Fuck you, Bush. Gitmo prisoners have rights!

[Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun]

[QUOTE=El_Kabong]
Pretty weak reply, really. I mentioned the UDHR solely in regard to your reference to human rights as a ‘vague concept’. The Universal Declaration, and indeed components of the US Constitution, appear to demonstrate that your assertion is false.

[/QUOTE]

It not false at all. There is a ton of criticism of the UDHR. There is no true universal understanding of what is meant by human rights. We cannot even agree of what is a human.

[Der_Trihs]

[QUOTE=El_Kabong]
Regarding Maher Arar, I really don’t have a clue what point 2.5 thinks he is making, except that he apparently strongly believes that nothing wrong or incorrect was done to him by the US government, and it is unfair of any of us to blame the US Government in any way for Mr. Arar’s poor treatment in Syria.
[/QUOTE]
He’s been popping all over the board saying that since there’s no absolute right and wrong, anything you can get away with is just fine. Unless he’s the victim of course. Sounds like typical conservative scum to me.

[elucidator]

[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
It not false at all. There is a ton of criticism of the UDHR. There is no true universal understanding of what is meant by human rights. We cannot even agree of what is a human.
[/QUOTE]

Semantic sophistry. We may not have a universal understanding of “human” and “human rights”, such that each and all are in complete accord for every jot and tittle of definition, but we have a rough, workable framework for what it is, and most assuredly, for what it is not.

[Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun]

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Semantic sophistry. We may not have a universal understanding of “human” and “human rights”, such that each and all are in complete accord for every jot and tittle of definition, but we have a rough, workable framework for what it is, and most assuredly, for what it is not.
[/QUOTE]

Where does this working framework come from? What is its ultimate source?

[E-Sabbath]

Why do we fiddle on the roof?

[Rachm_Qoch]

[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
Do you a problem reading? I did not say I would not have a problem with it. But if is was legal then it would be legal by definition. Thankfully it is not legal to kidnap me and have me beaten. For Amar, it sucks that this deportation was legal.

[/QUOTE]

it is illegal to

…extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

link (PDF!)

[Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun]

[QUOTE=Rachm Qoch]
it is illegal to link (PDF!)
[/QUOTE]

Articles 1-16 of that treaty are not self-executing.

[Rachm_Qoch]

[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
Articles 1-16 of that treaty are not self-executing.
[/QUOTE]

It shall be the policy of the United States not to expel, extradite, or otherwise effect the involuntary return of any person to a country in which there are substantial grounds for believing the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture, regardless of whether the person is physically present in the United States.

link

[Guinastasia]

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
He’s been popping all over the board saying that since there’s no absolute right and wrong, anything you can get away with is just fine. Unless he’s the victim of course. Sounds like typical conservative scum to me.
[/QUOTE]

This is the guy who wanted to put a tax on fat people. And then, when it was closed for the trolling that it was, he whined that we were the ones who were persecuting him.
He was also the guy who was asking about pre-pubescent girls and lubrication.

He’s not a conservative, just a troll. (or maybe a conservative troll-at this point, it really doesn’t matter)

This is one of his worst efforts yet.
Let me ask you this, Two and a Half Inches of Fun. If you were Maher Arar, you’d be totally okay with that? You would simply say, “Oh, well this sucks but hey-it’s LEGAL?”

You fucking shitstained, herpes-fested, lice-cuntmaggot.

[Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun]

[QUOTE=Rachm Qoch]
link
[/QUOTE]

Did you even bother to read the law cited? I don’t think so. There are exceptions:

@8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3)(B)

(B) Exception
(iv) there are reasonable grounds to believe that the alien is a danger to the security of the United States.

[Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun]

[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
Let me ask you this, Two and a Half Inches of Fun. If you were Maher Arar, you’d be totally okay with that? You would simply say, “Oh, well this sucks but hey-it’s LEGAL?”
[/quote]

If I was Arar, I would probably bepretty anger and upset.

You fucking shitstained, herpes-fested, lice-cuntmaggot.

I hope your opinion of me changes one day.

[Rachm_Qoch]

[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
Did you even bother to read the law cited? I don’t think so. There are exceptions:
[/QUOTE]

You’re overlooking the fact that it’s US policy not to transport anyone to a country where he’ll be tortured.

Arar’s rendering to Syria was illegal. You don’t have to take my word for it:

U.S. Rendition to Torture Illegal
June 6, 2008
The release of a still-heavily redacted report from the Inspector General (IG) of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) makes clear that the rendition by the U.S. government of Canadian citizen Maher Arar to Syria violated U.S. law and the obligations of the U.S. government under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment (CAT).

“The evidence shows that Arar was tortured during the year he spent in Syrian custody, and the IG report that has been partially released today makes all-too-clear that the U.S. officials involved in turning Arar over to the Syrian government knew that was likely to happen,” said Kevin Lanigan, Director of the Law and Security Program at Human Rights First.

U.S. Rendition to Torture Illegal

[Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun]

[QUOTE=Rachm Qoch]
You’re overlooking the fact that it’s US policy not to transport anyone to a country where he’ll be tortured.

Arar’s rendering to Syria was illegal. You don’t have to take my word for it:

U.S. Rendition to Torture Illegal
[/QUOTE]

We do not have the full report, and the article you linked to does not even mention the fact that there exceptions were a person can be transferred to a country where it is likely he will be tortured. The CAT does not apply under US law to aliens where there are reasonable grounds to believe “the alien is a danger to the security of the United States.”

Arar was seen as a danger to the security of the US. If want to say the grounds were not reasonable, then we will need to conclude a full investigation and conduct legal hearings on the issue. As it stands now, there is no reason to conclude that the law was broken.

[Bryan_Ekers]

[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
Arar was seen as a danger to the security of the US. If want to say the grounds were not reasonable, then we will need to conclude a full investigation and conduct legal hearings on the issue. As it stands now, there is no reason to conclude that the law was broken.
[/QUOTE]

So Arar has the presumption of guilt but the American agents who put him on a plane for Syria have the presumption of innocence?

[BrainGlutton]

I think it’s clear enough by now that 2.5" is a misanthrope masquerading as a nihilist.

[elucidator]

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/story/38773.html

Good a time as any to bring this up. The McClatchy Report, which underlines some of our worst fears, that is to say, that any number of detainees are innocent victims. being guilty of nothing more than being accused.

For instance:

…Akhtiar was among the more than 770 terrorism suspects imprisoned at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. They are the men the Bush administration described as “the worst of the worst.”

But Akhtiar was no terrorist. American troops had dragged him out of his Afghanistan home in 2003 and held him in Guantanamo for three years in the belief that he was an insurgent involved in rocket attacks on U.S. forces. The Islamic radicals in Guantanamo’s Camp Four who hissed “infidel” and spat at Akhtiar, however, knew something his captors didn’t: The U.S. government had the wrong guy.

“He was not an enemy of the government, he was a friend of the government,” a senior Afghan intelligence officer told McClatchy. Akhtiar was imprisoned at Guantanamo on the basis of false information that local anti-government insurgents fed to U.S. troops, he said…

Look at what we have become, what fear and vengefulness have made of us.

[Der_Trihs]

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Look at what we have become, what fear and vengefulness have made of us.
[/QUOTE]
And malice, and sadism.

[Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun]

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
So Arar has the presumption of guilt but the American agents who put him on a plane for Syria have the presumption of innocence?
[/QUOTE]

Presumption of guilt has nothing to do with what happened to Arar. He was not accused of breaking US law. I am not sure what standard of proof applies to possible violation of reasonableness standard. I do not think it actually a criminal statute. But the point is that no evidence has been brought forth that the belief that Arar was a threat was unreasonable.

[elucidator]

Shoes on rather the wrong foot, don’t you think? Wouldn’t it be the responsibility of those who detain him to have a reasonable case that such detainment is sensible because of verifiable evidence?

And beyond him, what of these others, as reported above? How many people we have detained, do you suppose, are entirely or substantially innocent. And isn’t one too many? Being as we are the Americans, the champions of liberty and justice.

[Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun]

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Shoes on rather the wrong foot, don’t you think? Wouldn’t it be the responsibility of those who detain him to have a reasonable case that such detainment is sensible because of verifiable evidence?
[/quote]

Maybe it we were looking forward at what the actors were going to do. Or if it was the present and we were looking at what they were doing. But if we are looking back to the past and asking if they did something legally wrong. We need some evidence to say it was wrong. It is not like someone is seeking an injunction; this is accusation that the law was violated.

And beyond him, what of these others, as reported above? How many people we have detained, do you suppose, are entirely or substantially innocent. And isn’t one too many? Being as we are the Americans, the champions of liberty and justice.

Calling America the champions of liberty is just rhetoric. Empty and false rhetoric when you consider slavery, Jim Crow, the treatment of Native Americans, and the homophobic laws. But as I have said before, I do not want to get into the morality of this issue.