuse of the majority?

Amicus does defend his ego with deadly force. He presents facts and truths as he sees them. He defends his position with reasoning and you attack with the majority of the AH. You do not explain in detail why he is wrong for his ideas; you simply state he is wrong because you are the majority. It is obvious that you and the majority would like for Amicus to go away, not for who he is but for what he says. It is that old Voltaire thing.

What kind of gentlemanly and dignified retort is it for you to say say "unable to lift his penis substitute when threatened by a female robber"? If that is the only logic you use to oppose his argument with, what shall we think as you lecture us on English freedom?

Unregulated individual freedom without any controls can leave many people at the mercy of the thug, bully or criminal.
Ironic isn't it? You point out what the AH majority does to Amicus and others who disagree with the majority of opinion. You admit that you want to regulate Amicus's opinions. You want to define his individual freedom.

Clearly you refer to Amicus as an intellectual thug, bully and criminal. He is not one that leads a pack of intellectual thugs around AH to close down the freedom of speech, take over threads and boast about it. He has never done that or you would mercilessly attack him for being a troll. You only refer to Amicus as being a thug to point attention away from the majority behavior of AH. It is that old Voltaire thing again.

Being a liberal, nobody expects you to agree with Amicus, nor does Amicus expect this, but as a member of the AH you represent a special group who is suppose to be able to police your own behavior. Many people look towards you for intellectual leadership. Being a sophist is not leadership. If you wish to lead your AH majority to intellectual superiority, you must confirm to what Voltaire advocated. The truth hurts but you should be able to handle it.

 

[wmrs2]

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

Your making a personal attack on Amicus does not strengthen your argument that Amicus is wrong in his opinion of you and Ogg. You double team Amicus as Ogg brings up the famine side, his inability to raise his penis, and calls him a thug and you step in to amen what Ogg says. But I repeat, you so no see Amicus trying to stop you and Ogg from excising your freedom of speech by shutting down your threads by flooding, do you? It is that old Voltaire thing again.

 

[Dragonlipz]

Amicus deals with issues and your reply to him is a personal attack. He is outnumbered in the AH so why should he not feel the effects of the abuse of the majority?


Clearly you refer to Amicus as an intellectual thug, bully and criminal. He is not one that leads a pack of intellectual thugs around AH to close down the freedom of speech, take over threads and boast about it. He has never done that or you would mercilessly attack him for being a troll. You only refer to Amicus as being a thug to point attention away from the majority behavior of AH. It is that old Voltaire thing again.

Methinks that branding Amicus as intellectual anything is giving him far too much credit.....bully and criminal are rather extreme labels to be sure: I'd prefer instigator and asshole but bully and criminal he's not.....

 

[sr71plt]

Methinks that branding Amicus as intellectual anything is giving him far too much credit.

Oh, I brand him as intellectually dishonest. I think that's proper credit.

 

[wmrs2]

Methinks that branding Amicus as intellectual anything is giving him far too much credit.....bully and criminal are rather extreme labels to be sure: I'd prefer instigator and asshole but bully and criminal he's not.....

Please, there a children present. Amicus did not call you names. He did not hijack your thread. Your memory on ethical behavior is very short. Please try to follow the rules of the forum without others having to point out to you what these rules mean. Ah is a dignified discussion forum only if the members make it that way. This is your last warning.

 

[wmrs2]

Oh, I brand him as intellectually dishonest. I think that's proper credit.

He did not tell you to drop dead.

 

[cloudy]

This is your last warning.

http://bestsmileys.com/lol/20.gif

 

[sr71plt]

Last warning? Isn't that what the site administrators recently gave wmrs2 on its "Cloak" thread?

 

[wmrs2]

Methinks that branding Amicus as intellectual anything is giving him far too much credit.....bully and criminal are rather extreme labels to be sure: I'd prefer instigator and asshole but bully and criminal he's not.....

But, again you are part of the AH gang that oppose the right of others to freedom of speech. You have shown your true nature. You give no reason for your hate of Amicus. You have no reason ; therefore you are very sick like the rest of your hateful clan. You go out of your way to cause trouble. why do you feel you have to do this?

 

[wmrs2]

Oh, I brand him as intellectually dishonest. I think that's proper credit.

Yes, you brand him dishonest but when somebody points out your irrational behavior, you go absolute crazy and tell the whole forum how you are mistreated, Why can you and your troll friends not be more dignified in debate on AH? You should not be branding anybody until you live down the disgraceful behavior of telling another person to drop dead. How dreadful!