The Mosul Attack

[The Fool]

So you think prisoners taken in time of war should be treated exactly as criminals arrested by police?

so you think that declaring war on a word should allow you to take anyone you like from anywhere you like and detain them for as long as you like?

 

[Mycroft]

so you think that declaring war on a word should allow you to take anyone you like from anywhere you like and detain them for as long as you like?

What I think is that soldiers should not be confused with police officers and that unlawful combatants should not be confused with common criminals. Any argument that assumes that they are is inherently flawed.

 

[The Fool]

What I think is that soldiers should not be confused with police officers and that unlawful combatants should not be confused with common criminals. Any argument that assumes that they are is inherently flawed.

Soldiers? Unlawfull combatants? Are you another that believes that all those detained at gitmo were grabbed from afghanistan and/or a battlefield? Once again I have to ask, do you believe that declaring war on a word should entitle the US military to grab whoever they want wherever they want and detain them without charge or trial for as long as they want? That is what has happened, do you support it? How can the Australian you kidnapped in Pakistan be an unlawfull combatant when he has not been near a war zone. If he is a criminal what is the charge? How long do you intend to imprison him? Nobody knows...yet you support it?
shame...

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by The Fool
Are you another that believes that all those detained at gitmo were grabbed from afghanistan and/or a battlefield?

May I infer from this that you only object to detainees that were not grabbed from Afghanistan and/or a battlefield?

Originally posted by The Fool
Once again I have to ask, do you believe that declaring war on a word should entitle the US military to grab whoever they want wherever they want and detain them without charge or trial for as long as they want?

What have I said that would lead you to believe this?

Originally posted by The Fool
That is what has happened, do you support it?

Is that what has happened?

Originally posted by The Fool
How can the Australian you kidnapped in Pakistan be an unlawfull combatant when he has not been near a war zone.

I have not kidnapped any Australians in Pakistan, but if one were "kidnapped", I would need to learn more of the circumstances before I could offer an opinion.

Originally posted by The Fool
If he is a criminal what is the charge? How long do you intend to imprison him?

Again you confuse soldiers with police officers. What laws apply? Who has jurisdiction? He's an Australian citizen, what does the government of Australia say about it?

Originally posted by The Fool
Nobody knows...yet you support it?
shame...

Support what, exactly? Keeping unlawful combatants in Gitmo? Or the fate of your specific countryman?

 

[The Fool]

May I infer from this that you only object to detainees that were not grabbed from Afghanistan and/or a battlefield?

You may infer from this that I would have no problem with combatants being detained as prisoners of war subjet to the usual international conventions that my country, and yours, are signed up to..

What have I said that would lead you to believe this?

It was a question, do you have an answer....If you don't wish to answer just say so.

Is that what has happened?

yes.

I have not kidnapped any Australians in Pakistan, but if one were "kidnapped", I would need to learn more of the circumstances before I could offer an opinion.

yes, you should....the name Mamdouh Habib may help you in your research...kidnapped in pakistan and held at gitmo indefinitely no word on why....except that we should trust them that he is a baddie.

Again you confuse soldiers with police officers. What laws apply? Who has jurisdiction? He's an Australian citizen, what does the government of Australia say about it?

The Australian government does not want him back because our legal system could not hold him without charge or trial...they apparently have no problem with the US military doing that...



Support what, exactly? Keeping unlawful combatants in Gitmo? Or the fate of your specific countryman?
I am making a big guess here that you support your military holding anyone they want at gitmo for as long as they want. Am I right? Or is it a case of you supporting some and are looking the other way for the rest?

You mention unlawfull combatants yet after multiple attempts to draw people's attention to the fact that Habib can hardly be a combatant if he has never been in a combat zone it seems to be a case of in one ear and out the other.

He may be Osamas right hand man for all I know but, strange as it may seem, I like to see specific charges and (gasp) evidence. I can see no reason why this could not be me, or you, there instead of him. After all...the three of us have have as many known charges against us and the same amount of known evidence against us...zip, zilch, nada......does that concern you? Or would a simple statement from the US military that Mycroft and the fool are baddies be enough to arrest us and send us to Gitmo? There are plenty of people who post here who would be ok with it...are you one of them?

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by The Fool
yes, you should....the name Mamdouh Habib may help you in your research...kidnapped in pakistan and held at gitmo indefinitely no word on why....except that we should trust them that he is a baddie.

So because you don’t know why one man in a country with a population of some 160 million is taken to Gitmo, you claim that the US military feels entitled to grab whoever they want wherever they want and detain them without charge or trial for as long as they want, even though it was actually Pakistani forces that grabbed this guy. Is that it?

 

[a_unique_person]

So because you don’t know why one man in a country with a population of some 160 million is taken to Gitmo, you claim that the US military feels entitled to grab whoever they want wherever they want and detain them without charge or trial for as long as they want, even though it was actually Pakistani forces that grabbed this guy. Is that it?

all aboard the torture express

 

[The Fool]

So because you don’t know why one man in a country with a population of some 160 million is taken to Gitmo, you claim that the US military feels entitled to grab whoever they want wherever they want and detain them without charge or trial for as long as they want, even though it was actually Pakistani forces that grabbed this guy. Is that it?

Gee, I wonder how pakistan knew which ones to arrest and hand over ? Maybe they have a psychic understanding of who the US want.

Earlier I pointed out that you either support the imprisonment of these people or look the other way. Now that you have researched the habib case which is it now? Do you support his imprisonment or are you still loooking the other way?

and lastly, if you do support his imprisonment, could you tell us what he has done?

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by The Fool
Gee, I wonder how pakistan knew which ones to arrest and hand over ? Maybe they have a psychic understanding of who the US want.

Maybe. And maybe it’s your own psychic powers that tells you how this came to be without any evidence one way or another.

Originally posted by The Fool
Earlier I pointed out that you either support the imprisonment of these people or look the other way. Now that you have researched the habib case which is it now?

I have not formed an opinion on Habib. Google shows very little reliable information. So far I have learned:

1) He was captured.

2) He spent time in Egypt where he was probably tortured.

3) Many people believe his being held in Gitmo is unfair, though none actually claim he’s innocent, only that the case against him is weak.

4) While in Australia, he earned a reputation as being a radical Islamist agitator.

Originally posted by The Fool
Do you support his imprisonment or are you still loooking the other way?

False dichotomy.

There is too little information to form an opinion. It seems to me the ones who should be looking after his rights is the Australian government, perhaps I would better be able to form an opinion if you could tell me why they are not?

Originally posted by The Fool
and lastly, if you do support his imprisonment, could you tell us what he has done?

There are millions of people imprisoned throughout the world, and I don’t know what any of them has done. Many of them, I’m sure, are held unfairly, but I don’t feel compelled to condemn any one prison system based on the unfairness to any one individual.

Essentially your argument seems to be that if I personally can’t prove that this one man deserves to be where he is, that I must…something. It’s hard to tell as your style of argument seems to be to avoid making any firm assertion that can be argued against.

This exchange started with my assertion that I don’t expect unlawful combatants taken prisoner by soldiers to be treated the same as criminals who are arrested by the police. I don’t see anything here that would have me change that opinion.

 

[The Fool]

False dichotomy.

rubbish....you are not allowed to disagree with an action of the US military so that only leaves 2 alternatives...agree or ignore. Which is it?

There is too little information to form an opinion. It seems to me the ones who should be looking after his rights is the Australian government, perhaps I would better be able to form an opinion if you could tell me why they are not?

to little information? What part of held without charge or trial don't you understand? I guess asking you if you are ok with holding people indefinitely without charge or trial is just tooooo complex a question.

The Australian government does not want him back because he has not committed and crime under australian law....In fact, until demonstrated otherwise, he has not committed any crime under any law because NOBODY HAD CHARGED HIM WITH A CRIME....NOBODY HAS SAID WHAT HE HAS DONE..HE IS BEING HELD AT KING GEORGES PLEASURE. did that sink in?



There are millions of people imprisoned throughout the world, and I don’t know what any of them has done. Many of them, I’m sure, are held unfairly, but I don’t feel compelled to condemn any one prison system based on the unfairness to any one individual.

I undestand that ...you don't feel compelled to condemn any actions of the US military, what a surprise.

Essentially your argument seems to be that if I personally can’t prove that this one man deserves to be where he is, that I must…something. It’s hard to tell as your style of argument seems to be to avoid making any firm assertion that can be argued against.
[/b]
detention without charge or trial is unacceptable? that is not a firm assertion? you seem to be saying that you don't support detention without charge or trial but just can't bring yourself to condemn it if its done by the US military...

This exchange started with my assertion that I don’t expect unlawful combatants taken prisoner by soldiers to be treated the same as criminals who are arrested by the police. I don’t see anything here that would have me change that opinion.
thats right...you were talking the usual gitmo apologists line that those held at gitmo are combatants...when it is once again shown that this is wrong you decide that the issue is way to complex for you to take a position.....give it a week or two and you'll be back to the line that they are all captured soldiers again...situation normal.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by The Fool
rubbish....you are not allowed to disagree with an action of the US military so that only leaves 2 alternatives...agree or ignore. Which is it?

I’m not allowed to disagree…? It’s nonsensical statements like that that convince me you’ve had a stroke. I’m free to have any number of opinions on this, not just the options you provide.

Overall, your argument seems to be that what happened to Mr. Habib is representative of everyone being held at Gitmo, and that I must personally prove Mr. Habib guilty of something before I can agree to US soldiers taking prisoners and not affording these prisoners the same rights that criminals get.

Originally posted by The Fool
The Australian government does not want him back because he has not committed and crime under australian law....

How come the Australian government is so uninterested in protecting the rights of its citizens? If you were arrested in Pakistan by Pakistani soldiers, would your government abandon you too?

Originally posted by The Fool
In fact, until demonstrated otherwise, he has not committed any crime under any law because NOBODY HAD CHARGED HIM WITH A CRIME....NOBODY HAS SAID WHAT HE HAS DONE..HE IS BEING HELD AT KING GEORGES PLEASURE. did that sink in?

Egypt claims he confessed to some crimes.

Originally posted by The Fool
I undestand that ...you don't feel compelled to condemn any actions of the US military, what a surprise.

Not at all. I’m saying there is a lack of information available to the public on this case.

Originally posted by The Fool
detention without charge or trial is unacceptable? that is not a firm assertion? you seem to be saying that you don't support detention without charge or trial but just can't bring yourself to condemn it if its done by the US military...

No, what I’m saying is I don’t expect illegal combatants captured by soldiers to be treated the same as criminals arrested by policemen. It’s well established that criminals have civil rights, they get representation and trials and things like that. With illegal combatants, the law is much more murky.

Perhaps your argument would be stronger if you were able to point out which body of law is supposed to protect this man and afford him the rights you describe.

Originally posted by The Fool
thats right...you were talking the usual gitmo apologists line that those held at gitmo are combatants...when it is once again shown that this is wrong you decide that the issue is way to complex for you to take a position.....give it a week or two and you'll be back to the line that they are all captured soldiers again...situation normal.

The line that they are all captured soldiers is a position you assigned to me. The practice of assigning your opponent the position you want to argue against is something you railed against when you thought it was being done to you. When you do it to someone else, I guess it’s not so offensive.

 

[a_unique_person]

How come the Australian government is so uninterested in protecting the rights of its citizens? If you were arrested in Pakistan by Pakistani soldiers, would your government abandon you too?

At the drop of a hat, if it was what the US wanted. I wonder too how we re-elected the backstabbing little weasel who is our current Prime Minister. Apparently people think he can keep interest rates low.

 

[Mycroft]

At the drop of a hat, if it was what the US wanted. I wonder too how we re-elected the backstabbing little weasel who is our current Prime Minister. Apparently people think he can keep interest rates low.

If it was what the US wanted? Isn't it more likely it's what Australia wanted?

 

[gnome]

No, what I’m saying is I don’t expect illegal combatants captured by soldiers to be treated the same as criminals arrested by policemen. It’s well established that criminals have civil rights, they get representation and trials and things like that. With illegal combatants, the law is much more murky.

Well, let's break it down a little further, there's room for consensus:

1) Do you believe there is a body of law that affords a minimum of basic human rights (such as, not to be deliberately tortured or killed without tribunal while captured) to any individual regardless of status?

This could create a consensus if your answer is no:

2) Do you believe there should be?