anti americanism fashionable

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Illegal under what law?

In most countries, it is illegal to hold people prisoner without charge or adequate legal representation. The Patriot Act allows the US Government to do this with certain limitations. So, it is not illegal in America. Still wrong, but not illegal.

I couldn't care less. They are terrorists.

In some of the cases of Guantanamo Bay things are not so clear cut.

It is funny though, how you are attacking Americans for "terrible" living conditions, but the Chinese's use of thumb cuffs and how they just make people disappear for disagreeing with the government escapes your attention. Yep. Gotta wonder where your loyalties lie.

What the Chinese do to their own people is terrible, and should be stopped. However, this thread is about anti-americanism.

What the **** does that have to do with anything? I don't know what makes you so dumb but it really works. Am I now a racist because I speak Afrikaans?

No, but you have referred to all muslims as terrorists. That could be construed as racist.

Oh, and for an interesting read on the patriot act, go to http://web.amnesty.org/web/wire.nsf/...003/Guantanamo

But, because Amnesty don't agree with the propaganda coming from the US Government, you'll probably dismiss them as liberals..

[danielf]

Originally Posted by scastle

In most countries, it is illegal to hold people prisoner without charge or adequate legal representation. The Patriot Act allows the US Government to do this with certain limitations. So, it is not illegal in America. Still wrong, but not illegal.

AFAIK it is illegal in the US. This is why the prisoners are held at Guantanamo Bay, which is Cuban Soil, so US laws don't apply. If the US were to keep the prisoners on US soil, it would be illegal.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by danielf

AFAIK it is illegal in the US. This is why the prisoners are held at Guantanamo Bay, which is Cuban Soil, so US laws don't apply. If the US were to keep the prisoners on US soil, it would be illegal.

Fair enough. Actually that law also spefically excludes US nationals, so it is racist as well.

[Jerrek]

No, but you have referred to all muslims as terrorists. That could be construed as racist.
HOW? Muslims are not a race. It is a religion. How can that possibly be racist??

Actually that law also spefically excludes US nationals, so it is racist as well.
And that is bad how exactly?

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

No, but you have referred to all muslims as terrorists. That could be construed as racist.
HOW? Muslims are not a race. It is a religion. How can that possibly be racist??

Actually that law also spefically excludes US nationals, so it is racist as well.
And that is bad how exactly?

OK, so you are prejudiced against a religion.

As to the Patriot act being racist. That is bad simply because it assumes that US Nationals cannot be terrorists. Didn't one of the people involved in 9/11 have a US Nationality? If that is the case the law would not have applied to him.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by scastle

OK, so you are prejudiced against a religion.

As to the Patriot act being racist. That is bad simply because it assumes that US Nationals cannot be terrorists. Didn't one of the people involved in 9/11 have a US Nationality? If that is the case the law would not have applied to him.

I don't know about that, but a US citizen has been captured in Afghanistan fighting for the Taleban. I think his name was Walker.

Jerrek, how is a racist law not bad?

[Jerrek]

OK, so you are prejudiced against a religion.
Of course I am! I'm prejudiced against lots of religions. Why is that bad?

If you look what is going on in countries that are predominantly Islam you'll see why I'm against that religion. Women have no rights. Men can abuse them like they are nothing. No bill of rights for most part. So yeah. You can say I think Islam is a bad influence on people.


That is bad simply because it assumes that US Nationals cannot be terrorists.
No it doesn't. U.S. citizens are, however, covered by the Constitution. You can't detain someone without pressing a charge if they are an American.

[Jerrek]

Jerrek, how is a racist law not bad?
No. You don't disprove something, you prove that someone is guilty. Prove to me it is bad.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

That is bad simply because it assumes that US Nationals cannot be terrorists.
No it doesn't. U.S. citizens are, however, covered by the Constitution. You can't detain someone without pressing a charge if they are an American.

The Patriot act allows the US to hold foreign nationals without charge. According to Amnesty International, the US is holding 650 people without charge (for up to a year) at Guantanamo bay.

If the government have evidence that these people are terrorists, why not persue it through the normal legal channels? Why do they need a law allowing them to imprison ANYONE (whatever nationality) without charge?

I suspect it is because they are being less than successful in reducing terrorism and with an election coming up, the Bush Administration don't want to appear to be failing.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Jerrek, how is a racist law not bad?
No. You don't disprove something, you prove that someone is guilty. Prove to me it is bad.

Is that the best you can do? I'm disappointed.

I seem to recall you are religious person. Doesn't your religion have anything to say about that?

[Jerrek]

The Patriot act allows the US to hold foreign nationals without charge.
That is fine with me.

Why do they need a law allowing them to imprison ANYONE (whatever nationality) without charge?
To protect against terrorists?

I suspect it is because they are being less than successful in reducing terrorism and with an election coming up, the Bush Administration don't want to appear to be failing.
So the Patriot Act, passed in 2001, was a play to get re-elected in 2004? That is sound logic.

Is that the best you can do? I'm disappointed.
Likewise. I would have thought you would be able to substantiate your point.

I seem to recall you are religious person. Doesn't your religion have anything to say about that?
Not really. All people are equal, but if one group starts making trouble you can bet I'm going to focus on them. Just like all middle easterners are getting fingerprinted when entering the United States.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Why do they need a law allowing them to imprison ANYONE (whatever nationality) without charge?
To protect against terrorists?

I suspect it is because they are being less than successful in reducing terrorism and with an election coming up, the Bush Administration don't want to appear to be failing.
So the Patriot Act, passed in 2001, was a play to get re-elected in 2004? That is sound logic.

How does imprisoning innocent people protect against terrorists? Because I doubt that all of those 650 people they are holding without charge are terrorists.

Anyway, let's phrase the question another way: If the US Government have evidence that these people are terrorists, why not persue them through the normal legal channels?

Maybe the Patriot Act wasn't a play to get re-elected directly, but IIRC Bush had a very slim majority when he was elected. I think the act was partially concieved to boost his popularity.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Jerrek[

[b

Is that the best you can do? I'm disappointed.[/b]
Likewise. I would have thought you would be able to substantiate your point.

Allright, I will substantiate my point then.

The 9/11 attacks were an atrocious crime, and those that are responsible for it should be found and brought to justice. I supported the war in Afghanistan, as there was substantial proof that at least some of those responsible were hiding there being protected by the regime.

The Iraq war, I felt was something different. We were told it was about WMD, which weren't found, then we were told it was because of links to Al Qa'eda, which was never proven (and quickly dropped). Then, we were told it was to liberate the people of Iraq, as Saddam was violating human rights.

At the same time, the US is treating foreign nationals in a way which is in contradiction with the Geneva Convention (which the US have ratified), and its own law. Only by applying a couple of tricks (these are illegal combatants, not POWs, and holding prisoners outside the US), do they (seemingly) get away with breaching the Geneva Convention, and its own law or even constitution. (And as I understand, you're very own supreme court may have a thing or two to say about the latter).

In this situation, I find the line that you are justified to invade another country because of their human rights issues (after being fed several lines about WMD, links to AL Qa'eda) a little rich. Especially, since so many countries that abuse human rights apparently have nothing to fear from the US.

You're right, prisoners in the US are not tortured, raped etc., but their human rights are being violated, and they are not treated in a way that US citizens (such as mr. Walker) would have a right to in similar circumstances. And the line that they are terrorists doesn't cut it, as they are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.

I understand that the war on terrorism requires special powers, but I fail to see why this requires such a violation of human rights.

As I said earlier in this thread: I am reminded of this WW2 movie, where one the soldiers suggests roughing one of the prisoners up a bit in order to get some info, and the officer replies: Isn't that what this war is about?

BTW: Have you ever lived in Zimbabwe? (As you brought up Mugabe a number of times)

[kronas]

excuse me for my anti bush stance for a moment but i thought i would give you all this information i have come across.......

More than one in three Britons think George W. Bush is stupid and a majority branded the U.S. president a threat to world peace, opinion poll results published on Sunday showed.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...h_britain_dc_6


The fact that people are willing to come and express themselves †� I'm going to a great country," Bush said during a brief question-and-answer session in the Oval Office.



While saying that people don't have to agree with him, Bush said, "But certainly they should agree with the goals of the United States, which is peace and freedom."

yeh right peace and freedom is that the same peace that you try and impose on the iraqi people ?

the freedom ill admit you have done that by freeing them from saddam but who is going to rebuild the country ?


and the right to freedom ? i thought the US was the land of free speech so why are there designated protesting areas away from bush and i mean well away from him in the US

if the US was really wanting to be a nation that made a diffarence to the world there would be a togetherness with allies across the globe to solve the various problems such as israel zimbabwe and especially africa after all western countries were involved in the sabotaging africa with slavery

[Jerrek]

How does imprisoning innocent people protect against terrorists?
Who said anything about imprisoning innocent people?

Because I doubt that all of those 650 people they are holding without charge are terrorists.
They were fighting for the Taliban, eh?

If the US Government have evidence that these people are terrorists, why not persue them through the normal legal channels?
Yes, they should put them in front of military tribunals. I guess they are just waiting a bit.

I think the act was partially concieved to boost his popularity.
And I don't think so. His approval rating was in the 80s when the act was passed.

The Iraq war, I felt was something different. We were told it was about WMD, which weren't found, then we were told it was because of links to Al Qa'eda, which was never proven (and quickly dropped). Then, we were told it was to liberate the people of Iraq, as Saddam was violating human rights.
Funny, but I have a different version. I was told it was about looking into the possession of WMD (as declared by the U.N.), and then investigating it.

At the same time, the US is treating foreign nationals in a way which is in contradiction with the Geneva Convention (which the US have ratified), and its own law. Only by applying a couple of tricks (these are illegal combatants, not POWs, and holding prisoners outside the US), do they (seemingly) get away with breaching the Geneva Convention, and its own law or even constitution. (And as I understand, you're very own supreme court may have a thing or two to say about the latter).
So you have just proved that the United States is NOT violating the Geneva Convension because it applies to PoWs. These guys are not PoWs.

but their human rights are being violated
And my heart is pumping purple p*ss for them.

and they are not treated in a way that US citizens (such as mr. Walker) would have a right to in similar circumstances.
They are not American citizens and thus not entitled to protecting by the Constitution. Or would you have us extend our Constitution to everyone in the world now? I wonder how the Second Amendment, the right to keep in bear arms, will go down with the French Government.

Have you ever lived in Zimbabwe?
No, but I've been there, and I know people that do live there. What has this got to do with the price of tea in China?

More than one in three Britons think George W. Bush is stupid
At one time the majority of Britons believed in owning slaves.


So kronas, let me get this straight: You will support invasion of Zimbabwe, right?