I’m not sure what your comment means, xenophon41. Are you saying that due process is the highest human right, and that it trumps all other considerations?
If so, consider a hypothetical example of someone who irrationally hates African American children and has killed as many as possible. Let’s say that the state of Mississippi has detained him, but failed to use due process. Would you say that human rights considerations require his release, even though he will then bomb another Black church? I sure wouldn’t!
If you think my analogy is not parallel, I invite you to explain why.
none of us (AI or other posters) have a problem w/detaining and imprisoning any person while waiting for trial (reasonable period of time) or post conviction after a fair trail.
where AI seems to have a problem, as do I and as have other posters expressed, is with detaining people w/o a trial, w/o due process etc.
in your example, you state ‘you know’ this person is responsible and will kill again. Well, if you ‘know’ this to be true, one hopes that you can then provide proof in court, and then the detention for the rest of that person’s life would be legal and right.
it’s the lack of trial, the lack of hope for a trial that is the compelling reason to release. and, if the person is as nefarious as you claim, one would think it’d be provable in court.
Suppose you live right near a totalitarian state. They are detaining a murderer, someone who has taken credit for the murder of a friend of yours. You and your friend are not from the state where the murderer is being held.
If he’s released, this murderer will immediately kill your son. You cannot force the totaltarian state to apply due apply due process.
Do you insist that the murderer be released so that your son is killed? Obviously not. What applies to your child applies equally well to innocent Israeli children, doncha think?
If your hypothetical killer has been detained by the state without evidence being presented and without charges being brought against him, then yes, human [and US civil] rights considerations require his release. Blame the incompetence of the hypothetical Mississippian authorities if you need to place blame, but don’t blame the hypothetical ACLU lawyers who’ll show up to obtain his release.
See, the minimum requirement a state must meet in order to detain an individual is that the state must show, through established and public procedural methods, that the accused is suspected of a specific crime or crimes. And in order to then deprive a human being of liberty or life based on those charges, the state must prove his guilt through those established and public procedures.
Failure to meet those minimum requirements violates the rights not only of the accused but of all the citizens subject to the rule of law, and is a far greater danger to them than the temporary release of a “bad guy”, however vile and heinous his suspected crimes.
If the evidence against your Mississippi Murderer is sufficient for his arrest, then the system will work, and should not be circumvented by authority. If the evidence is lacking, then presumption of innocence (in the US at least) must apply— which does not (NOT) prevent authorities from monitoring the bastard, or collecting more evidence against him, or establishing awareness programs or any of the huge variety of recourses available to law enforcement.
It is pathetically and almost obscenely ignorant to suggest that human rights violations are OK when perpetrated against villains. Such thinking requires that one allow the state (or the Att’y Gen’l or the PotUS) to define “villains” by decree alone. If they are allowed to arbitrarilly define the Mississippi Murderer (or Jose Padilla or Ahmad Sa’adat) as a villain, then who will stop them from defining december or xenophon41 the same way? After all, both of those worthies have spoken out against various administration actions, and we’ve allowed that administration to define its enemies without public review, so…
december trying to make this personal by a hypothetical threat against my son is a snarky tactic.
If there’s evidence, there’s evidence. If there isn’t, there isnt’.
try this:
You live next to that totalitarian state that you so dearly love. They come across the border and kidnap mrs december and hold her for a period of years w/o trial, w/o charges, w/o any way for you to contact her or help her. Merely on the assumption of people in charge over there that she’s a bad person. How long would you want her to be held?
OK, but do you think the parents of the children he subsequently murders will appreciate this fine distinction? :eek:
If wring were attending her son’s funeral, it would be cold comfort to her that in some sense, the ACLU was not at fault. Your moral argument won’t bring the boy back to life.
There are probably thousands of other human rights violations every week – so many that AI of necessity must ignore almost all of them, It’s striking and bizarre that they chose to focus on this particular one where the “victim” was not only a villain, but also a danger to society.
I haven’t publicly taken credit for a murder. Sa’adat did.
Real murders vs. wished-for human rights improvements
xenophon41, you said the violation of civil rights posed a greater danger to them than the temporary release of a “bad guy”. However, that’s comparing reality against wishful thinking. The PA has never had much in the way of due process. Whether or not they release Sa’adat, they still won’t. OTOH if Sa’adat is released and murders 19 children, theyl really will be dead.
Are you saying that criticizing violations of due process is less important where major violations commonly exist? Are you saying that condoning such violations will somehow cause improvements to be made?
I resent the implication that because we care about following rules of evidence and insisting on things like, oh, say people being charged/found guilty w/of/ a crime as a condition of them being held in custody, that we aren’t caring about murdered children.
There are more choices in the world than:
Hold the suspect until the end of time w/o trial or being charged w/ a crime
and
Release them forthwith.
the third option which you’re steadfastly refusing to acknowledge not only exists but is the preferred method, is to charge those persons w/the crimes you suspect they have committed and prove the case.
this is yet another dishonest ‘debate’ tactic of yours.
wring, Sa’adat is an admitted murderer and terrorist. mrs. december (“mrs”? :eek: ) is not a terrorist. (although her intelligence and knowledge may frighten some students.) There is no danger that she might murder, say, monstro, who goes to school nearby.
Your son is also innocent. So are the 19 Israelis (mostly children) who were killed yesterday and the 50 who were injured.
It’s hard to take seriously a moral philosphy that ignores the difference between murderers and innocent victims.
what’s more, you’re refusing to acknowledge that the basic fact, that w/o rule of law, ‘what we know’ is substituted for fact. So, for example, we all ‘knew’ a couple of years ago that Richard Jewell was responsible for the Atlanta Olympic bombings. But, of course, he wasn’t. And, of course, there’s all those people on death row in the US who even after a trial and all, were actually innocent.
and you seem to want to dispense w/all this falderall and fiddle dee dee of having to submit proof etc, 'cause we ‘know’ so and so is a bad guy? wrong.
First of all, there are just two options for the PA. They can release Sa’adat or keep him detained.
AI had more than two options in terms of their statements. They could have[ul][li]Made a recommendation, rather than a demand.[]Ignored the Sa’adat situation,m and instead focused on some other human rights violation. []Suggested that Sa’adat be give to the Israelis in hopes that they would provide due process. [/ul]Whatever their motive, note that AI chose the most extreme, most anti-Israel option. [/li]
Second, it’s not correct to imply that the a lack of due process to Sa’adat will cause the PA to be “w/o rule of law.” In fact, the PA pretty much lacks “rule of law.” and there’s not much hoipe their ever getting rule of law – at least not under Arafat.
Third, Richard Jewell was a mere suspect. Sa’adat has publicly said that he was responsible for a murder. These situations are not parallel.
Fourth, I’m not sure that normal civilian procedures are even appropriate during what amounts to a guerilla war.
december -and there’s folks who’ve been found guilty who were in fact innocent. = dispensing with the formality of trial etc. is not a good idea.
Demonstrate to me that the PA doesn’t have available a third option. are you claiming that the PA has no trials? ever? I find that impossible to believe since in that case, AI would have been calling for the release of ‘all people detained w/o trial’.
AI’s decision to point out this wrongful situation is not to the exclusion of other wrong situations, why do you continue to harp on ‘but why focus on this instead of that?’
While it’s obvious that you don’t agree that it’s a wrongful situation, it’s equally as obvious that others don’t agree. I remind you that the organization is called “Amnesty INternational”, not “decembers’ cause du jour”