NationStates Jolt Archive

You know what gets my gander up about the way these two are reported on? They're treated by the media like they're victims. OK, maybe they didn't fight for Al Qaida, but has everyone forgotten: they went to Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban! a regime dedictated to oppressing all sorts of people, including women. I don't feel the least sorry for those two even if they weren't members of Al Qaida. They're not poor innocent tourists accidentally taken, they're men who opposed ideals like freedom, democracy and equality. Frankly, I don't want them back in Australia.

Well if they are subjected to unreasonable or unacceptable treatment, then they are the victims of unreasonable or unacceptable treatment.

Whether or not anyone feels sorry for them, isnt entirely relevent to deciding whether or not their treatment is acceptable and/or reasonable. What the men are opposed to, doesnt make me lower my standards with regards to what is and isnt acceptable and reasonable. My standards are my standards, as opposed to being mine except when they are decided relevative to someone else's behaviour. I dont accept that the latter even consititutes a 'standard' as the word is normatively used in this context.

...Taliban! a regime dedictated to oppressing all sorts of people, including women.So in your mind all Taliban Soldiers deserve this treatment:

By Tamara McLean
January 27, 2005

Mamdouh Habib was the victim of atrocities fit for a concentration camp, including being tied to the ground while a prostitute menstruated on him, his lawyer said yesterday.

Interrogators at the US prison camp at Guantanamo Bay had also told the Sydney man they had killed his family and superimposed animal heads on photos of his wife and children, Steven Hopper said.

At an Australia Day forum in Sydney, Mr Hopper gave more details of atrocities allegedly endured by his client while held at the US base in Cuba.

The Federal Government said it was aware of similar allegations of torture made by former British detainees at Guantanamo Bay but it was the first time the Government had heard the claims involving Mr Habib.

Mr Habib is due back in Sydney within a fortnight after the US said it would release him without charge despite holding him for more than three years on suspicion he knew about the September 11 attacks and had trained with al-Qaeda.

Mr Hopper said yesterday: "The Americans used prostitutes as tools in their interrogations. They'd say to detainees 'If you co-operate with us, we'll let you at this woman for the night'. And if they wouldn't agree they'd use them in other ways."

He said detainees held at the base with Mr Habib reported that a prostitute was told to stand over him and menstruate on him.

"[We believe] one of the prostitutes stood over him naked while he was strapped to the floor and menstruated on him," he said.

Mr Hopper said officials at the base also defaced photos of Mr Habib's wife, Maha, and their four children.

"The Americans in their wisdom have taken the heads off the pictures, enlarged them and superimposed them with the heads of animals and then strung them up all over the walls of the interrogation room," he said.

"As they sat there talking to Mamdouh asking him about his terrorist activities, they held up a picture of Maha and said, 'It's a shame we had to kill your family, it's a shame you will never see these people again'."

He said Mr Habib was also subjected to the same interrogation techniques used on prisoners at the infamous Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

"Make no doubt about it, Guantanamo Bay wasn't a prisoner-of-war camp," Mr Hopper said. "It was a facility designed to interrogate people. It was nothing more than a vulgar concentration camp and it has marked a new high in the rise of American fascism."

Mr Habib was detained in Pakistan in late 2001 and sent to Egypt before being flown to Guantanamo Bay in 2002.

Mr Hopper also detailed abuses against Mr Habib while in Egypt, saying he was suspended from the ceiling with only an electrified barrel to stand on.

"He would stand and get a shock or hang painfully by his arms until he'd collapse," he said.

He was blindfolded and locked in rooms that were flooded with water and charged with electricity, Mr Hopper said.

"On other occasions they used German shepherd guard dogs and [interrogators] told him they train dogs to sexually assault people," the lawyer said.

You know what gets my gander up about the way these two are reported on? They're treated by the media like they're victims. OK, maybe they didn't fight for Al Qaida, but has everyone forgotten: they went to Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban! a regime dedictated to oppressing all sorts of people, including women. I don't feel the least sorry for those two even if they weren't members of Al Qaida. They're not poor innocent tourists accidentally taken, they're men who opposed ideals like freedom, democracy and equality. Frankly, I don't want them back in Australia.

Allegedly - don't forget that word. Habib says he went to Pakistan to look at schools for his children, if I'm not mistaken. I don't believe he was ever in Afghanistan.

Hicks at least worked with the Taliban. But there's no evidence that he was involved in any terrorist activities, so why exactly should he be punished?

Are you sure enough in your beliefs to hate everyone who has different ideals than you? If so, I feel sorry for you.

1. up until about 4 years ago the taliban were our allies with US corporations investing in afghanistan with the co-operation of the yes, the bush govt.

2. habib has never been to afghanistan, has no evidence against, is a married taxi driver who can't get work, suffers from depression and was thinking about legitimately returning to pakistan to get a job.

3. no evidence against habib

4. even criminal scum have rights under law and under the geneva convention. the US operated what can only be described as nazi concentration camps where torture, and violence against unarmed and often innocent victims went on daily.

I hope habib sues the pants of the US for its criminal actions in this case.

, his lawyer said yesterday.

you believe a lawyer??

you believe a lawyer??

I don't automatically disbelieve them.

I don't automatically disbelieve them.
but you admit it is hardly a credible source?

but you admit it is hardly a credible source?

That's rather a large jump from what I said. His lawyer would be saying what Habib told him. I find the source credible. That doesn't mean it's necessarily true, but I can believe that he might be telling the truth.

Reguardless of his innocence or guilt the Australian government should have acted faster IMHO. After all, it IS supposed to safeguard the rights of Australian citizens. From what I understand it has failed to do this in the cases of Habib and Hicks.

That's rather a large jump from what I said. His lawyer would be saying what Habib told him. I find the source credible. That doesn't mean it's necessarily true, but I can believe that he might be telling the truth.
I'll agree to disagree, as we both admit it may or may not be true. I have trust issues which generally makes me suspicious of what anyone says, when it comes from professional liars I will need proof, he may have proof I dont know but without it I wont believe him.

[...] when it comes from professional liars [...]

See, that bit I find unjustified, closed-minded, and rather insulting. Not personally, mind you, since I'm not a lawyer, but insulting nonetheless.

All it's going to do is weaken any argument you might make.

[QUOTE=Snorklenork]You know what gets my gander up about the way these two are reported on? They're treated by the media like they're victims. OK, maybe they didn't fight for Al Qaida, but has everyone forgotten: they went to Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban![QUOTE]


Where's the proof? (for Habib anyway....)


But aside from that, regardless of whether Habib did it or not, three things piss me off.

One: The fact that they were actually tortured, under orders! (Allegedly.....)
Two: The people who ordered it (allegedly.....) have managed to escape relatively unscathed (as far as I can tell....)
Three: They were held WITHOUT CHARGE for roughly three years.

See, that bit I find unjustified, closed-minded, and rather insulting. Not personally, mind you, since I'm not a lawyer, but insulting nonetheless.

All it's going to do is weaken any argument you might make.
How many lawyers have you met? :D
It is a defence lawyer job to hid the truth of a guilty client, ie. to lie

Three: They were held WITHOUT CHARGE for roughly three years.

And then, when he finally returns home, the Australian government says something like "we admit he hasn't done anything illegal, but we're going to treat him like a criminal anyway". How pathetic is that?

One: The fact that -snip- (Allegedly.....)

Do you see the problem I have with this?

How many lawyers have you met? :D
It is a defence lawyer job to hid the truth of a guilty client, ie. to lie

Many.

Not true. It's the defence lawyer's job to give him the best result possible in a trial. Habib isn't on trial. He isn't even accused of anything. In fact, the Australian government has actually said that he hasn't done anything wrong.

"Originally Posted by Gran Togaland


One: The fact that -snip- (Allegedly.....)



Do you see the problem I have with this? "


No.....not really. I saird allegedly. I'm covered.

Do you see the problem I have with this?

The torture isn't a great stretch. We know that Habib was held in Egypt for a while. We know that Egypt uses torture on a regular basis. And we know that the US handed suspects over to friendly foreign countries for interrogation precisely because they didn't have pesky rules about how to treat prisoners, including Egypt.

You connect the dots.

How many lawyers have you met? :D
It is a defence lawyer job to hid the truth of a guilty client, ie. to lie
Many, and it is not the job of a defence lawyer to either hide the truth or to lie.

And then, when he finally returns home, the Australian government says something like "we admit he hasn't done anything illegal, but we're going to treat him like a criminal anyway". How pathetic is that?


Someone agrees with me!...:)

but i'll pull out now, because otherwise i'll get sucked in too deep.

"Originally Posted by Gran Togaland


One: The fact that -snip- (Allegedly.....)



Do you see the problem I have with this? "


No.....not really. I saird allegedly. I'm covered.
The problem is that you typed fact and then allegedly, you admit it isnt fact why would you claim it in the first place? I see it as a deliberate attempt to mislead people

Many, and it is not the job of a defence lawyer to either hide the truth or to lie.
It is the lawyers job to try and defend his client to the limit of the law, if it wasnt his job to hide/avoid the truth there would be no such thing as inadmisable evidence
ill have to go, ill check this thread later to see if a better argument is needed

It is the lawyers job to try and defend his client to the limit of the law,
Aha. A lawyer lieing to the courts is illegal, a lawyer encouraging his client to lie to the courts is illegal.

if it wasnt his job to hide/avoid the truth there would be no such thing as inadmisable evidence
Well it isnt his job to hide avoid the truth, and there is such a thing as inadmissible evidence, ergo your statement is untrue.

ill have to go, ill check this thread later to see if a better argument is needed
You definately need a better argument than one which indirectly adds weight to my own, and is based on a provably false premise.

Aha. A lawyer lieing to the courts is illegal, a lawyer encouraging his client to lie to the courts is illegal.


Well it isnt his job to hide avoid the truth, and there is such a thing as inadmissible evidence, ergo your statement is untrue.

Okay now ive eaten, feeling much better

So your argument is that it doesnt happen because it is a breach of legal ethics? Defence lawyers are not there to find the truth they are there to defend their client, weather it be finding dirt on a witness or finding a technicallity to stop evidence being admitted. These are strategies to hide the truth.
Their job exists to find their client innocent even when they know their client is guilty.

Hence their job is to hide, lie, misrepresent anything to avoid the truth that the client is guilty.


Well it isnt his job to hide avoid the truth, and there is such a thing as inadmissible evidence, ergo your statement is untrue.

As shown above their argument is to defend their client not to find the truth, ergo my statement is correct

Okay now ive eaten, feeling much better
I'm glad you're feeling better....nothing worse than typing on an empty tummy...

So your argument is that it doesnt happen because it is a breach of legal ethics?
No, my argument didnt not state whether it happens or not, in fact whether or not it happens isnt even relevent to my stated argument.

Defence lawyers are not there to find the truth they are there to defend their client,
Within (as you have already conceded) the limits of the law. It is illegal to lie to the courts, it is illegal to incite someone else to commit a crime, and it is illegal to aid and abet a crime.

weather it be finding dirt on a witness or finding a technicallity to stop evidence being admitted.
As opposed to making up lies about witnesses or lies about admissable evidence, or even lies about inadmissable evidence.

These are strategies to hide the truth.
In some cases they may be, if it is so in all or most cases, you need to substantiate that, I see no reason to believe that it is necessarily so.

Their job exists to find their client innocent even when they know their client is guilty.
No actually it doesnt.

Hence their job is to hide, lie, misrepresent anything to avoid the truth that the client is guilty.
Even if the premise above were true, it would not necessitate the conclusion you have posited, as it is the premise is untrue.

As shown above their argument is to defend their client not to find the truth, ergo my statement is correct
Such a thing has not been shown, so it cannot prove the correctness of any statement.

So in your mind all Taliban Soldiers deserve this treatment:

By Tamara McLean
January 27, 2005

Mamdouh Habib was the victim of atrocities fit for a concentration camp, including being tied to the ground while a prostitute menstruated on him, his lawyer said yesterday.

Interrogators at the US prison camp at Guantanamo Bay had also told the Sydney man they had killed his family and superimposed animal heads on photos of his wife and children, Steven Hopper said.

At an Australia Day forum in Sydney, Mr Hopper gave more details of atrocities allegedly endured by his client while held at the US base in Cuba.

The Federal Government said it was aware of similar allegations of torture made by former British detainees at Guantanamo Bay but it was the first time the Government had heard the claims involving Mr Habib.

Mr Habib is due back in Sydney within a fortnight after the US said it would release him without charge despite holding him for more than three years on suspicion he knew about the September 11 attacks and had trained with al-Qaeda.

Mr Hopper said yesterday: "The Americans used prostitutes as tools in their interrogations. They'd say to detainees 'If you co-operate with us, we'll let you at this woman for the night'. And if they wouldn't agree they'd use them in other ways."

He said detainees held at the base with Mr Habib reported that a prostitute was told to stand over him and menstruate on him.

"[We believe] one of the prostitutes stood over him naked while he was strapped to the floor and menstruated on him," he said.

Mr Hopper said officials at the base also defaced photos of Mr Habib's wife, Maha, and their four children.

"The Americans in their wisdom have taken the heads off the pictures, enlarged them and superimposed them with the heads of animals and then strung them up all over the walls of the interrogation room," he said.

"As they sat there talking to Mamdouh asking him about his terrorist activities, they held up a picture of Maha and said, 'It's a shame we had to kill your family, it's a shame you will never see these people again'."

He said Mr Habib was also subjected to the same interrogation techniques used on prisoners at the infamous Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

"Make no doubt about it, Guantanamo Bay wasn't a prisoner-of-war camp," Mr Hopper said. "It was a facility designed to interrogate people. It was nothing more than a vulgar concentration camp and it has marked a new high in the rise of American fascism."

Mr Habib was detained in Pakistan in late 2001 and sent to Egypt before being flown to Guantanamo Bay in 2002.

Mr Hopper also detailed abuses against Mr Habib while in Egypt, saying he was suspended from the ceiling with only an electrified barrel to stand on.

"He would stand and get a shock or hang painfully by his arms until he'd collapse," he said.

He was blindfolded and locked in rooms that were flooded with water and charged with electricity, Mr Hopper said.

"On other occasions they used German shepherd guard dogs and [interrogators] told him they train dogs to sexually assault people," the lawyer said.
And if you believe half of what these men say I have this bridge in New York I would love to sell to you, or if you aren't in to bridges how about this clock tower in London... If I was facing these charges I would make up as many stories about how my detainers were mistreating me! Yes there have been some lapses in judgment in Americian military circles. But I can remember some of our Canadian boys being charged in the deaths of prisoners and we are the actual Peacekeepers of the world, particulairly since we have never instigated hostilities with any one. I remember cases with almost every country in the world committing some sort of war crime. So I take all of this with a large serving of salt, you can only believe so much before you become a fool or patsy.

I'm glad you're feeling better....nothing worse than typing on an empty tummy...Wana bet? Try typing with an active and sick (measles) Toddler not wanting to take his nap or go to bed till you let him cry it out at 3 in the morning!

And if you believe half of what these men say I have this bridge in New York I would love to sell to you, or if you aren't in to bridges how about this clock tower in London... If I was facing these charges I would make up as many stories about how my detainers were mistreating me! Yes there have been some lapses in judgment in Americian military circles. But I can remember some of our Canadian boys being charged in the deaths of prisoners and we are the actual Peacekeepers of the world, particulairly since we have never instigated hostilities with any one. I remember cases with almost every country in the world committing some sort of war crime. So I take all of this with a large serving of salt, you can only believe so much before you become a fool or patsy.
Hang on, because there have been lots of allegations, they are all, or at least half of them are false...your (mis)use of logic astounds me...
In the first place the even if some or half or most allegations were false generally, this does not prove anything about any particular set of allegations. The fact that you would lie does not prove that everyone and anyone else in that same situation would lie, nor if it did prove so, would it prove that there was in this case any necessity to make things up. Nothing you have said proves the allegations are false, nor does it indicate how likely they are to be true or false....

Hang on, because there have been lots of allegations, they are all, or at least half of them are false...your (mis)use of logic astounds me...
In the first place the even if some or half or most allegations were false generally, this does not prove anything about any particular set of allegations. The fact that you would lie does not prove that everyone and anyone else in that same situation would lie, nor if it did prove so, would it prove that there was in this case any necessity to make things up. Nothing you have said proves the allegations are false, nor does it indicate how likely they are to be true or false....
You have never been in the military or worked in the legal system have you? Under these circumstances 99% of all convicts lie. You so VERY rarely actually meet someone in prison that will admit that (s)he is guilty, they are all innocent. In extreme cases serial killers have gone so far to convince everyone they are innocent as to teach someone how to copy cat them. So don't try and tell me that if you were facing the death penalty for treason that you wouldn't make up stories to make yourself look innocent and mistreated. Your own arguement is circular. If some are true/false then all the rest must be the same right! Oh wait I see just because some are false then that proves that some are true but the reverse isn't true no matter what right? Gain some world experience and then we will talk again!

You have never been in the military or worked in the legal system have you?
Whether I have or not isnt relevent.
Under these circumstances 99% of all convicts lie.
The fact that 99% of all counters are red, doesnt tell us whether or not any specific counter is red.
You so VERY rarely actually meet someone in prison that will admit that (s)he is guilty, they are all innocent.
A trait that the majority of innocent people also appear to display...so again it tells us nothing about any particular case.

In extreme cases serial killers have gone so far to convince everyone they are innocent as to teach someone how to copy cat them.
An extreme example of a generality still tells us nothing whatsoever about a particular individual.

So don't try and tell me that if you were facing the death penalty for treason that you wouldn't make up stories to make yourself look innocent and mistreated.
Why do you imagine either that I would try to tell you this, or that it is in any way relevent to the issue at hand?

Your own arguement is circular. If some are true/false then all the rest must be the same right!
Er, no....whatever makes you think my reasoning is 'if some true/false then all the rest must be the same right', I personally am not even certain what this is supposed to actually mean...

Oh wait I see just because some are false then that proves that some are true but the reverse isn't true no matter what right?
What?

Gain some world experience and then we will talk again!
Do you imagine that peevish semi-flames dont make you appear less credible?

I'm glad you're feeling better....nothing worse than typing on an empty tummy...

thanks but now im alittle tired :)

No, my argument didnt not state whether it happens or not, in fact whether or not it happens isnt even relevent to my stated argument.

It is relevent because you have conceded that laws are broken, even in a court room laws are bent, twisteded and broken.

Within (as you have already conceded) the limits of the law. It is illegal to lie to the courts, it is illegal to incite someone else to commit a crime, and it is illegal to aid and abet a crime.

yes it is illegal, if someone can prove you are lying. If there is no proof to the contrary people lie all the time

As opposed to making up lies about witnesses or lies about admissable evidence, or even lies about inadmissable evidence.

This just proves my point only for district attorneys instead of defence lawyers, thank you

In some cases they may be, if it is so in all or most cases, you need to substantiate that, I see no reason to believe that it is necessarily so.

I never said in all cases, just many

No actually it doesnt.

Yes it does. They represent their client, they are working for their client and that job is to help them

Even if the premise above were true, it would not necessitate the conclusion you have posited, as it is the premise is untrue.

Okay maybe not in all cases, some people are actually innocent, yet alot of guilty people go free because of a "good" lawyer

Such a thing has not been shown, so it cannot prove the correctness of any statement.
Again I point out that a defence lawyer's job is to represent the client, not to find the truth

Whether I have or not isnt relevent.

agreed

The fact that 99% of all counters are red, doesnt tell us whether or not any specific counter is red.

Also agreed, it does give us a good idea, I am aware this I a generalisation but to find this 1% is what the courts are for. If it was 100% there would be no need for courts, but most people end up at court because the police believe they are guilty and this is often (using the agreed example above) 99% of the time founded

A trait that the majority of innocent people also appear to display...so again it tells us nothing about any particular case.

very true

An extreme example of a generality still tells us nothing whatsoever about a particular individual.

Again true and again what trials are for.

Why do you imagine either that I would try to tell you this, or that it is in any way relevent to the issue at hand?

Agreed, im sure both of us dont want and will at almost all cost avoid that situation in the first place

Er, no....whatever makes you think my reasoning is 'if some true/false then all the rest must be the same right', I personally am not even certain what this is supposed to actually mean...

im not sure what he ment either but my take on it all is you have agreed that some are things can be true or false then all things must be true or false?? maybe

What?

agreed, my head hurts, I think he has the idea that you have some hypocritical ideas in there some where I dont think I have found any

Do you imagine that peevish semi-flames dont make you appear less credible?
another good point


Sorry to butt in on your second arguement but ive enjoyed debating with you, most people arguements have degraded into flames or pety insults by now I applude you

Well if they are subjected to unreasonable or unacceptable treatment, then they are the victims of unreasonable or unacceptable treatment.

Whether or not anyone feels sorry for them, isnt entirely relevent to deciding whether or not their treatment is acceptable and/or reasonable. What the men are opposed to, doesnt make me lower my standards with regards to what is and isnt acceptable and reasonable. My standards are my standards, as opposed to being mine except when they are decided relevative to someone else's behaviour. I dont accept that the latter even consititutes a 'standard' as the word is normatively used in this context.

Read the Geneva Conventions. They weren't entitled to protections as "Prisoners of War", or even any of the protections of the Conventions.

So screw them.

"The problem is that you typed fact and then allegedly, you admit it isnt fact why would you claim it in the first place? I see it as a deliberate attempt to mislead people"


sorry....missed that mistake. bad word usage on my part......i should have said "the alleged fact". or perhaps just allegedly.

And sorry for the odd way of quoting....i don't trust the quote thingy one this page. But i'm paranoid.



Last of all, Whispering Legs, are you for or against: the geneva convention, torture of habib and hicks as POWS, or am i misunderstanding the last post?

I didnt have time to read anything since my last post, as i have to sleep, which has caused me to not understand much.....(also alcohol has affected both these things....)

1. David Hicks and Habib are not, in a direct interpretation of the Geneva Conventions, subject to its protections. This is not only true for a direct interpretation, it is true for historical precedence by High Contracting Parties in the past. Please go to http://www.genevaconventions.org and read Convention I, Article 2. You will find that they are in no way protected because they are not members of a state that is party to the Conventions, nor has their organization publicly stated that they would adhere to the Conventions, nor has their organization shown by deed that they are following the Conventions. Thus, even if they were Prisoners of War and not Enemy Combatants, they still would not be protected by the Conventions.

Historical precedence with European nations has shown that these people are usually shot on the spot after capture, or hideously tortured and hung shortly thereafter.

The same goes for enemy combatants, mercenaries, and spies. Torture and hanging was the rule. Members of the SAS caught in civilian clothing knew in advance that their fate was death by torture if they were caught - and some were. No one was ever prosecuted afterwards for war crimes in this regard because it was done in accordance with the Conventions.

2. What was done with thongs is not considered torture. It may be unofficially "a bad thing", but it is certainly not illegal in the sense that many here on these forums believe. It is not a violation of international law.

you believe a lawyer??Well...apparently The Sidney Herald does.

So far I believe Habib and his Lawyer..over Bush and the Pantagon denials

1. David Hicks and Habib are not, in a direct interpretation of the Geneva Conventions, subject to its protections. This is not only true for a direct interpretation, it is true for historical precedence by High Contracting Parties in the past. Please go to http://www.genevaconventions.org and read Convention I, Article 2. You will find that they are in no way protected because they are not members of a state that is party to the Conventions, nor has their organization publicly stated that they would adhere to the Conventions, nor has their organization shown by deed that they are following the Conventions. Thus, even if they were Prisoners of War and not Enemy Combatants, they still would not be protected by the Conventions.

Historical precedence with European nations has shown that these people are usually shot on the spot after capture, or hideously tortured and hung shortly thereafter.

The same goes for enemy combatants, mercenaries, and spies. Torture and hanging was the rule. Members of the SAS caught in civilian clothing knew in advance that their fate was death by torture if they were caught - and some were. No one was ever prosecuted afterwards for war crimes in this regard because it was done in accordance with the Conventions.

2. What was done with thongs is not considered torture. It may be unofficially "a bad thing", but it is certainly not illegal in the sense that many here on these forums believe. It is not a violation of international law.

So to answer, I am for the Geneva Convention, which some here have apparently not read.

I am OK with the treatment that Habib and Hicks received. It is not torture, and even if they had been subject to having their skin peeled off and their testicles toasted with a torch, they would still not have been subject to the protection of the Conventions, and I would still have no problem with it.

They weren't captured because they were selling Girl Scout cookies door to door. They were shooting at US troops with AK rifles in support of the Taliban - not in support of their own country.

They are lucky that they aren't dead. Under the Conventions, shooting them on the spot would have been completely legal.

dp

but you admit it is hardly a credible source?For WARnews and for GITMOnews the Pentagon 'n' Bush are less of a credible soucre than Habib...by far.

And if you believe half of what these men say...

So far I believe what Habib says...over Bush denials and over the Pantagon denials...

So far I believe what Habib says...over Bush denials and over the Pantagon denials...

And you'll believe what Habib says over what's printed in the Geneva Conventions, which you refuse to read, because you know it will show you that Habib was not subject to its protections.

And if you're going to trust lawyers, you'll have to explain why you don't trust me. I've been a lawyer for some time now.

So to answer, I am for the Geneva Convention, which some here have apparently not read.

I am OK with the treatment that Habib and Hicks received. It is not torture....
They weren't captured because they were selling Girl Scout cookies door to door. They were shooting at US troops with AK rifles in support of the Taliban - not in support of their own country.

They are lucky that they aren't dead. Under the Conventions, shooting them on the spot would have been completely legal.

Hicks was caught that way, I don't deny that, but habib was held purely on the suspicion that he knew of the 911 attacks before they happened, which has never been proven, as he was locked up since 'capture'.

And then on the plane on the way back, they continued to harrass him by saying they weren't actually going to return him to Australia. And now he's under surveillence because of something that hasn't been proven.


Excerpt from the Geneva Convention:
Article 3

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

/

There it is right there. NO TORTURE!


To zero in on the parts that prove it:
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

/
this bit means ( as i understand it) that america, as a High Contracting party, is in no way allowed to use any methods that are against the Geneva Convention, regardless of who it is fighting, or whether they(the other side) are using said methods, as it is a member of said Geneva Convention.
Also, this backs it up further,

Article 2

In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

There it is. I've read it. And it backs me up a darn site better then it did you.

Although Hicks was caught alongside the taliban, Habib was NOT.
Both cases(of torture, and in habib's case, of held-without-charge) were illegal, as defined by the Geneva Convention.


And then theres this bit,

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

Thats Habib's case right there.

And if you're going to trust lawyers, you'll have to explain why you don't trust me. I've been a lawyer for some time now.

Because you've shown that you're careless with the facts, as GT has pointed out.

Thanks Thelona!

Thanks Thelona!

No worries. :)

thanks but now im alittle tired :)

It is relevent because you have conceded that laws are broken, even in a court room laws are bent, twisteded and broken.
It isnt relevent unless you can prove that 'people always do and only ever do exactly what their job is', otherwise it's as relevent as saying "all lawyers go to the toilet, therefore it is a lawyer's job to go to the toilet'.

yes it is illegal, if someone can prove you are lying. If there is no proof to the contrary people lie all the time
Whether or not lawyers go outside the bounds of their job is irrelevent. The point discussed is what the job of lawyers is. I am arguing that it is not true that a lawyer's job is to lie. This has been supported by the fact that lawyers jobs are to defend their client within the bounds of the law. Whether or not all lawyers stay within the bounds of the lawyer, or even if any lawyers stay within the bounds of the law, actually is not in any way relevent. We are discussing what the job of a lawyer is, not what lawyers actually get up to. The job of a lawyer is to defend their clients legal interests within the limits of the law. That excludes lying, or aiding and abetting their client's lies to the courts.

This just proves my point only for district attorneys instead of defence lawyers, thank you
No it doesnt, I'd be interested to know how you think the fact that people tell the truth in court rather than making up lies, somehow proves that their job is to lie...

I never said in all cases, just many
Then your point has no relevence.

Yes it does. They represent their client, they are working for their client and that job is to help them
Within the limits of law, which means not lying or aiding and abetting someone else's lie to the courts.

Okay maybe not in all cases, some people are actually innocent, yet alot of guilty people go free because of a "good" lawyer
Irrelevent. The only thing relevent is what a lawyer's job is. You go to any employed lawyer and get his job description, or any lawyer/client contract, and I promise you will never find listed in that description/contract "lie to the courts" in any context which suggests this is lawyers jobs. You might believe that lawyers lie to the court all the time, you might even be right, but that doesnt make lieing their job.

Again I point out that a defence lawyer's job is to represent the client, not to find the truth
Most people's job isnt to 'find the truth' 'not find the truth' is not synomous with 'tell lies'.

agreed

Also agreed, it does give us a good idea, I am aware this I a generalisation but to find this 1% is what the courts are for. If it was 100% there would be no need for courts, but most people end up at court because the police believe they are guilty and this is often (using the agreed example above) 99% of the time founded
It is a fallacy to believe that statistical chance is any indication of reality with regards to a particular set of facts. It tells us that there is good reason to investigate the possibility, and so can be helpful if appropriately used, however if one is to take it as a reason to assume the possibility is true then it becomes counterproductive.

very true

Again true and again what trials are for.

Agreed, im sure both of us dont want and will at almost all cost avoid that situation in the first place.
some im not sure what he ment either but my take on it all is you have agreed that some are things can be true or false then all things must be true or false?? maybe

agreed, my head hurts, I think he has the idea that you have some hypocritical ideas in there some where I dont think I have found any

another good point


Sorry to butt in on your second arguement but ive enjoyed debating with you, most people arguements have degraded into flames or pety insults by now I applude you
thanks, although you didnt reallyn 'butt in', it's a public forum, so just make yourself at home... ;)

Read the Geneva Conventions. They weren't entitled to protections as "Prisoners of War", or even any of the protections of the Conventions.

So screw them.
The Geneva Conventions are irrelevent. Nothing in the Geneva Conventions restrains me from lying to my spouse, however my own standards do. Whether or not my government had even signed the convention referred to, I would not consider such actions acceptable and/or reasonable. I do not require some document to tell me what is acceptable and/or reasonable. Irregardless of the Geneva Convention, I cannot view the actions described in the artical as having taken place, as being either appropriate or reasonable.

I make what may well be one of the greatest points (ego....), and it goes largely ignored.

although that is a good point above me.

For WARnews and for GITMOnews the Pentagon 'n' Bush are less of a credible soucre than Habib...by far.
Funny, but that is subjective, personally I wouldnt trust any source 100%

Funny, but that is subjective, personally I wouldnt trust any source 100%
I personally neither trust nor distrust any source 100%...

It isnt relevent unless you can prove that 'people always do and only ever do exactly what their job is', otherwise it's as relevent as saying "all lawyers go to the toilet, therefore it is a lawyer's job to go to the toilet'.
Sorry but that is silly, I never have and never will claim that people always do anything. Again you are admiting that people dont always do what their job description tells them to do.

Whether or not lawyers go outside the bounds of their job is irrelevent. The point discussed is what the job of lawyers is. I am arguing that it is not true that a lawyer's job is to lie. This has been supported by the fact that lawyers jobs are to defend their client within the bounds of the law. Whether or not all lawyers stay within the bounds of the lawyer, or even if any lawyers stay within the bounds of the law, actually is not in any way relevent. We are discussing what the job of a lawyer is, not what lawyers actually get up to. The job of a lawyer is to defend their clients legal interests within the limits of the law. That excludes lying, or aiding and abetting their client's lies to the courts.

It is relevent, if what their job discription is and what they are doing is different, then it is their job discription which is irrelevent. You can not argue theory versus reality


No it doesnt, I'd be interested to know how you think the fact that people tell the truth in court rather than making up lies, somehow proves that their job is to lie...

As opposed to making up lies about witnesses or lies about admissable evidence, or even lies about inadmissable evidence.
how is making up lies about evidence not lying?


Then your point has no relevence.

it has relevence, as the majority is a better indicator then the minority

Within the limits of law, which means not lying or aiding and abetting someone else's lie to the courts.

I find it amusing and ironic that we are using the "limits of the law" as the law is very limited, limited because you can lie all you want in court as long as their is no evidence to the contrary.

Irrelevent. The only thing relevent is what a lawyer's job is. You go to any employed lawyer and get his job description, or any lawyer/client contract, and I promise you will never find listed in that description/contract "lie to the courts" in any context which suggests this is lawyers jobs. You might believe that lawyers lie to the court all the time, you might even be right, but that doesnt make lieing their job.

the lawyers actual job is irrelevent compared to what the lawyer actually does

Most people's job isnt to 'find the truth' 'not find the truth' is not synomous with 'tell lies'.
most people aren't lawyers. DA are there to find justice which isnt possible without truth, attornies are there to help their client, whether it be if they are guilty or innocent. If their client is innocent then yes they are after truth also, if their client is guilty they are there to hide the truth which is tantamount to lying

I personally neither trust nor distrust any source 100%...
Again I tend to agree with you. Yet I am reluctant to believe before some sort of proof, im not claiming any of this never happened I have yet to pick a side but I need more then someones word. Call me a pessimist if you like, as I said I have deep seeded trust issues. Yet as my personal problems are not what is being discussed its matters not.

Hicks was caught that way, I don't deny that, but habib was held purely on the suspicion that he knew of the 911 attacks before they happened, which has never been proven, as he was locked up since 'capture'.

And then on the plane on the way back, they continued to harrass him by saying they weren't actually going to return him to Australia. And now he's under surveillence because of something that hasn't been proven.


Excerpt from the Geneva Convention:
Article 3

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

/

There it is right there. NO TORTURE!


To zero in on the parts that prove it:
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

/
this bit means ( as i understand it) that america, as a High Contracting party, is in no way allowed to use any methods that are against the Geneva Convention, regardless of who it is fighting, or whether they(the other side) are using said methods, as it is a member of said Geneva Convention.
Also, this backs it up further,

Article 2

In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

There it is. I've read it. And it backs me up a darn site better then it did you.

Although Hicks was caught alongside the taliban, Habib was NOT.
Both cases(of torture, and in habib's case, of held-without-charge) were illegal, as defined by the Geneva Convention.


And then theres this bit,

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

Thats Habib's case right there.

You're leaving out part of Article 2 on purpose. Let's read it, shall we?

"Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."

Neither Afghanistan, nor the Taliban, nor al-Qaeda are signatories or High Contracting Parties to the Conventions.

Neither Afghanistan, nor the Taliban, nor al-Qaeda have accepted and applied the provisions thereof.

So no one captured in that conflict are subject to the protections of the Conventions - and that includes the protection of getting a tribunal.

The US has done the military tribunal thing - there's nothing in the Conventions that says that the US military tribunals are not valid.

So once again, fuck Habib and Hicks.

The US has done the military tribunal thing - there's nothing in the Conventions that says that the US military tribunals are not valid.Ahh but it's against the US constitution.

Ahh but it's against the US constitution.

Only if it's a law enforcement matter. We still don't have to charge them with anything to hold them - and now we're moving to more elaborate tribunals to satisfy the Supreme Court (lower courts want the tribunals to be civilian trials).

As they say, the jury is still not out.

There's a big difference between being captured by military forces and captured by the FBI. The FBI has to treat it as a law enforcement matter. To the military, you're a captive whose status has to be determined (and if you're from a non-signatory, you might well be fucked).

Even Human Rights Watch, an organization that really wants to do good things for terrorists, says that it is unlikely that members of al-Qaeda can enjoy ANY protections at all.

We should do what the Russians and the French do (their overseas services have long histories of doing the following).

Track people down overseas. Kill them wherever they are found. Don't bother with bringing them back for hearings, trials, or tribunals. Do this using military personnel. Then you can say the people in question were "killed in combat".

No trial necessary, see? And all perfectly legal, and all above board, and all quite open and traditional.

Well if they are subjected to unreasonable or unacceptable treatment, then they are the victims of unreasonable or unacceptable treatment.
OK, well, I agree they shouldn't be tortured. That's not right really. However, it bothers me that the way David Hicks, at least, is reported on, implies that he is entirely innocent of anything. As I said, maybe he had nothing to do with Al Qaida, but he definitely was in with the Taliban.

Allegedly - don't forget that word. Habib says he went to Pakistan to look at schools for his children, if I'm not mistaken. I don't believe he was ever in Afghanistan.

Hicks at least worked with the Taliban. But there's no evidence that he was involved in any terrorist activities, so why exactly should he be punished?

Are you sure enough in your beliefs to hate everyone who has different ideals than you? If so, I feel sorry for you.
OK, it seems I was wrong about Mandu Habib (it's actually quite hard to find out anything about him though, try googling "Mandu Habib", and then try googling "Mandu Habib" pakistan OR afghanistan.)

As for Hicks, well, he clearly doesn't respect simple things like equality for women, and democracy, and basic human rights. Should we torture or punish him for that? No. Should we trust him? I don't think so.

As for your last statement, well, that's really crap. Are you implying I ought to be somehow respectful of people who have views that should have been left behind hundreds of years ago? That's just daft. What would be the point of living in a relatively free, open, democracy if I didn't think it was a better way of doing things? If I didn't, I'd be unconcerned if people like the Taliban were to take over. I imagine Hicks would be well pleased to see people like the Taliban take over in Australia.

So yes, I'm secure in my view that relatively more democracy, civil liberties, freedoms and so forth are better. Otherwise, why would I care if we lost those things?

Ok. Seems you keep forgeting that Habib was NOT captured while he was shooting at american soldiers. I have no idea where a respectable lawyer such as you got it from(maybe fox news...). He was taken only because it was suspected (and ONLY suspected....there is still no concrete proof) of knowing of the 911 attack before it happened.


Habib is, for all intents and purposes, innocent, because of the lack of hard evidence.

Hicks...well. I agree there.as far as i know,(though i could be wrong. few sources....) he was fighting.and yes, i'll agree that holding him without charge is a fair thing(if its true.) . But torture isn't. regardless of who, what or why it is being done. Did Saddam get tortured? No. (or least, no evidence exists.) The fact that it is America, the country that is meant to lead the world in everything (though they don't in most.....but thats another story.) is, frankly, disturbing to me. They are meant to be(MEANT to be) led by a government that is fighting for freedom and democracy for all, and they do this.


And then theres the "link" between Saddam and Osama. There wasn't one. Saddam was a power hungry dictator. Osama is a regilous (cant remember the word, so i'll use) nut.

Osama would have hated Saddam.

And, lastly, where are the WMD's? Everyone seems to forget that was the original reason for going in.

Track people down overseas. Kill them wherever they are found. Don't bother with bringing them back for hearings, trials, or tribunals. Do this using military personnel. Then you can say the people in question were "killed in combat".

No trial necessary, see? And all perfectly legal, and all above board, and all quite open and traditional.


Wouldn't that technically count as an invasion and an "open and traditional"
declaration of war?

Ok. Seems you keep forgeting that Habib was NOT captured while he was shooting at american soldiers. I have no idea where a respectable lawyer such as you got it from(maybe fox news...). He was taken only because it was suspected (and ONLY suspected....there is still no concrete proof) of knowing of the 911 attack before it happened.


Habib is, for all intents and purposes, innocent, because of the lack of hard evidence.

Hicks...well. I agree there.as far as i know,(though i could be wrong. few sources....) he was fighting.and yes, i'll agree that holding him without charge is a fair thing(if its true.) . But torture isn't. regardless of who, what or why it is being done. Did Saddam get tortured? No. (or least, no evidence exists.) The fact that it is America, the country that is meant to lead the world in everything (though they don't in most.....but thats another story.) is, frankly, disturbing to me. They are meant to be(MEANT to be) led by a government that is fighting for freedom and democracy for all, and they do this.

If it turns out true I completly agree


And then theres the "link" between Saddam and Osama. There wasn't one. Saddam was a power hungry dictator. Osama is a regilous (cant remember the word, so i'll use) nut.

Osama would have hated Saddam.

Probably, but Saddam is a Muslim who was "critical" of the US, Osama may have apreshiated this, hence the enemy of my enemy is my friend type thing

And, lastly, where are the WMD's? Everyone seems to forget that was the original reason for going in.
Very true but we will never know the truth. It may well be an unjustified war which was just, we will have to wait for history to find out

I have to say, this is one of the best threads i've been part of, on any forum.

I have to say, this is one of the best threads i've been part of, on any forum.
I agree, its definatly been the most civil when a contraversial topic is being discussed, everyone has presented their argument very well.

sorry....missed that mistake. bad word usage on my part......i should have said "the alleged fact". or perhaps just allegedly.

Thats accepted, a non-issue really

Wouldn't that technically count as an invasion and an "open and traditional"
declaration of war?

You can declare all the war you like, or not declare war.

The French didn't declare war when they sank the Rainbow Warrior and killed its unarmed crew.

Declaring war doesn't mean the participants (willing or unwilling) get any protections under the Geneva Conventions - unless they are members fighting on behalf of a signatory, or on behalf of a nation that indicates publicly that it will abide by the Conventions.

That said, it's bad to torture people - but we all can't agree on a definition, even though we've all gone ahead with what's written in the UN Convention Against Torture.

That being said, getting a lap dance from a woman in a thong apparently doesn't qualify as mental or physical abuse - at least not in some people's minds. The fact that it is clearly arguable (from the UN CAT text) makes it ambiguous. Legally ambiguous.

Morally and ethically, you're always going to have ambiguities.

Let's say you're arrested by the police. They want to question you. Most people would be intimidated, no matter how nice they were. You could claim that the mere act of questioning is mental abuse.

So just asking questions of a detainee can be considered torture.

Hmm. I don't think so.

You can declare all the war you like, or not declare war.

The French didn't declare war when they sank the Rainbow Warrior and killed its unarmed crew.
Aha, which may go some way toward explaining why it wasnt treated as an act of war....dont you think?

Declaring war doesn't mean the participants (willing or unwilling) get any protections under the Geneva Conventions - unless they are members fighting on behalf of a signatory, or on behalf of a nation that indicates publicly that it will abide by the Conventions.

That said, it's bad to torture people - but we all can't agree on a definition, even though we've all gone ahead with what's written in the UN Convention Against Torture.
Frankly if ithere is any doubt as to whether or not it is torture, then probably it is torture...

That being said, getting a lap dance from a woman in a thong apparently doesn't qualify as mental or physical abuse - at least not in some people's minds. The fact that it is clearly arguable (from the UN CAT text) makes it ambiguous. Legally ambiguous.
Actually it qualifies as sexual assualt, which most certainly is a form of mental abuse.

Morally and ethically, you're always going to have ambiguities.
I see no ambiguity when it comes to sexual assualts.

Let's say you're arrested by the police. They want to question you. Most people would be intimidated, no matter how nice they were. You could claim that the mere act of questioning is mental abuse.
Yes I could, but no one would listen to me, where as if a male dectective behaved in such a manner that I could even know what kind of undies he had on, I would most certainly expect that to be looked at askance and for some disiplinary measures to be taken against the perpretrators of such treatment.
If it were your daughter have men in their undies straddling her and rubbing their groin against her groin, would that be 'all good' according to you, how about if it were your wife, or how about if it were your sister, your mother? It sure as heck wouldnt be acceptable to me.

So just asking questions of a detainee can be considered torture.
No it cant, but anyway it's irrelevent to you, because according to you, unless the perpetrator of an act gives a full public confession, there is no proof and so it's just talk and so no one should be talking about the alledged crime, much less wasting time interviewing people and investigating it. Or does the 'not true or even worth talking about unless there is a publically signed confession' idea, only apply at your convinience, when you wish to stop discussion of an issue and censor others?

For WARnews and for GITMOnews the Pentagon 'n' Bush are less of a credible soucre than Habib...by far.Funny, but that is subjective, personally I wouldnt trust any source 100%I don trust 100%...

for this sexual assault torture reports...my trust is about 10% for Bush/USarmy ...and 90% for Habib.

so far (2-fev-2005) BTW what is so funny?

Wow. Thats pretty much exactly what i was trying to say, peopleandstuff.



What exactly is this Rainbow Warrior incident?

Wow. Thats pretty much exactly what i was trying to say, peopleandstuff.



What exactly is this Rainbow Warrior incident?

The Rainbow Warrior was a ship owned by Greenpeace. France was using atolls in the Pacific to test their nuclear weapons, and Greenpeace was opposed to this. The Rainbow Warrier was used in protests against the practise. For whatever reason the French government at the time (or elements therein) decided it would be a good idea to send a couple of 'undercover' French agents to New Zealand (where the Rainbow Warrior was docked while taking on supplies before heading off somewhere in the Pacific to participate in a protest) to blow up the Rainbow Warrior. One person was killed in the incident.