Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
A Case of Injustice

By simonfish in Op-Ed
Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 05:21:44 PM EST
Tags: Freedom (all tags)
Freedom

All too often we hear about a young tourist in a foreign country who unwittingly broke a local law, and then was tricked into signing a confession in a language they didn't understand. While Western media has created a demon of this spectacle, I was shocked to find such cruel practices could go on in Canada too.


Mohammed Mansour Jabarah was born in Kuwait, and was raised in St. Catherine's, Ontario, Canada. His family visited Kuwait routinely, and he began study there after high school. Jabarah was first apprehended by American authorities somewhere abroad, it is unclear where, suspected of being an Al-Qaeda member and thought to be involved in a plot to bomb both US embassies in Singapore. The 20 year old was then transferred to Oman for interrogation by American authorities, perhaps because the laws in Oman allow more ... intense ... interrogation. He was returned to Canada, where he then became involved with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS). He was presented with a paper to sign allowing himself to be transported from Canada to US authorities. Where in the US he is now is not known.

It is disturbing that CSIS and the authorities in the US are cooperating so closely, at the expense of a Canadian resident's rights and freedoms. Jabarah spoke briefly with his father, who has said that the contents of the papers that his son signed were not explained to him, and that CSIS had told him he could return home within a few days. What is most disturbing of all is that the Canadian government would allow anyone to be removed from the country without evidence or charges against that person, especially after they had been interrogated. If interrogation had found anything incriminating, US authorities could have started a legal extradition process. Our legal system is supposed to protect people who are assumed innocent, placing the burden of proving guilt upon the justice system. It seems that this responsibility has been ignored, as this case has shown.

The question that weighs most heavily on my mind is this: How did CSIS, which does not have the power to arrest anyone, convince Jabarah to sign a paper allowing himself to be moved to a country where he no doubt will be indicted for being part of a terrorist conspiracy, regardless of the complete lack of evidence?

Links:
CBC Article
Toronto Star Article

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o cruel practices
o CBC Article
o Toronto Star Article
o Also by simonfish


Display: Sort:
A Case of Injustice | 169 comments (155 topical, 14 editorial, 1 hidden)
It's nothing new, but gets little exposure (3.77 / 18) (#6)
by theboz on Fri Aug 02, 2002 at 10:25:35 PM EST

People are still dissapearing in the U.S. due to the "war on terrorism" so it's not suprising that people from outside are dissapearing as well. It hardly makes the news though, unfortunately.

Stuff.

Before I give you a 0... (1.73 / 19) (#17)
by jjayson on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 05:00:15 AM EST

proof please.

-j
"People live in apartments. That's what they're designed for. Bombs are designed to blow up things." -Parent ]
Before I give you a 0... (3.00 / 9) (#18)
by valeko on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 05:12:34 AM EST

Quit denying things that are self-evident and obvious. In case you haven't been reading even the most mainstream media, there are hundreds of foreign nations being held in the US for arbitrary offenses and under questionable circumstances. We here at K5 have published a number of stories focusing on individual victims of torturous imprisonment in the US after 11 Sep. I think I can spare you the trouble of looking them up with the non-functional search engine.

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

Errr. (4.25 / 4) (#19)
by valeko on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 05:13:36 AM EST

there are hundreds of foreign nations being held in the US for arbitrary offenses

Nationals, of course, not nations.

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

disappear does not mean taken into custody (2.25 / 12) (#20)
by jjayson on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 05:53:28 AM EST

When somethone disappears nobody knows what happens to them. Trumping charges and holding somebody is not disappearing. But I don't expect you to understand. You're ideology is responsible for that permanent warped vision of US hatred you have. You will give a 5 to even the most mindless of US bashing.

-j
"People live in apartments. That's what they're designed for. Bombs are designed to blow up things." -Parent ]
Disappearing (4.40 / 5) (#21)
by binaryalchemy on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 06:15:12 AM EST

Until a recent court ruling they were not going to release the names of or charges against people being held (and it's still not all the people being held). That seems to match your definition of disappearing.

As for hating America, well...
------
Defending the GPL from a commercial perspective is like defending the Microsft E
[
Parent ]

The answer you seek is over here (2.37 / 8) (#33)
by jjayson on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 01:46:29 PM EST

My resonse to this is in #31. I never said that hating America is wrong or bad, but it is well esablished that valeko will rate ay anti-US post up, if it furthers his agenda. Ratings are not meant for agreement.

-j
"People live in apartments. That's what they're designed for. Bombs are designed to blow up things." -Parent ]
hahah! (2.80 / 5) (#34)
by valeko on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 01:58:15 PM EST

valeko will rate ay anti-US post up

Oh, really?

if it furthers his agenda.

And just what is my agenda, all-knowing, omnipotent one? I don't recall either hiring you as my spokesman or enlightening you about any "agenda" I may have.

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

Valeko does not have an agenda (political) (2.66 / 3) (#55)
by BLU ICE on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 05:46:32 PM EST

He has no political power.

"Is the quality of this cocaine satisfactory, Mr. Delorean?"
"As good as gold."

-- I am become Troll, destroyer of threads.
It's like an encyclopedia...sorta: Everything2

[ Parent ]

Exactly. (3.25 / 4) (#65)
by valeko on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 06:22:41 PM EST

So what's jjayson on about?

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

valeko's agenda (2.40 / 5) (#73)
by jjayson on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 08:06:02 PM EST

agenda: a list of matters to be taken up

High on his list is a neverending section of US bashing. Maybe I should have used the singular form of the word agendum to group all of his anti-US propaganda.

He even puts his agenda on the web for all to see.

-j
"People live in apartments. That's what they're designed for. Bombs are designed to blow up things." -Parent ]

Well then. (4.00 / 4) (#77)
by valeko on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 08:29:57 PM EST

If you interpret my "list of matters to be taken up" (especially the ones you magically gleaned from Angrydot) as "neverending section of US bashing", that's your problem, not mine, or that of any other sane person.

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

Are you denying it? (3.00 / 4) (#82)
by jjayson on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 09:05:11 PM EST

Are you denying that you routinely bash the US?

-j
"People live in apartments. That's what they're designed for. Bombs are designed to blow up things." -Parent ]
What I am denying... (3.33 / 3) (#83)
by valeko on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 09:11:26 PM EST

... is your baseless accusation that "bashing the US" is the only (or one of the most important) perogative(s) I have, and that the arguments and ideological positions that I invoke serve no other purpose except to senselessly bash the US for the sake of bashing the US. This is most certainly not the case.

I additionally protest your failure to clarify what exactly you mean by "the US", as I tend to make a distinction between "US leadership/ruling class" and "ordinary American people".

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

I never said that. (2.33 / 3) (#95)
by jjayson on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 09:31:33 PM EST

I never said that I knew your motives, much less claimed that they are the ends. Why would I? Surely you have some bigger idea than just US targeted mudslinging. I wish I knew.

That still doesn't lessen the claim that regularly partake in the anti-US festivities.

I was going to clarify what I meant by the US, but I didn't have the inclination to dig through your rather prolific posting history to find good examples. At least this is somthing we call all agree on: Rusty, please fix the search!

By US, I mean that you routinely rail against US foreign policy, US domestic policy, US government officials, and US citizen that hold opposing views from you (if you don't think this is true, just look back to you calling me a pussy and an idiot).

-j
"People live in apartments. That's what they're designed for. Bombs are designed to blow up things." -Parent ]

That's right. (3.00 / 2) (#97)
by valeko on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 09:50:25 PM EST

Surely you have some bigger idea than just US targeted mudslinging.

The way you term criticism of American policy - "US bashing" - leads one to conclude that this is all you're accusing me of.

That still doesn't lessen the claim that regularly partake in the anti-US festivities.

I wouldn't call them "festivities". This seems to imply that they're some kind of primitive frenzy of hatred and abuse without a higher ideological goal. That's rather degrading.

By US, I mean that you routinely rail against US foreign policy, US domestic policy, US government officials

Yes, and there's a reason for this. You make it sound like this is somehow something I should be ashamed of or shot for.

and US citizen that hold opposing views from you (if you don't think this is true, just look back to you calling me a pussy and an idiot).

The particular title of that comment was oriented in response to your own immaturity, as expressed in various parent posts, rather than a statement of my position toward you as a US citizen that holds opposing views. I have little tolerance for ad hominem attacks that other people initiate, though (and in incredibly elegant twist of irony, then accuse me of doing).

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

I'm done with you accusing me of shit. (2.00 / 6) (#107)
by jjayson on Sun Aug 04, 2002 at 01:32:14 AM EST

This will be my last post to you for this, since you just want to resort to making attacks of my character and are not really interested in saying anything constructive.

I'll ignore the pedanticism of you trying to read too much into the subcontext of the words, instead of what I really said:

I never said that I knew your motives, much less claimed that they are the ends. Why would I? Surely you have some bigger idea than just US targeted mudslinging. I wish I knew.

Now on with the rest.

Yes, and there's a reason for this. You make it sound like this is somehow something I should be ashamed of or shot for.
I routinely rail against racism and bigots. This is just another example of you trying to read between the lines enough for you to twist my words into one of your predefined categories of people. I am very offended that you think I would want you shot. I try to have nothing but love for people here on K5, even though I may get upset by their actions (and even beliefs) at times.

I have little tolerance for ad hominem attacks that other people initiate, though (and in incredibly elegant twist of irony, then accuse me of doing).
You seem to be saying that I initiated these ad hom attacks. However, theboz was the first to call me an idiot and a pussy. My response told him to not call me either of them. Notice that I didn't even stoop to his level and continue the name calling. You're response was to say "I'll call you a pussy and an idiot." If you carefully look over the entire thread, I never resorted to such poor behavior: the guilt rests on you and theboz.

The entire thread you have results to making character attacks of me and never actually touching the issues. At the end of all this, we are left with one BBC article that shows how well the checks and balances of the US system work at fixing flaws. We have one vague instace of some NY man, that I believe was probably related to the recent court ruling.  And we never even have a attept at refuting my claim that you have setup yourself and undisprovable position.

Maybe your bahvaior will be better next time.

-j
"People live in apartments. That's what they're designed for. Bombs are designed to blow up things." -Parent ]

He can't vote? (3.00 / 2) (#93)
by RyoCokey on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 09:27:38 PM EST

Or influence others? Shoot, I didn't think they had net access in jail.



The troops returning home are worried. "We've lost the peace," men tell you. "We can't make it stick." - John Dos Passos
[ Parent ]
he's underage (none / 0) (#155)
by aphrael on Mon Aug 05, 2002 at 02:07:53 PM EST

and therefore is not (yet) entitled to vote.

[ Parent ]
not entirely accurate (none / 0) (#130)
by Delirium on Sun Aug 04, 2002 at 05:32:50 PM EST

They were not going to release a big list of everyone arrested and their charges. This does not mean that the people are being held incommunicado -- they are being allowed to contact families (and others) on their own. The information is likely public knowledge, but difficult to compile (just like it'd be difficult to compile a list of everyone arrested in July in the US for petty theft, despite that information being public). In fact this was one of the main justifications for the judge's ruling requiring the government to release the information -- that it can't be a national security issue, because the people being held are being allowed to contact others freely, so the government shouldn't have anything to fear from releasing the same information.

Not allowing a particular individual to contact friends/relatives would be "disappearing". Refusing to release a list of all such individuals is a violation of the Freedom of Information Act, but not really the same thing.

Regardless, I'm glad to see the ruling, as the list will allow news media and other interested parties to better follow up on individual cases to ensure all relevant laws are being respected.

[ Parent ]

Actually, cowboy... (3.71 / 7) (#35)
by valeko on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 02:01:24 PM EST

Trumping charges and holding somebody is not disappearing.

That's exactly what is meant by disappearing in this context. I don't know how it could be more obvious that "disappearing" isn't meant literally, like down a memory hole in an Orwellian sense, but that's what it is.

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

then you're being deliberately misleading (none / 0) (#131)
by Delirium on Sun Aug 04, 2002 at 05:36:00 PM EST

Holding someone on trumped up charges is not in any way even remotely related to "disappearing". Disappearing would be if someone just disappeared, without friends/relatives being notified of their detainment or of the charges against him/her. If someone is arrested, and the family is notified of the arrest and of the charges, then I don't see how that's "disappearing", any more than someone being arrested for shoplifting is "disappearing". It may be unjustified detention, but that's not the same thing by a long shot.

[ Parent ]
It isn't obvious at all. (none / 0) (#154)
by aphrael on Mon Aug 05, 2002 at 02:06:55 PM EST

There have been countries --- hell, there still *are* countries --- where people vanish in the middle of the night and nobody is ever informed of what happens to them, and there are no legal procedures followed to ensure a trial, or even ahearing, and there is no report to anyone of their whereabouts.

When I read "disappearing", that is what I think you mean. That is the *usual* context for the word in political and historical discussion.

[ Parent ]

erm, RTFM (4.00 / 6) (#22)
by locke baron on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 06:58:06 AM EST

Umm, I know you /didn't/ give him a zero, but just the same - this wasn't spam, crapflooding or wickedly offtopic. It was flamebait, and maybe even a troll, but those only merit low ratings - not zeroes. Rate how you like, but I hate zero-abuse.

Micro$oft uses Quake clannies to wage war on Iraq! - explodingheadboy
[ Parent ]
It is spam and crapflooding (2.57 / 14) (#30)
by jjayson on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 01:32:36 PM EST

"US sucks" has become the Natalie Portman of K5.

-j
"People live in apartments. That's what they're designed for. Bombs are designed to blow up things." -Parent ]
You are an idiot (nt) (1.81 / 11) (#57)
by _cbj on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 05:55:27 PM EST



[ Parent ]
No (4.62 / 8) (#71)
by KOTHP on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 07:50:35 PM EST

The post didn't just say, 'US sucks'. One could only reach that conclusion on their own, based on the allegation presented. By your logic, any post that presents anti-US sentiment is spam and crapflooding, and should be zeroed. Christ, I wish there was a user-based system to revoke abusive 'trusted' users. Hopefully someone rates this at least a 2 before jjayson zeroes it into the void.

[ Parent ]
You give the poster too much credit (2.60 / 5) (#87)
by jjayson on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 09:20:09 PM EST

There was no content. People go to almost every article that comes throught the queue and add a message that says "Oh yeah, well the US is worse." The post was two sentences long (really only one sentence for its body) that effectively said that the US is kidnapping people.

If you are going to make claims like that, at least provide some proof. So far nothing has really been shown, except a BBC article that actually said the US secret arrest policy has been overturned.

If you will notice I didn't rate the post. I am seeing far worse 0 abuse directed at me in threads (including a couple of zeros in this thread) than that.

-j
"People live in apartments. That's what they're designed for. Bombs are designed to blow up things." -Parent ]

correction (2.00 / 2) (#88)
by jjayson on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 09:22:23 PM EST

I didn't rate the post... a zero.

-j
"People live in apartments. That's what they're designed for. Bombs are designed to blow up things." -Parent ]
Listen, idiot... (3.23 / 13) (#23)
by theboz on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 09:28:52 AM EST

There have been articles on K5 about people who dissapeared. In particular there was another guy that was living in New York that was taken and his family couldn't find him. Eventually he was able to communicate with them via letters, but it was well over a month, while he had no access to let his family know where he was or a lawyer. Later on he was able to contact them, but he was a "dissapeared" for a while. I guess you don't read what gets posted on this site though I guess.

Also, threatening someone with a zero is a sign of being a pussy. Why do you even bother posting when you can only do so in a childish manner? This site was better off before all the high school kids such as yourself invaded it.

Stuff.
[ Parent ]

Don't call me an idiot or a pussy. (2.45 / 11) (#36)
by jjayson on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 02:03:41 PM EST

Ad hom attacks don't make your statement any truer, and they make you look like a US-bashing lemming. Don't hate the player, hate the game. Just because I called you on your riduculous post, don't get mad at me.

I cannot find your solitary example, but I will guess that it has something to do with my response to #31. I won't even argue the circumstances, and I can freely believe everything you are saying, but you original point is still unsupported.

First, you post says that people are disappearing, showing present tense. Everything I have read so far says that has changed due to a court order (sounds like the US's checks and balances are running in fine tune on this issue to me).

Second, your original post  said that it doesn't make the news, while even valeko told me to look towards the "mainstream media" to see anything. The BBC article also proves that it does get reported. I can probably find references on CNN if I really wanted to.

Third, I have seen nothing to show that this is still happening. I know your weak response, "But I said it wasn't being reported." So now you are left with a completely unattackable position: if it shows up the news then it proves that people are disappearing, but if it doesn't show up in the news then it proves that they just are reporting. They have a nice name for this, it's called begging the question.

I won't stoop to your level and attack you personally (and I have no idea why infinitera would give you a 4 for such a hate-inspired post).

-j
"People live in apartments. That's what they're designed for. Bombs are designed to blow up things." -Parent ]

No, I'll call you a pussy and an idiot. (2.85 / 7) (#38)
by valeko on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 02:18:23 PM EST

Second, your original post said that it doesn't make the news, while even valeko told me to look towards the "mainstream media" to see anything.

Gee, that's funny, since what theboz actually said was:

It hardly makes the news though, unfortunately.

"Hardly" as in "not enough", or always on page C13. "Hardly" does not mean that it cannot be extrapolated from the media reports that are at the disposal of an astute and politically conscious reader.

Third, I have seen nothing to show that this is still happening.

Perhaps, then, it'd be helpful to note that most of the abuses that have been reported in media have been reported retrospectively. Half a year from now we might learn about something horrible that's going on right now.

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

You have nothing new to say (2.11 / 9) (#40)
by jjayson on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 02:35:55 PM EST

So far you posts has consisted of ad hom attacks and repeating the same thing. So I missed the word hardly, but it doesn't change my analisys of why the post begs the question. You just perpetuate it by trying to extrapolate from cherry-picked data. You ignore how the courts have made rulings and those rulings have been possible. What theboz was presenting was certainly not fact. It is less fact as me asserting that they are following the court order, becasue at least I have some backing for that argument in the fact that they came clean about them.

With you people it is always the same, guilty until proven innocent. Ironic, huh?

-j
"People live in apartments. That's what they're designed for. Bombs are designed to blow up things." -Parent ]

assume (none / 0) (#153)
by aphrael on Mon Aug 05, 2002 at 02:04:50 PM EST

Half a year from now we might learn about something horrible that's going on right now.

True. But absent any evidence that it is happening, you can't very well just *assume* that something horrible is going on, and then use that assumption to justify all manner of complaining.

I'd be the first to agree that some of what is going on, and what the government is saying in court briefs, is terrifying. On the other hand, as far as I can tell, there have been no random "disappearances" of people conducted in an extra-legal framework --- the government contended, wrongly, that it could do certain things legally; the courts said no; the government has stopped.

Is there any evidence that they have continued? Or is it merely speculation that we might find out in six months that they have, reinforced by anti-government prejudice?

[ Parent ]

Look at this...what world are you living in? (4.66 / 3) (#24)
by bayankaran on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 10:07:04 AM EST

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2169395.stm

[ Parent ]
That doesn't prove anything (2.00 / 10) (#31)
by jjayson on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 01:38:06 PM EST

It shows that the US justice system triumphs again and that the government have have help to 74 people that it later released the names of, but it doesn't say anything about people disappearing. The more likely scenario is not that these people vanished, but that they were arrested, but the the police just didn't go releasing information to the press. They were probably allowed their one phone call, and until I see something otherewise, I will believe that (the whole burden being on the accuser is real shit, isn't it).

-j
"People live in apartments. That's what they're designed for. Bombs are designed to blow up things." -Parent ]
Ahah. (3.80 / 5) (#39)
by valeko on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 02:31:55 PM EST

he more likely scenario is not that these people vanished, but that they were arrested, but the the police just didn't go releasing information to the press.

And what do you think the definition of "disappearing" is, from the public vantage point?

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

you could at least try to make an argument (2.25 / 4) (#41)
by jjayson on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 02:39:07 PM EST

instead of repeating your tired old stance. Reasserting that they did disappear does not make it any truer.

-j
"People live in apartments. That's what they're designed for. Bombs are designed to blow up things." -Parent ]
Ring, ring - Clue phone, it's for jjayson (4.83 / 6) (#74)
by KOTHP on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 08:09:44 PM EST

I hope you're going to base your argument on a hyper-literal interpretation of the definition of 'disappear'. This reeks of some non-discussion one would have with a grade school student.

People have been 'detained', and not allowed to contact their families (given their one phone call, as you put it, which is a term from the movies in the first place - criminal defendants are supposed to be entitled to regular contact with their attorneys and loved ones).

Read the text of the atrocity that is the Patriot Act. These powers have been granted to the executive department and military. Why would you assume that the US would pass a law granting all these powers and that they then would not be used??

[ Parent ]

Please bring something new to the table (2.16 / 6) (#79)
by jjayson on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 08:37:47 PM EST

I don't read minds. He should say what he means. His choice if the word "disappear" is calculating, trying to conjure images of scenarios that aren't happening. Go ahead and argue that they are or reexplain what was meant.

People have been 'detained', and not allowed to contact their families (given their one phone call, as you put it, which is a term from the movies in the first place - criminal defendants are supposed to be entitled to regular contact with their attorneys and loved ones).
I was referring to the call you get at the booking station prior to finally being sent to your dorm or cell. Most the people detained were deported or held for other immigration violations which makes me believe that they didn't really have anybody to contact. Maybe they were unjustly preventing from contacting their families, but so far that hasn't been shown to me.

Read the text of the atrocity that is the Patriot Act. These powers have been granted to the executive department and military. Why would you assume that the US would pass a law granting all these powers and that they then would not be used??
Courtesy of bayankaran: US judges outlaws secret arrest. Or are refering to something else that would make people "disappear"?

-j
"People live in apartments. That's what they're designed for. Bombs are designed to blow up things." -Parent ]
Bah. (4.66 / 3) (#80)
by valeko on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 08:41:50 PM EST

Courtesy of bayankaran: US judges outlaws secret arrest. Or are refering to something else that would make people "disappear"?

Here, I'll bring something new to the table: What makes you think 'secret arrests' take place inside the framework of law?

Hell, I heard somewhere that the Soviet Constitution during Stalin was one of the most humane and democratic in the world ...

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

I already chastised you for this. (3.33 / 3) (#81)
by jjayson on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 08:55:19 PM EST

In a sibling thread, I already preempted this argument, because it is so common among the anti-US crowd. Allow me to quote myself:
Third, I have seen nothing to show that this is still happening. I know your weak response, "But I said it wasn't being reported." So now you are left with a completely unattackable position: if it shows up the news then it proves that people are disappearing, but if it doesn't show up in the news then it proves that they just are reporting. They have a nice name for this, it's called begging the question.
If the government really wanted to slide underneath judicial radar, they could have done so. Instead they headed the courts warning. At least my position has some logical evidence. Your's is just assertion.

So this isn't really new. Let me repeat myself again: with you it is always guilty until proven innocent.

-j
"People live in apartments. That's what they're designed for. Bombs are designed to blow up things." -Parent ]

Guilty until proven innocent... (5.00 / 3) (#113)
by Koutetsu on Sun Aug 04, 2002 at 08:32:51 AM EST

should indeed apply to the government. In most cases they're required to let the public know what's going on (the fact that they don't is often a stepstool for your arguments, it seems). If these 'disappearings' are indeed not actually taking place, then perhaps the government wouldn't mind showing us that they're not; giving us the proof that all due processes have been carried out. Government policies are the ones that (ideally) protect individual freedoms, so when they are suspected of being bent, the bending should be held under scrutiny until proven moot.

[ Parent ]
Your asking the impossible (1.50 / 2) (#121)
by jjayson on Sun Aug 04, 2002 at 12:58:31 PM EST

How are they supposed show that they are not secretly arresting pepole anymore? No matter what they government does, people like valeko will make the claim that it is still happening outside the framework of law.

They did as much as they can in abiding by the court order and disclosing what happened.

-j
"People live in apartments. That's what they're designed for. Bombs are designed to blow up things." -Parent ]

What USA means to the rest of the world? (4.16 / 6) (#117)
by bayankaran on Sun Aug 04, 2002 at 10:27:45 AM EST

You also have a problem in understanding what US means to the rest of the world. I am not talking about the anti-US sentiments you are probably familiar with.

To quote Radhika Coomaraswamy - director of the International Center for Ethnic Studies, from today's New York Times....

"None of us in the human rights community would think of appealing to the U.S. for support for upholding a human rights case -- maybe to Canada, to Norway or to Sweden -- but not to the U.S. Before there were always three faces of America out in the world -- the face of the Peace Corps, the America that helps others, the face of multinationals and the face of American military power.

"My sense is that the balance has gone wrong lately and that the only face of America we see now is the one of military power, and it really frightens the world. . . . I understand that there is always a tension between security concerns and holding governments accountable for human rights. But if you focus on security alone and allow basic human rights violations in the name of security, then, well, as someone who grew up in America and went to law school there, I find that heartbreaking."


She talks about international issues. But of late people are worried this type of issues happen inside the US. The comments you percieved as anti-US are not anti-US...they simply show the concerns of patriots just like you.

[ Parent ]
That's absurd (2.25 / 4) (#124)
by jjayson on Sun Aug 04, 2002 at 01:19:32 PM EST

Yes, there are patriots that criticize and they are healthy for the nation. Then there are US hate mongers who will take any opportunity to bash the US.

Random statement against the US, such as theboz's are akin to insulting somebody on the street, there is not constructive diaglogue that comes from them. It is difficult to consider single sentence of the form "Yeah, but the US is worse" to be helpful or patriotic.

-j
"People live in apartments. That's what they're designed for. Bombs are designed to blow up things." -Parent ]

Shouldn't zero be reserved for spammers? [n/t] (4.00 / 2) (#92)
by RyoCokey on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 09:25:26 PM EST



The troops returning home are worried. "We've lost the peace," men tell you. "We can't make it stick." - John Dos Passos
[ Parent ]
Sounds like stuff for a Hollywood movie (2.50 / 2) (#27)
by hesk on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 11:05:44 AM EST

You know, like Enemy of the State or something. Of course, Hollywood won't produce it. Hmm. Ah, I know! Luc Besson to the rescue!

[ Parent ]
hardly makes the news? (none / 0) (#129)
by Delirium on Sun Aug 04, 2002 at 05:24:44 PM EST

The ACLU's (successful) legal fight to get a list of all people detained in connection with the investigation, and a list of whether they have legal representation or not (and if they do, the name of their lawyer), has been front-page news for the past week or so. It was the top story on cnn.com yesterday. Barring an appeals court reversal of the order, the list will be made public 15 days from the ruling, which iirc means 13 days from now.

[ Parent ]
We will see (none / 0) (#137)
by theboz on Sun Aug 04, 2002 at 08:04:46 PM EST

I will believe it when the list actually is made publicly available. The Bush administration was fighting that earlier on before the ACLU won this, I wouldn't be suprised if they fight it now.

Stuff.
[ Parent ]

Fathers claim (4.54 / 11) (#8)
by godix on Fri Aug 02, 2002 at 11:02:56 PM EST

"Jabarah spoke briefly with his father, who has said that the contents of the papers that his son signed were not explained to him, and that CSIS had told him he could return home within a few days"

Anyone else remember the recent 'police brutality' case in LA? Remember the boys father repeatedly claimed that his son didn't resist arrest right up till the time some video came out that showed his son resisting arrest? Needless to say, I don't put much faith in what Jabarah's father claim happened.

This is however an example of how our war on terror is going wrong. Jabarahs case should be public. We shouldn't have to rely on his fathers claims, there should be publically avalable proof one way or the other.

Tell you what... (5.00 / 12) (#11)
by valeko on Fri Aug 02, 2002 at 11:33:54 PM EST

You may be right. However, I think the truth of what the father may have to say is largely beside the point, no?

As journalists, even if of a rudimentary and amateurish sort, we are obligated to air the father's claim and give it audience. If the American and Canadian authorities had anything to say about it, we'd give them airtime in our articles too, wouldn't we? Oh, but they don't!

From the Toronto Star article:

When asked under what Canadian law Jabarah was removed from his own country and delivered to authorities in another, federal officials were stymied. Reynald Doiron, a spokesman for Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham told The Star to call Solicitor-General Lawrence MacAulay.
"I'm told it's an operational matter," MacAulay's spokeswoman, Hana Hruska, told The Star. "Call CSIS."
"I can't really discuss this," said CSIS spokesman Phil Gibson.

Some would argue that, in the post-Sept.11 world, legal niceties cannot be maintained. Frankly, I think a government that conspires in the unlawful deportation of its own citizens is offending more than the niceties. But if Jabarah is guilty of plotting a terrorist attack (and he may well be; terrorists do exist), there is a solution. It is called the law. It is illegal in Canada to conspire to blow up embassies.

Faced with this kind of nonsense, I'd say simonfish did a very good job of presenting all sides of the issue. Really.

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

Elaboration (3.00 / 3) (#54)
by godix on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 05:45:35 PM EST

"However, I think the truth of what the father may have to say is largely beside the point, no?"

The father claims the boy was forced to sign a document he didn't understand. The father claims the boy was forced into going to the US for prosecution. (incidently, what exactly is wrong with extraditing the boy to the US). The credability of the father is largely the entire point of the article. If the father is lying, there isn't a story. So no, the truth of what he says isn't besides the point.

"As journalists, even if of a rudimentary and amateurish sort, we are obligated to air the father's claim and give it audience."

Since when were journalist required to air unproven statements by people? I recall the 'Iraq is storing dead babies' story from awhile ago took a lot of heat becuase the only proof was the word of 7 different Iraqi men. This story is 'obligated to air' because the only proof is the word of one man, a man who is probably biased since his son is involved. Sometimes it's almost funny how much effort K5 will expend to display it's anti-american bias.

Forgive me if I'm not suprised that the government won't tell people much info about the case against this man. Their proof probably uses some intelligence data they don't want to become public knowledge. As I orginally said, the governments attitude is what causes these problems, but it isn't something that's really suprising.

"I'd say simonfish did a very good job of presenting all sides of the issue."

I never said he didn't. What I did say was I don't believe the main, and really only, proof we have that this boy was treated wrongly.

[ Parent ]

To things: (4.80 / 5) (#58)
by simonfish on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 05:59:40 PM EST

First, he was not extradited to the United states, he was transphered there by CSIS, if he had been extradited, it would be public knowledge, and there would not be an issue. As to his father, if his son had not made that call, and said those things, somone would surely have said he was lieing, but we have heard nothing but silence from the two government involved, leading me to suspect he is telling the truth. The US is not silent when it has evidence of something, every person they suspect of being a terrorist that they have talked about, they have given plenty of evidence, yet they are silent here. If they wished to not reviel the data, they could have said so, they havn't.

[ Parent ]
Every? (none / 0) (#160)
by Woundweavr on Tue Aug 06, 2002 at 02:30:34 PM EST

The US is not silent when it has evidence of something, every person they suspect of being a terrorist that they have talked about, they have given plenty of evidence, yet they are silent here. If they wished to not reviel the data, they could have said so, they havn't.

They have? Where was I? There are hundreds currently detained because of suspected terrorist activities that there have been no press releases about. And of those that have been caught before the act, many a)were not revealed for months(dirty bomb) or b)some of the incriminating evidence/reason for initial suspicion was "classified."

The government(s) must be afforded the same right to "innocent until proven guilty" also. A single witness w/out supporting evidence would not be enough to convict this man, nor should it be enough to prove he was mistreated.

[ Parent ]

Transparancy (none / 0) (#94)
by xee on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 09:28:53 PM EST

They call that transparancy.


Proud to be a member.
[ Parent ]
they probably smacked him around (3.40 / 15) (#12)
by turmeric on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 12:04:47 AM EST

thats what some police do. you can get people to confess to just about anything, its pretty much proven if u delve into it. confessions mean nothing, especially in countries like the US and Canada where torture and rape are de-facto legal means of prisoner control.

Amen (3.20 / 5) (#144)
by shoeboy on Mon Aug 05, 2002 at 01:19:29 AM EST

especially in countries like the US and Canada where torture and rape are de-facto legal means of prisoner control.

As opposed to enlightened nations like Sudan, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc... where prisoners hold hands with the guards and sing whimsical songs about building snowmen.

Yours,
--Shoeboy
No more trolls!
[ Parent ]

So, he waved his extradition appeal (3.20 / 5) (#25)
by RyoCokey on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 10:07:14 AM EST

Perfectly legal, from there they could deport him to the US. There's a possibility that he was abused, either in Oman or here in the US, but your article doesn't present any evidence. Something like this needs a smoking gun. The only crime I've seen so far is that the courts have taken a hideously long time to get around to issuing habaes corpus for these people. I suppose it's because many of them have no one to file for them.



The troops returning home are worried. "We've lost the peace," men tell you. "We can't make it stick." - John Dos Passos
Response. (3.50 / 6) (#37)
by valeko on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 02:12:47 PM EST

Perfectly legal, from there they could deport him to the US.

But could they? Deporting someone is typically a right of a government that is unquestioned when you're dealing with illegal immigrants, say. But judging by the fact that this guy grew up in Canada, I think it's pretty safe to assume he's probably a Canadian citizen.

Sure, if you live in the US, your government can deport you to Iraq tomorrow. But I think it'd be far from "perfectly legal" without providing a crumb of reasoning as to why.

There's a possibility that he was abused, either in Oman [...]

No, he was taken to Oman for the sunbathing.

According to widely syndicated human rights reports for Oman:

Security forces abuse some detainees, particularly during interrogation. The abuse does not appear to be systematic and often varies depending upon the social status of the victim, the official involved, and the location of the incident (for example, whether the abuse occurs in a rural or an urban area).

Despite reported official efforts to prevent such abuse, incidents still occur. Security officials sometimes beat detainees but are often careful to conceal evidence of abuse by employing such tactics as restricting blows to less-visible areas of the body. Detainees sometimes are left in isolation with promises of release or improved treatment as a further means to elicit confessions or information. Although judges have the right to order investigations of allegations of mistreatment, there is no recent evidence that any officer has been punished for abusing detainees.

No, we don't have any proof. But why else would he be taken to Oman, if history serves us well?

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

It's called extradition (4.66 / 3) (#43)
by RyoCokey on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 02:53:25 PM EST

Extradition treaties are agreements between countries which allow the signatory countries to demand other countries to expel citizens or immigrants to the requesting country, so that they may stand trial for crimes in that (or against) that country. This means that if you're in Canada, and commit a crime against a US citizen, the US can (But generally doesn't) demand you be deported to the US to face trial. What this guy did was wave his right to appeal his extradition.

Whether he was tortured in Oman or not is still up in the air. They could have taken him there simply so he wasn't allowed all the rights regarding a lawyer and confessions that he would have in Canada. This is suspicious behavior, but hardly torture.



The troops returning home are worried. "We've lost the peace," men tell you. "We can't make it stick." - John Dos Passos
[ Parent ]
I think you're wrong. (3.25 / 4) (#48)
by valeko on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 04:10:29 PM EST

What this guy did was wave his right to appeal his extradition.

At issue here is precisely the fact that there appeared to be no formal extradition proceedings, because if there were, they would have been made public or otherwise available through some channels. Extraditions usually aren't top-secret.

However, we see from the information that can be gleaned from the two articles that there appeared to be no formal extradition proceedings initiated by the US, no formal charges or indictments presented, etc. Instead, Canadian intelligence took this man and shipped him to the US, perhaps on the basis of some paper he may have been coerced to sign and did not understand.

The fact that this was done so quietly suggests that the US lacked the necessary evidence to start a formal extradition, perhaps because nothing incriminating could be extracted from his interrogation in Oman.

I'm just repeating simonfish's words here.

Whether he was tortured in Oman or not is still up in the air. They could have taken him there simply so he wasn't allowed all the rights regarding a lawyer and confessions that he would have in Canada. This is suspicious behavior, but hardly torture.

Those are just details. As far as I am concerned, it's all the same thing - a violation of the defendant's universally applicable human rights under international law. It doesn't matter whether they put electrodes on his testicles or whether they simply deprived him of legal counsel and denied him the benefit orthodox operating procedure regarding confessions. It's all of the same character, in my book.

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

Oh man... (3.50 / 2) (#90)
by RyoCokey on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 09:23:44 PM EST

You had me right up to the part about:

universally applicable human rights under international law

"International Law" is a complete fiction, as it implies there is an overarching governing power of countries. The laughable puppet of the UN doesn't count, although I find the EU's attempt to pass treaties which apply to countries which never even signed them to certainly be a step in the direction.

If you feel the way that he was treated was contrary to treaties signed by the countries involved, please say so and site them. Don't cry "international law."



The troops returning home are worried. "We've lost the peace," men tell you. "We can't make it stick." - John Dos Passos
[ Parent ]
Okay. (5.00 / 1) (#96)
by mindstrm on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 09:31:40 PM EST

So what is the paper he signed, what is it's significance, and why did he sign it if he didn't know what it was? Why would he voluntarily sign a paper so he could be extradited to the US?


[ Parent ]
well (3.50 / 2) (#101)
by KiTaSuMbA on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 11:12:27 PM EST

he could have been "convinced"
police can be very "convincing" fellows you know...
There is no Dopaminergic Pepperoni Kabal!
[ Parent ]
What about the other detainees? (4.36 / 19) (#26)
by apokalypse on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 10:08:15 AM EST

A larger story concerning all Western nationals held by the US in it's war against terrorism may have been more appropriate.

David Hicks is an Australian citizen who has beeen held in Guantanamo Bay for the last 7 months. There are also 2 English citizens being held there. Both were captured in Afghanistan fighting with the Taliban.

In a staggeringly hypocritical decision, a US Federal judge recently (Aug 1) decided that because they were not on American territory they were beyond the jurisdiction of US courts (as Guantanamo Bay is technically Cuban territory) and so not due a proper trial. Contrast this to the handling of Walker Lindh.

What is even more shocking has been the lack of interest or concern shown by the Australian and UK governments that it's citizens are being detained by a foreign nation without due process.

The US, as usual, is taking an aggressively unilateral stance. It treats even it's closest allies' citizens as second class and not even guaranteed the most basic rights.

Let this be a warning: make sure the US doesn't decide you are a threat, for any reason. Even your own government won't bother trying to save you.


Give us our traitors back! (2.28 / 7) (#42)
by RyoCokey on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 02:45:33 PM EST

Well, why would they want them back? Here are men serving against the very armed forces of their country (British and Australian forces were on the ground helping us during the Afghan conflict.)

These men are have either renounced their citizenship, or are traitors to their countries. Why should we wonder then that Britain and Australia do not demand them back. Why make an international scene to return them to their homeland to face life in prison? They can get them back quietly at a later time if they truly want them.



The troops returning home are worried. "We've lost the peace," men tell you. "We can't make it stick." - John Dos Passos
[ Parent ]
Re: (4.33 / 9) (#46)
by djotto on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 03:52:54 PM EST

These men are have either renounced their citizenship, or are traitors to their countries.

How can you be sure, until they face a trial?



[ Parent ]
"Alleged" (4.00 / 2) (#85)
by RyoCokey on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 09:16:02 PM EST

I'm not a reporter, so I need no trial to label someone. Same reason I refer to O.J. Simpson as "that murderer" rather than "The alleged and acquitted murder." It'll come down to the same thing in the trial, either the jury believes the government or not. To assume no conclusion can be drawn before trial assumes that the government is lying. Not impossible, but unlikely (In this case.)



The troops returning home are worried. "We've lost the peace," men tell you. "We can't make it stick." - John Dos Passos
[ Parent ]
Argh (4.00 / 4) (#99)
by djotto on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 10:11:04 PM EST

I'm gonna try my best here, but I don't know how well I'll express myself.

I realise that the world is imperfect, and that a trial is not a great way to get at the truth. However, it's probably the best way we have available to us.

I really believe in all those Enlightenment-driven ideals like "natural justice", "human rights" and "equality" that were in the air when the US was founded. Call me an idealist, but I think those are ideals worth aspiring to and defending.

So it worries me deeply when I see America of all places, somewhere I looked up to, capturing people in another country and imprisoning them without trial. It runs counter to natural justice. I assume you're an American... how do you feel about such things being done in your name?

Incidentally, I felt proud (and somewhat amazed) when the courts in the UK ruled that holding foreign nationals without trial was illegal. It seems we've come on a little since we interred suspected IRA members in the seventies.

[ Parent ]

I'm not happy (none / 0) (#135)
by RyoCokey on Sun Aug 04, 2002 at 07:44:48 PM EST

...Although it should be noted that some of the detainees have been deported back to their home countries. I'd link the news release, but I get so many hits for anything regarding pakistan and detainees that I can't find the damn thing.

Seriously, the US had a legitimate reason to hold these people in the days immediately following 9/11. But as days have stretched to weeks and now almost a year, it's becoming ridiculous.

The prisoners at Gitmo are another matter. Whether you argue they are illegal combatants or prisoners of war, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda remain capable of attacks, and they must be held until the end of the conflict.



The troops returning home are worried. "We've lost the peace," men tell you. "We can't make it stick." - John Dos Passos
[ Parent ]
When does it end? (5.00 / 4) (#140)
by Hektor on Sun Aug 04, 2002 at 11:16:46 PM EST

they must be held until the end of the conflict.

It's "a war on terrorism". Here's a hint: Terrorism will always exist.

The day you defeat terrorism, is the day you kill all intelligent life, leaving us with nothing but school teachers and politicians, which is a rather scary thought!

One of the reasons "1984" is brought up so often in this debate, is that the state in "1984" was in a perpetual state of war, if not against one nation, then against another, because the state of war allowed the government to oppress the citizens.

How can you win a war on terrorism? You can't even win the war on drugs, and that war has some pretty horrific consequences as well, as has been noted several times here on Kuru5hin. What will the collateral damage be in this war?

If you or I were to be detained as a "potential terrorist", and let's face it - we're all potential terrorists, what rights would we have? Can we be sure to get a fair trial? What kind of reperations would we be entitled to, if or when we were cleared of those charges, because who in their right mind would want to hire a terrorist?

Just have a look at what happens to people who are charged with murder, rape or child abuse, and are cleared of all charges.

Of course it's easy to sit back and say "that'll never happen", because that's what Neville Chamberlain thought about war in Europe in 1937.

Those who ignore history are bound to repeat it, and those who know history are bound to sit back in horror, as the rest of the world repeats it.

[ Parent ]

We can win a war on state-run terrorism (none / 0) (#146)
by RyoCokey on Mon Aug 05, 2002 at 09:15:13 AM EST

Which is really what this about. You'll notice that the most horrific act of terrorism prior to 9/11 was carried out by Americans, on Americans. Yet there was no outcry for a war on terrorism then.

What we're fighting against is terrorism that is supported by foreign states. The financial and weapons background of these states allows the effect of the terrorists to be greatly magnified, and their land provides a safe place to hide while planning and after their missions.

Terrorists can spring from anywhere, and are difficult to discourage. However, we can make it much harder for them to successfully operate. States have assets that can be destroyed, finances that can be frozen, and arms that can be dismantled. We're to give a clear message to the world, that sponsoring terror against the US and it allies will come at a terrible cost.



The troops returning home are worried. "We've lost the peace," men tell you. "We can't make it stick." - John Dos Passos
[ Parent ]
you still didn't say how to end that war, though (none / 0) (#149)
by ethereal on Mon Aug 05, 2002 at 10:24:34 AM EST

Seriously, what are the exit criteria? How can we measure that the war is proceeding towards those criteria? Having defeated the Taliban, are we halfway there? Maybe only 25% of the way there? Shouldn't the Pentagon or the State Department know this sort of thing? Will destroying Iraq significantly move us towards the end of state-sponsored terrorism, or will it just increase state-sponsored terrorism from other middle-eastern states? What criteria are being used to make those decisions about how the war is being run?

Face it, the War on Terrorism is even more about raw emotion and less about measurable results than the War on Drugs is. In both cases, losing the war means that we can put more money and people into it and sacrifice more civil liberties; to the people running the war this is not necessarily a bad outcome. Until the Bush Administration or Congress declares what will signify the end of the war, how we are on track towards that end, and our current progress measured in those terms, then all comparisons to 1984 will continue to be spot-on.

I'm not asking for a date or a time, necessarily; I agree that it's not as easy as "when Berlin falls" or something like that. But maybe "when worldwide terrorist activity falls by 50% as established by an independent body" or something like that would be appropriate. Otherwise this is just going to be another Vietnam, except we'll never know whether we'll wake up one morning and find it being fought in our backyards.

--

Stand up for your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and State
[ Parent ]

Too late (none / 0) (#151)
by Hektor on Mon Aug 05, 2002 at 12:59:07 PM EST

Otherwise this is just going to be another Vietnam, except we'll never know whether we'll wake up one morning and find it being fought in our backyards.

That has happened already; how else would you describe september 11 2001?

[ Parent ]

Vietnam indeed (none / 0) (#156)
by RyoCokey on Mon Aug 05, 2002 at 02:42:25 PM EST

If it were to be another Vietnam, it would need China supporting it. Vietnam was a proxy war between cold war powers, a reality that seems less and less likely by the day.

We have already named our opposition (Think Axis of Evil) although I personally would add Syria to it. Libya and Sudan appear repentant for the moment, and if that is truly how they feel, they don't need to be on the list at all.

Depose the governments that directly sponsor and condone terrorism, though war or (preferrably) more subtle means. That would mean Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and Syria, as well as any country that begins to do such things. North Korea is probably an exception to the rule, as there is no evidence of their aiding terrorists, however, their government remains openly hostile to our ally South Korea, as further evidenced by the 38th parallel "demilitarized zone."



The troops returning home are worried. "We've lost the peace," men tell you. "We can't make it stick." - John Dos Passos
[ Parent ]
something i don't understand... (4.40 / 5) (#56)
by trener on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 05:47:21 PM EST

while i wouldn't be caught dead fighting for the taliban, i think it's pretty stupid that just because you're born in a place, you're thrown in with them and you're a traitor if you believe something different.

if canada ever got into a war that i disagreed with, and found the other side more appealing, i'd fight for the other side. it shouldn't be about where you were born, it should be about what you believe.

i'd hope that, had i been born in germany, i'd have done what i could to stop the nazis. same, russia, stalin-era.

[ Parent ]
That's what traitors are (4.50 / 2) (#84)
by RyoCokey on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 09:12:05 PM EST

Well, that's what it means. I certainly wouldn't live my life out in shame for being a traitor to nazi germany, but he is indeed one.

We live in a country because we are supposed to see ourselves, however marginally, as agreeing with that society and seeing it as being worth something. Of course, those being born into it don't receive an immediate choice, but they can renounce their citizenship. Thus, he either renounced it, or he was a traitor. Unless you don't believe the government's claims as to how they found him at all.



The troops returning home are worried. "We've lost the peace," men tell you. "We can't make it stick." - John Dos Passos
[ Parent ]
mya (4.50 / 2) (#111)
by Mclaren on Sun Aug 04, 2002 at 03:42:07 AM EST

Unless you don't believe the government's claims as to how they found him at all.
Maybe someone isn't in total disbeleif of how the government found him, but the US government hasn't proved itself too trustworthy in times past. Nothing good comes from total, unquestioning belief in a government. Which is why the burden of proof is on the prosecuter (in this case the government), the burden of proof is on the person/group pressing charges for other situations in this country (for you are I to press charges against someone), is the government exempt from the rules it sets for everyone else?

[ Parent ]
Returned to freedom (4.00 / 1) (#112)
by driptray on Sun Aug 04, 2002 at 04:17:55 AM EST

Why make an international scene to return them to their homeland to face life in prison?

In the case of David Hicks, he apparently has not broken any Australian law. If he was returned to Australia he would be set free.

The Australian govt is riding a "tough on terrorism" wave at the moment. If they were to get Hicks back to Australia they would effectively be setting him free, which would be seen as weak on terrorism.

Better for them to stay silent and let the Americans do the dirty work.


--
We brought the disasters. The alcohol. We committed the murders. - Paul Keating
[ Parent ]
Why? (2.83 / 6) (#116)
by Zero Sum on Sun Aug 04, 2002 at 09:19:30 AM EST

Well, why would they want them back?

Because they are ours not yours.

Because they were doing what they beleived in through conciencious conviction before 11/9 and were not complicit in 11/9

Because they are not necessarily terrorists

Because Walker just took life rather than stand up for his own civil rights

Because America can no longer be trusted

Those reasons do for a start? Lose your unelected dictator and the world might start looking at you in a friendly fashion again.


Zero Sum - Vescere bracis meis
[ Parent ]

Ha ha, it is to laugh (1.00 / 1) (#161)
by Woundweavr on Tue Aug 06, 2002 at 02:41:18 PM EST

Because they are ours not yours.

Your parents really should have taught you to share. If Joe Smith from Oklamhoma warred against your country illegally, would you want him sent back to hicksville just because he was from America? Why do people of your country get more rights than the native Taliban?

Because they were doing what they beleived in through conciencious conviction before 11/9 and were not complicit in 11/9

Convictions don't matter. When someone burns down a McDonalds because of anti-corporatism, that doesn't make them any less guilty of arson. If an antiabortionist blows up a clinic it doesn't make them any less guilty of murder.

Because they are not necessarily terrorists

Thats why they'll get a military tribunal eventually. But realistically.... they are.

Because Walker just took life rather than stand up for his own civil rights

What? He committed treasonous acts. Admittedly. He's lucky he didn't get the death sentance.

Because America can no longer be trusted

The bias reaks from all the way over here. Get the chip off your shoulder, a few rational arguments and we'll get back to you.

[ Parent ]

Rational Argument (none / 0) (#168)
by Zero Sum on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 12:20:20 AM EST

Your parents really should have taught you to share. If Joe Smith from Oklamhoma warred against your country illegally, would you want him sent back to hicksville just because he was from America? Why do people of your country get more rights than the native Taliban?

You have made an assumption of guilt. It remains to be proven.

Thats why they'll get a military tribunal eventually. But realistically.... they are.

Same assumption of guilt. There is a very good reason why your position is untenable and improper. Google the words "star chamber". The only just court is an open and public one.

What? He committed treasonous acts. Admittedly. He's lucky he didn't get the death sentance.

What treasonous acts were those? He was a member of the Taliban, not a leader, just an ordinary member. No knowlege or complicity of the Taliban in in Sept. 11 has ever been shown to exist. In fact there has not even been any evidence that Bin Ladin had prior knowlege of Sept. 11 (which would have made it improper for the Taliban to give him up). Evidence has to be produced even where extradition treaties exist. Do you think Bin Laden would have got/get a fair trial in America? You have a chain of Sept 11 to Bin Laden to Taliban to JL and every link is broken until evidence is produced.

So there is this guy doing what he (no doubt mistakenly) sees as his religious duty and all of a sudden his country invades... What exactly would you do were you in his shoes? What would you have done differently?

The bias reaks from all the way over here. Get the chip off your shoulder, a few rational arguments and we'll get back to you.

I think the word you wanted is "reeks" but strangely enough, I am neither anti American nor biased. I want the same rules applied to both sides. It is the fact that you don't that makes you biased. If you can't see that then there can be no rational argument because you are not rational.


Zero Sum - Vescere bracis meis
[ Parent ]

Hmm ... John Walker Lindh (3.50 / 2) (#134)
by Hektor on Sun Aug 04, 2002 at 06:54:13 PM EST

He was brought back to the USA, even though he could just as easily have been put in Guantanamo. Why wasn't he? Why should he be treated better than the other prisoners of war ... ehhm ... terrorism ... no, wait ... uhm ... illegal combatants?

The prisoners in Guantanamo are outside the jurisdiction of the US courts, so why shouldn't he be put there, where he could be executed as the traitor he is?

For all you know, he could be the very mastermind behind the attacks on september 11 2001, but since you've allowed him onto US soil, and the media have put such intense focus on him, he can't even be put to death for his treasonous actions, where as the people, who really thought they were fighting for their rulers are being screwed in Cuba.

And people wonder why some people look at the US in disgust ...

[ Parent ]

Sad (none / 0) (#136)
by RyoCokey on Sun Aug 04, 2002 at 07:48:07 PM EST

I wasn't happy about that outcome either. I think the government did that because they weren't sure they could get a conviction for treason and didn't want to look like idiots after carting him back from Afghanistan, then having to let him go.

We can probably release the Taliban soliders later, as they were fighting for at least some form of government, even if they weren't an organized army. It's sorting them from the Al-Qaeda that will prove difficult. I think the US government is in no hurry, given the media furvor the trials are sure to cause.



The troops returning home are worried. "We've lost the peace," men tell you. "We can't make it stick." - John Dos Passos
[ Parent ]
Uhhh.... (1.00 / 1) (#152)
by Yanks Rule on Mon Aug 05, 2002 at 01:19:34 PM EST

It's because Lindh is a US Citizen.  Thus he cannot be detained without a charges being filed or face a military tribunal. US law (Constitution maybe?) doesn't allow it.  Plus, trying someone for treason in America is about the most difficult thing you can do (that is in the Constitution).

So you see, this has nothing to do with favortism or "USian" arrogance....

Richard

"I do think we live in dangerous times, and anybody who looks at the world and says this is the time to be a wuss--I can't buy that anymore. " -- Dennis Miller
[ Parent ]

Ah, K5. (2.11 / 18) (#51)
by Demiurge on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 04:37:01 PM EST

The highest rated comment in a story about human rights abuses in Canada is more senseless America bashing. Why am I no longer surprised?

[ Parent ]
*smirk* (3.83 / 6) (#52)
by valeko on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 04:40:56 PM EST

Probably because this violation was instigated by the US, dimwit.

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

I wouldn't worry too much (2.80 / 5) (#61)
by cb on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 06:14:05 PM EST

Demiurge is a known troll. He doesn't believe a word he says. And if he does, it's clear that he's mentally unstable.

[ Parent ]
Doesn't matter.. (3.00 / 6) (#63)
by coryking on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 06:20:52 PM EST

Who cares if he is a troll or not - what he says is true.

[ Parent ]
I'm not sure I'm following you (3.00 / 4) (#67)
by cb on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 06:38:02 PM EST

This injustice has been carried out at the behest of the United States. They probably racked some Canadian official over the coals until they caved in.

[ Parent ]
Isn't it great how things work out? (1.75 / 12) (#64)
by Demiurge on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 06:22:07 PM EST

When you need a convenient villain, it's always the evil USians pulling the strings.

Otherwise, it's idiotic pompousity to claim that the US is the center of the world.

Wonderful how that all works out so well to your rhetorical advantage.

[ Parent ]
Umm... (3.33 / 3) (#76)
by Danse on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 08:26:22 PM EST

Isn't it the US that is holding people without access to lawyers or courts or trials? Who else should we be pissed at? Perhaps we should blame Canada... doh.. n/m... that's what this article is about.




An honest debate between Bush and Kerry
[ Parent ]
outside US jurisdiction?? (3.40 / 5) (#69)
by crazycanuck on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 06:44:56 PM EST

what the fuck?

what about that deCSS dude?

[ Parent ]

Putting this into practice... (2.16 / 12) (#75)
by SPYvSPY on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 08:09:52 PM EST

Quote: Let this be a warning: make sure the US doesn't decide you are a threat, for any reason. Even your own government won't bother trying to save you.


Step one: Do not join muslim extremist movement in Afghanistan sponsored by America's most wanted terrorist criminal.

Step two: Stop worrying about being detained indefinitely in Cuban deprogramming facility.

Step three: Live happy, normal life.

YMMV
------------------------------------------------

By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
[ Parent ]

SpyvsSpy, he's so dreaaaamy (3.71 / 7) (#78)
by Ken Pompadour on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 08:37:03 PM EST

They were imprisoned for being Arabs and/or illegal immigrants, not for being members of Al Queda or the Taliban.

Easy Money? It's on this - Almost all of them have been or will be released without any charges. The lives of most of them will be devestates.

And SpyVsSpy will have a good chuckle at their suffering.



...The target is countrymen, friends and family... they have to die too. - candid trhurler
[ Parent ]
Ummm... (2.50 / 2) (#109)
by ragabr on Sun Aug 04, 2002 at 02:00:35 AM EST

if they're British and Australian, how can being Arabs have anything to do with it? And since they were legally in Afghanistan, what does illegal immigration have to do with anything?

-------
And my tongue would be made of chocolate. Mmmmm. Chocolate.
-rusty
[ Parent ]
Heh (3.00 / 2) (#120)
by Ken Pompadour on Sun Aug 04, 2002 at 12:36:26 PM EST

if they're British and Australian, how can being Arabs have anything to do with it?

The larger scope of this story concerns the near-random imprisonment of people on a shotgun approach to make the spoiled, cruel peoples of America feel safer. It just so happens that the shotgun was pointed at Arab immigrants.

A larger story concerning all Western nationals held by the US in it's war against terrorism may have been more appropriate.

And I can only assume that the United States' citizens are "Western nationals?" Do you feel differently?



...The target is countrymen, friends and family... they have to die too. - candid trhurler
[ Parent ]
Ummm.... (none / 0) (#138)
by ragabr on Sun Aug 04, 2002 at 08:35:29 PM EST

I don't think the second half of your comment was supposed to reply to me.

Anyway, I disagree about the larger scope of the article. I think it's larger scope had to do with the respective countries (Australia and the UK) not doing anything about their citizens being held in Cuba.

-------
And my tongue would be made of chocolate. Mmmmm. Chocolate.
-rusty
[ Parent ]
Not really... (none / 0) (#148)
by SPYvSPY on Mon Aug 05, 2002 at 10:15:18 AM EST

...most of them were combatants at the uprising in Mazar e Sharif, where the Taliban surrendered and then revolted against the CIA interrogators. They're the cowards the hid in the basement after the Northern Alliance whipped their jihadi compatriots. In classic jihadi style, they lied about surrendering, and launched a suicide attack with smuggled grenades, which allowed them to re-take control of their weapons. They tried to make a last stand, but they failed miserably, as they so often do. Nearly every man held at Mazar was a "foreign" fighter in OBL's Ansar unit, which was primarily Arabs (and a handful of westerners), who had been trained at the terrorist training camps. These were the criteria that distinguished the prisoners at Mazar from the local Afghan Taliban who were allowed to go free upon surrender.
------------------------------------------------

By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
[ Parent ]

Millitary vs Civillian prisoners (none / 0) (#158)
by CENGEL3 on Mon Aug 05, 2002 at 04:39:56 PM EST

There is a difference between being taken as a hostile combatant in the field and being taken as a civillian prisoner and subjected to the U.S. justice system.

The millitary is not constrained in the same manner as civillian authorties (nor should they be). The do not need to follow rules of evidence, nor miranda procedures nor do they have any limitation on how long they can hold a person without trial (as long as hostilities are ongoing). All they have to follow is the Uniform Code of Millitary Justice (terminology might be a little off).

As I understand it, the prisoners you mentioned were all combatants taken in the field. That means that they are not subject to the same legal procedures that civilian prisoners in the U.S. justice system are. Personaly I think we should afford all the prisoners at G'tmo POW statis (we have denied them that) and for the ones that were involved in terrorist activities stage a Nurenburg style tribunal. As I understand it (and this is 3rd hand info so take it as that) all the prisoners at x-ray are pretty much being treated as if they were regular POW's save for being allowed access to outside officials and mail.

The difference with Lindh was that he was a U.S. citizen and therfore the U.S. Justice system had jurisdiction. He was therefore transfered from millitary to civilian custody and out into the regular criminal justice system. The other "western" prisoners aren't U.S. citizens nor are they accused of actions which took place on U.S. soil... therefore the U.S. criminal justice system doesn't (and shouldn't) have any jurisdiction over them... therefore they are still millitary prisoners and subject to rules covering millitary not civilian prisoners (hence jurisdiction, extradition, habeus corpus and legal representation all are non-issues).

Frankly I suspect thier governments aren't quite sure what to do with them yet.... and as such haven't made any diplomatic requests to get them transfered to thier own nations custody. In any event I think any disposition regarding thier status is a little premature at this point... at least until things in Afghanstan are a little more resolved. It'll be interesting to see how it shakes out in the end.

[ Parent ]

Zechariah 11:4-14 (2.31 / 16) (#28)
by MickLinux on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 01:10:53 PM EST

Thus said the Lord my God:  "Become shepherd of the flock doomed to slaughter.  Those who buy them slay them and go unpunished; and those who sell them say 'blessed be the Lord, I have become rich'; and their own shepherds have no pity on them.  For I will no longer have pity on the inhabitants of this land, says the Lord.  Lo, I will cause men to fall each into the hand of his king; and they shall crush the earth, and I will deliver none from their hand."

So I became shepherd of the flock doomed to be slain for those who trafficked in the sheep.  And I took to staffs; one I named Grace, and the other I named Union.  And I tended the sheep.  In one month I destroyed the three shepherds.  But I became impatient with them, and they also detested me.  So I said, "I will not be your shepherd.  What is to die, let it die; what is to be destroyed, let it be destroyed; and let those that are left devour the flesh of one another."  And I took my staff Grace, and I broke it, annulling the covenant which I had made with all the peoples.  So it was annulled on that day, and the traffickers in the sheep, who were watching me, knew that it was the word of the Lord.  Then I said to them, "If it seems right to you, give me my wages; but if not, keep them."  And they weighed out as my wage thirty shekels of silver.  Then the Lord said to me, "Cast it into the treasury"--the lordly price at which I was paid off by them.  So I took the thirty shekels of silver and cast them into the treasury in the house of the Lord.  Then I broke my second staff Union, annulling the brotherhood between Judah and Israel.

Nothing ever applies exactly the same way twice, but sometimes it seems that history repeats itself, and prophecy can apply generally as well as specifically.

I make a call to grace, for the alternative is more broken than you can imagine.

OT: alternative accounts (none / 0) (#29)
by jjayson on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 01:28:18 PM EST

Excuse me sir. Are you also him?

-j
"People live in apartments. That's what they're designed for. Bombs are designed to blow up things." -Parent ]
No, I have only 1 account. (none / 0) (#32)
by MickLinux on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 01:43:47 PM EST

I am MickLinux and no other.  However, I admit that someone who knows the Bible here is quite unusual.  

But is that a fault, now?

It would seem to me

(#1) at least 1 or 2 of the techies whereever you work probably are religious Christians or Jews

(#2) This is obviously cultural, at a minimum.  Whether it is true or not is additional; whether it is of divine origin or not is also additional, but should count positively if true (I definitely believe both are the case, but do not expect everyone to accept that.)

(#3) This is definitely on topic, not off topic.  It relates.  Think about the staff Union, and the relationship between Canada and the US.  Think about the staff Grace, and what is happening in the US as hysteria grows.

I make a call to grace, for the alternative is more broken than you can imagine.
[ Parent ]

on topic ? (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by fhotg on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 03:27:17 PM EST

that's crapflooding in my book. Mainly because its contents is just a quote, which does not relate to the topic at hand, without explanaition. I'd like to hear your interpretation of this prophecy, but don't expect people to try to read sense into random cut & paste jobs.
~~~
Gitarren für die Mädchen -- Champagner für die Jungs

[ Parent ]
I *did* comment. Comment:Roman; Quote:italic (1.00 / 1) (#45)
by MickLinux on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 03:41:03 PM EST

I gave the comment after the quote, but made the quote italic so that a person could skip down to my comment, if they wanted.

I make a call to grace, for the alternative is more broken than you can imagine.
[ Parent ]

I sure identified the 10% non-quote (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by fhotg on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 03:57:37 PM EST

but it didn't help me the slightest to make sense of that post. Whatever, blame my IQ and forget my rant.
~~~
Gitarren für die Mädchen -- Champagner für die Jungs

[ Parent ]
Okay, posted longer commentary underneath. (none / 0) (#50)
by MickLinux on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 04:28:12 PM EST

It had not occurred to me before your comment, but the language is slightly concealing.

So I posted a glossary, and a greater commentary.

Specifically, in the breaking of the staff "union", I see a situation kindof like that between Germany and Austria.  Allies, yes -- but one essentially invaded the other.  In the same way, the US does seem to be seizing sovereignty from Canada.  

Thus, the union of purposes breaks, and Canada's government slowly becomes a client, a slave, to the US government.  

I make a call to grace, for the alternative is more broken than you can imagine.
[ Parent ]

well thanks (none / 0) (#53)
by fhotg on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 05:08:42 PM EST

getting you drift now better. I like the analogy between Germany/Austria. The Austrians in general pretty much liked being taken over and have been called 'better nazis than the germans'. The parallel is: Neither Austria nor Canada had/has much of a choice. Canada needs to choose its battles with the US, and one citizen is a cheap sacifice.

Stll not easy to follow you interpretation, I guess because of very different worldviews. For example the notion that "citizen, employess and children need leading, protection and care" could make me hit hard with strong and unambigous yet stringent and logically un-attackable language just to leave my opponent begging for the mercy of not being subjected anymore to my powerful beliefs. If I was in the mood to argue, that is :)
~~~
Gitarren für die Mädchen -- Champagner für die Jungs

[ Parent ]

It's all relative... (none / 0) (#62)
by MickLinux on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 06:19:54 PM EST

... some citizens, employees, and children need more protection and care than others.  

    Arguably, the more protection and care they need, the more they are undeserving of a good ruler.  Nonetheless, with children most adults try to be good, anyhow.  Likewise, there are better bosses and worse bosses.

    I don't think it's a point worth arguing -- I'd most likely keel over and not beg for anything.  But when I function as an employer, I do feel responsible for not taking advantage of my employees unfairly.  

    There was a stage in the industrial revolution where the reverse was true:  in the worst cases, the employers used successively more enslaving contracts, along with legal rulings that made it impossible for the employee not to legally sign, to enslave their victims.  That situation was part of what caused the hatred that drove the formation of the IRA.

I make a call to grace, for the alternative is more broken than you can imagine.
[ Parent ]

unusual? hardly. (none / 0) (#126)
by Maniac_Dervish on Sun Aug 04, 2002 at 02:01:42 PM EST

ermm, plenty of K5ers know their bible well - they just choose not to spout it.

who said you didnt get anything from indoctrination? :)

[ Parent ]

Okay, a glossary and longer commentary. (4.66 / 3) (#49)
by MickLinux on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 04:23:52 PM EST

Sheep are the people who need leading, protection, and care.  They are the employees, the children, the citizens.

Shepherds are those charged with that job.

If you have ever read Stephen King's "The Talisman", you will know that the werewolves in the golden country are shepherds; they are charged with never eating from the herd.  That is a valuable point to remember.

This describes a political situation in which eating from the herd by second derivative [sell it to your neighbor, buy his, and both eat] is considered normal.

I think that things have been like that in America for a while.  Look at Enron, look at our politicians.  Yet, the point of this is that the sheep get the shepherd they deserve.  If we have enron, if we have politicians who feast on us through the means of taxation and pork, it is ultimately our own fault.

So what happens?  First the breaking of the staff "grace".  No more good relations between a man and his neighbor, no more economic good will.

The second is the breaking of the staff "union".  When everybody is betraying his neighbor for his own gain, how can the states themselves hold together?  How can treaties between countries hold?

Although the specifics applied back in that day, I think the generalities apply today.  When you get the general conditions described, you get the general results described.

Prophecy, ultimately, is the ability to see extra clearly, and the willingness to say what you see.  This prophecy, like most of those in the Bible, does not apply in specific except to the specific case it faced -- but because the nature of man is relatively constant, similar situations do come up.

I think that the situation of America is quite similar to the one in Zechariah 11.

I make a call to grace, for the alternative is more broken than you can imagine.
[ Parent ]

Politics and Religion. (none / 0) (#114)
by Zero Sum on Sun Aug 04, 2002 at 08:58:54 AM EST

I absolutely detest organised religion. I really, really hate your post. Why do you have to be so goddamn right. <egrin>

Trouble is, I am anticipating, fearfully anticipating WWIII - USA versus the rest - and what is worse, I don't know what side my country will be on.
Zero Sum - Vescere bracis meis
[ Parent ]

Politics and Religion. (none / 0) (#115)
by Zero Sum on Sun Aug 04, 2002 at 09:01:16 AM EST

I absolutely detest organised religion. I really, really hate your post. Why do you have to be so goddamn right. <egrin>

Trouble is, I am anticipating, fearfully anticipating WWIII - USA versus the rest - and what is worse, I don't know what side my country will be on.


Zero Sum - Vescere bracis meis
[ Parent ]

History Repeating (none / 0) (#91)
by xee on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 09:25:23 PM EST

History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme. -Mark Twain


Proud to be a member.
[ Parent ]
Not a foregone conclusion.... (5.00 / 4) (#59)
by X-Nc on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 06:08:21 PM EST

How did CSIS*, which does not have the power to arrest anyone, convince Jabarah to sign a paper allowing himself to be moved to a country where he no doubt will be indicted for being part of a terrorist conspiracy, regardless of the complete lack of evidence?

Maybe I'm just not as paranoid as I should be but his guilt isn't a done deal. Is it? I know that the whole "Innocent until prooven guilty" thing is nearly dead but it's not been buried yet that I know of. Has it? Or am I really just Peter Pan? Honestly, I have been a bit pessimistic in recent months but it's not gotten this bad yet, has it?


[*]Did anyone else look at this and see CICS?

--
Aaahhhh!!!! My K5 subscription expired. Now I can't spell anymore.

We'll hafto see, (none / 0) (#60)
by simonfish on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 06:12:09 PM EST

but I would suspect that if they thought so strongly that he was a terrorist with so little evidence, to the point of wanting to interogate him, I would think that they would be quiet unlikely to admit their mistake.

[ Parent ]
Waiting to see.... (none / 0) (#66)
by X-Nc on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 06:27:56 PM EST

You are right, but personally I hope that we haven't gone this far yet. Maybe instead of bring my love here I should just join her in Thailand...

--
Aaahhhh!!!! My K5 subscription expired. Now I can't spell anymore.
[ Parent ]
People play along a lot (5.00 / 1) (#72)
by BCoates on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 08:03:50 PM EST

For some reason people seem to like cooperating with thier own investigations... Maybe they think they'll look innocent or something, maybe they just have no spines, but people seem happy to do things like allow searches when they know illegal stuff will be found or sign off on confessions because they think the police know they did it.

So for a lot of people, it's not so much "innocent until proven guilty" as "innocent until confession".  That sure looks like what went on here, but maybe there's something more going on...

--
Benjamin Coates

[ Parent ]

Ahh ... so now it's guilt by non-admission? (4.50 / 2) (#133)
by Hektor on Sun Aug 04, 2002 at 06:41:48 PM EST

For some reason people seem to like cooperating with thier own investigations

How should people, who haven't done anything wrong behave?

Maybe they think they'll look innocent or something

And if they really ARE innocent?

maybe they just have no spines

Ahh, so they should just say "how about I give you the finger".

people seem happy to do things like allow searches when they know illegal stuff will be found

Yes, and we all know that noone has ever been framed for something they didn't do, and that authorities never plant evidence.

or sign off on confessions because they think the police know they did it.

Wel also know, that when people are put into very stressfull situations or even tortured, they will never do anything to get out of that situation. I'm quite sure that every single which that was burned during the witch hunts were guilty because they all confessed.

---

Most bank robbers use cars as get-away vehicles, so should all car owners be considdered guilty of bank robbery as well?

[ Parent ]

What's a non-admission? (none / 0) (#139)
by BCoates on Sun Aug 04, 2002 at 09:40:14 PM EST

How should people, who haven't done anything wrong behave? ... Ahh, so they should just say "how about I give you the finger".

Seems reasonable to me. It's not like you gain anything by brownnosing the police--they don't like you, and they're not on your side (even if you're innocent). Being polite will not change that.

authorities never plant evidence.

Sure, it happens, but I don't think it explains all or even most of the voluntary searches that result in evidence. Yet another reason to never be more cooperative than you have to be, since refusing a search eliminates an opportunity for evidence to be planted even if you're innocent.

Wel also know, that when people are put into very stressfull situations or even tortured, they will never do anything to get out of that situation.

Yes, it is possible to torture a confession out of someone, but again I don't think torture explains even a small fraction of confessions. A confession alone is hardly evidence of torture.

--
Benjamin Coates



[ Parent ]

Most of the witches were guilty. (3.00 / 1) (#142)
by DavidTC on Mon Aug 05, 2002 at 12:33:30 AM EST

Even ignoring the torture, most of the witches were 'legally' guilty in that they had at least two 'witnesses' to their crimes.

The ones that confessed didn't really need to do so, there was enough 'evidence' already.

Which is pretty much the way all witchhunts are conducted now. Torture is so passe, much better to use witnesses who know if they don't cut a deal and point fingers at the people they're supposed to point fingers at, they'll be burned at the stake. Or end up in jail for fifteen years because of that pot they tried to sell a cop.

-David T. C.
Yes, my email address is real.
[ Parent ]

Indictment != Conviction (5.00 / 1) (#89)
by xee on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 09:23:13 PM EST

An indictment is merely an accusation. Saying that he will no doubt be indicted by the US government is far different from saying he will be prosecuted, much less proven guilty. President Clinton was indicted -- big deal.


Proud to be a member.
[ Parent ]
this whole CSIS bullshit (2.50 / 2) (#68)
by crazycanuck on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 06:41:21 PM EST

I'm a canadian. am I forced to talk to CSIS agents if they want to question me or can I tell them to fuck off and go get a warrant and come back with the police?

not that I'm likely to ever be interrogated by CSIS officers, but you know, just in case...

I don't know, (5.00 / 2) (#70)
by simonfish on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 06:48:37 PM EST

but I do know that they can't arrest you. CSIS does not have power of arrest. Anyone who knows, please come forward, I'm interested.

[ Parent ]
Correct. (none / 0) (#132)
by mindstrm on Sun Aug 04, 2002 at 05:50:36 PM EST

CSIS are not the FBI. They are MORE like the CIA.
CSIS is an intelligence service, not a secret police who work to keep the man down.

[ Parent ]
CSIS (none / 0) (#163)
by Lictor on Tue Aug 06, 2002 at 09:32:45 PM EST

Actually, Canada has no real analouge to the CIA. The closest we get is the Communications Security Establishment (CSE), which is the *only* (known) Canadian institution with a mandate that involves external intelligence gathering.

CSIS's mandate is counter-espionage/counter-terrorism, which actually makes it kind of like parts of the FBI (only without any powers of arrest, etc.). I suppose a closer comparison would be something like MI5 in the U.K.

[ Parent ]

In America... (5.00 / 2) (#86)
by xee on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 09:19:11 PM EST

The FBI is the only intelligence agency with the power to even look at a U.S. citizen. The CIA, NSA, etc. are not allowed to investigate, monitor, or otherwise observe U.S. citizens. Your CSIS may have similar restrictions, but then again, maybe not.


Proud to be a member.
[ Parent ]
IANAL (4.66 / 3) (#98)
by mikpos on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 09:59:04 PM EST

But not being a lawyer shouldn't stop you from doing a bit of research. From the CSIS mandate:
In meeting its mandated commitments, CSIS provides advance warning to government departments and agencies about activities which may reasonably be suspected of constituting threats to the country's security. Other government departments and agencies, not CSIS, have the responsibility to take direct action to counter the security threats.

CSIS does not have law enforcement powers, therefore, all law enforcement functions are the responsibility of police authorities. The splitting of functions, combined with comprehensive legislated review mechanisms, ensures that CSIS remains under the close control of the federal government.

and:
The most intrusive methods [of CSIS' investigations]--such as electronic surveillance, mail opening and covert searches--require a warrant issued by a judge of the Federal Court of Canada
The Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act (the Act itself makes me call it that, heh) doesn't really give much interesting information other than who and what can be studied, under what conditions they can be studied (i.e. it's illegal for a CSIS officer to investigate a person simply for protesting), when they have to attain a warrant, who they can give their information to, etc. I couldn't find anything in there that said "when you ask someone for his name, he has to give it to you" or anything like that.

By the sounds of things, CSIS officers are not allowed to do anything that a citizen can't already do. Actually they're far, far more restricted than the average Canadian. If they need to ask you some questions, they'll get their good friends the RCMP to do it for them.

[ Parent ]

actually to explain a bit further (none / 0) (#100)
by mikpos on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 10:12:04 PM EST

About what requires a warrant and what doesn't. Canadian law has the unfortunate heritage of English law. There are lots of "reasonable"s and "may"s which means the Act doesn't go into specifics, really. It all comes down to what the courts consider "reasonable" I suppose.

Anyway, Section 21.(1), as far as I can tell, basically just says "a CSIS guy should ask for a warrant whenever he thinks it's a good idea to do so". Section 21.(3) then says "a judge should issue a warrant whenever he thinks it's a good idea to do so, subject to what it says in the Statistics Act". And then:

the judge may issue a warrant authorizing the persons to whom it is directed to intercept any communication or obtain any information, record, document or thing and, for that purpose,
  1. to enter any place or open or obtain access to any thing;
  2. to search for, remove or return, or examine, take extracts from or make copies of or record in any other manner the information, record, document or thing; or
  3. to install, maintain or remove any thing.
Gotta love that vague language. I'd love to be a CSIS agent just so I can write up requests for warrants. "Ya, I'd like to maintain a thing?"

[ Parent ]
If I were you (none / 0) (#104)
by Spendocrat on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 11:37:59 PM EST

I'd be worried about the RCMP, not CSIS.

[ Parent ]
He must have known some English (4.60 / 5) (#102)
by GoofyBoy on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 11:20:41 PM EST

tricked into signing a confession in a language they didn't understand.

From the Toronto Star article he was raised in Canada. He at least knew some english to read some of the papers he signed.

He was arrested/detained before by the US governement and then released. Woudln't you think that if this happened to you, you would figure out how to protect yourself from it happening again?

Maybe he is just stupid?

Or (3.00 / 2) (#103)
by simonfish on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 11:35:37 PM EST

after his experience in Oman, he was ready to do anything to avoid takeing a longer trip with his 'friends' again, perhaps enough to want to just cooperate with the americans, after all, it would all be over in a few days.Not everyone knows their rights, and not everyone needs to be told their rights, they can simply be let believe whatever they want.

[ Parent ]
Would have been thinking about protecting himself (5.00 / 1) (#105)
by GoofyBoy on Sat Aug 03, 2002 at 11:50:04 PM EST

he was ready to do anything to avoid takeing a longer trip with his 'friends' again,

Thats exactly my point. After the first trip, he should have been worred about it and figured out how to protect himself.


[ Parent ]
Of course, you didn't read the rest of what I said (none / 0) (#106)
by simonfish on Sun Aug 04, 2002 at 01:19:43 AM EST

I ment that if somone gave him a way to guarentee that(what he was told is unclear, his father says his son said that he was told a few days), he would likely take it. A few days of questioning, and he was probably guarenteed safety as well. Of course he took it. The betrayel of trust by CSIS is a concern then, assuming his father is not lieing(and CSIS or anyone else for that matter has yet to say otherwise). If they lied about one thing, they could have lied about many others, again, we JUST DON'T KNOW. I don't think we can say at this point why he signed it. I'm sure in his mind, it was the best thing at that point, and I'm not sure I wouldn't have made the same decision. You on the otherhand, don't seem to have the fantest clue what he's been through, and likely is going through now. Try and think from his perspective, instead of trying to put yourself in the same situation, with no other background(I did include it for a reason).

[ Parent ]
His background we do know (none / 0) (#110)
by GoofyBoy on Sun Aug 04, 2002 at 02:17:22 AM EST

Try and think from his perspective, instead of trying to put yourself in the same situation, with no other background(I did include it for a reason).

He does have a background which I did try to extraplate from. He was raised in Central Ontario. He was detained by the US before. His family travels alot. His father appears to be able to afford a lawyer.

We are definately not talking about some tourist looking for an exotic vacation.

[ Parent ]
English wouldn't help much (3.00 / 3) (#108)
by KOTHP on Sun Aug 04, 2002 at 01:51:46 AM EST

The confession was probably written in legal-ese, a language only distantly related to English.

[ Parent ]
Professional languages (none / 0) (#119)
by Dyolf Knip on Sun Aug 04, 2002 at 11:58:32 AM EST

No kidding! A lawyer, not to mention most people, could spent days reading, say, a simple C++ program and never understand all the nuances. Why on earth is _everyone_ expected to be able to read the trade language of attorneys?

---
If you can't learn to do something well, learn to enjoy doing it poorly.

Dyolf Knip
[ Parent ]

maybe because C++ doesn't run our everyday lives? (none / 0) (#147)
by ethereal on Mon Aug 05, 2002 at 10:11:11 AM EST

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. But if the law is made complex enough, it becomes a lot easier to find someone who's ignorant of it. No one should be required to sign something that affects their life in such a significant way without at least being able to understand it.

The other germane question is, of course: did he even have legal representation at the time that paper was provided? Plenty of terrorism suspects in the U.S. right now don't; I would have hoped that the Canadians would be more civilized about that sort of thing.

--

Stand up for your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and State
[ Parent ]

Not expected, required (none / 0) (#162)
by finite automaton on Tue Aug 06, 2002 at 05:52:48 PM EST

In every jurisdiction that I am aware of, you are required to obey the laws as they are written. This means that you are required to understand the language they are written in.

I always wondered what would happen if a law was challenged on this basis. i.e. "The language this law was written cannot be fully understood without a law degree, so it is not reasonable for the courts to expect a layman to be able to understand and obey it."

Does anybody know of a case like this where the defendant was desperate enough to try this? Is ignorance of the law ever an excuse? I am intrigued.



[ Parent ]
"it wasn't me" won't cut it (5.00 / 3) (#127)
by Mclaren on Sun Aug 04, 2002 at 03:17:52 PM EST

Detectives use some pretty questionable ways to get confessions out of people. Why do you think these confessions are so rarely caught on tape? Interrogation rooms have cameras, but they don't want people to see what was used to get the confession. If the jury sees a detective screaming in some guys face as he looks at the ground trying to deny it, and then finally breaks down and confesses after 3 hours of emotional abuse, the confession wouldn't mean as much. Getting questioned can be pretty intense, it's easy to sit back and say someone is an idiot for confessing, but it's a little harder when you're in the hot seat.

[ Parent ]
Canada (3.00 / 3) (#122)
by ruggiero on Sun Aug 04, 2002 at 01:00:54 PM EST

You have to keep in mind that Canada has two official languages: French and English. Is it possible that he was raised in a French-speaking area and was convinced to sign the paper in English?

correction: (none / 0) (#123)
by ruggiero on Sun Aug 04, 2002 at 01:04:14 PM EST

Ontario isn't a French speaking area, my bad. Maybe vice versa?

[ Parent ]
Biligualism (5.00 / 1) (#159)
by Nikau on Tue Aug 06, 2002 at 11:53:55 AM EST

I'd have to say most likely not. Because the official languages are French and English, if there were any important government-issue documents he were required to sign, he would have been provided with a copy in each language or with one document containing text in both languages. CSIS is still a government agency, and the Canadian federal government operates in both.

Actually, if he spoke only English and was given French copies of these papers to sign, I think that's prohibited somewhere under the law... I'd have to check.

---
I have a zero-tolerance policy for zero-tolerance policies, and this policy itself is the exception to itself which allows me to have it without being contradictory. - Happy Monkey
[ Parent ]

He signed it.. the guy's a moron. (2.55 / 9) (#125)
by sudog on Sun Aug 04, 2002 at 01:58:54 PM EST

NEVER sign ANYthing. The moron shouldn't have agreed to anything without speaking to a friendly lawyer.

And quite frankly, if he knows anything significant about Al-Qaeda, AND he signed papers that said he agreed to be extradited to the U.S., and NOW he's whining about the unfair treatment--quite frankly I have no sympathy. A language he didn't understand? Then what the heck was he doing while being "raised in Canada"?

Sorry, this isn't a case of injustice. This is a case where some Al-Qaeda-affiliated moron is bitching because he was stupid and wants the authorities to take care of everything for him and protect him from the Americans.

News flash: We're 1/10th the population of the states and something of a much smaller fraction when it comes to our economy. Why would we sit here and protect the guy?

Is he being tortured? Is he being filled with truth serums? Is he being sleep-deprived? No?

Well, he agreed to go down there, trickery or not. He knew what he was in for. Now that it's become unpleasant for him he wants us to try to bail him and his future extradited buddies out.

Fuck 'im. He signed the papers. Let him learn the consequences of fucking with the Americans.


You are a moron... (4.66 / 12) (#128)
by skyknight on Sun Aug 04, 2002 at 03:29:14 PM EST

Intelligence and law enforcement agencies can be very devious and underhanded in their treatment of detainees. It is quite possible that what happened was that he was abused, demoralized, and threatened, and then subsequently told that if he just signed some papers making some concessions then he would be released. Was it smart what he did? Perhaps not, but it's easy to pretend that you'd be impervious to torture when you're not the one getting slapped around. Your cavalier attitude of "fuck him" is quite short sighted, yet you can get away with it for the moment because you are not the targeted ideological/racial/whatever minority of the day. If you don't protect the liberties of EVERYONE, ALL THE TIME, even the people of which you are none to fond, then you will find that it is impossible to EVER protect the liberties of ANYONE. Picking and choosing certain freedoms for certain people is not practical, or even possible. It is people like you who allow for the gradual erosion of freedoms for everyone.

It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
[ Parent ]
Karma whore.. (none / 0) (#167)
by sudog on Wed Dec 11, 2002 at 02:47:59 AM EST

He shouldn't have forsaken the protection of the country of his own citizenship. He was gullible in signing whatever it was they made him sign. It was bullshit, and the Americans are fuckwads for doing it, but really, if you willingly step over the line why expect your country to bail you out?


[ Parent ]
It's pretty funny that you posted a follow up... (none / 0) (#169)
by skyknight on Wed Jun 04, 2003 at 12:43:16 AM EST

four months later... I wonder if you'll read this six months later still. Just a fun game, as I'm feeling random. BTW, I'd say democracy cited me as the winner. :)

It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
[ Parent ]
Is this a troll? (none / 0) (#165)
by esq on Thu Aug 08, 2002 at 05:36:07 PM EST

Normally I can spot a troll, but this time I hope this one is.

USAians contain a strange contradiction. On one hand they claim the be an enlightened people who respect the rule of law.

On the other hand their government, with the almost complete support of the public, is perfectly happy to completely ignore the rule of law if it suits their purposes.

Even if he handed out the knifes to the al-Quida, he still deserves the same legal protections that the US claims are inalienable rights.

He certainly does not deserve some form of back-door shafting by the Canadians.

I can't even imaging the sort of stupidity involved in concluding that your anger overrides another persons rights.

Esq.

[ Parent ]

Hrm... (none / 0) (#143)
by shoeboy on Mon Aug 05, 2002 at 12:40:54 AM EST

I read the intro paragraph and thought I had magically been redirected to Adequacy.org. I was all primed for a scathing critique of the Quebecistanis and their silly frog language.

I was very dissapointed.

Yours,
Shoeboy
No more trolls!

Silly frog language !!! (none / 0) (#166)
by acidtil on Fri Aug 09, 2002 at 09:31:31 AM EST

What's wrong with french !?!?! Have you got no respect for other languages ??

What a nice open-minded view of us french !

[ Parent ]

Canada betrays Jabarah (5.00 / 8) (#150)
by redelm on Mon Aug 05, 2002 at 11:22:36 AM EST

I was shocked when I read this story in the Toronto Globe and Mail and wrote the editors. They published my letter the next day:

Sir,

If your desciption of Mr Jabarah as a Canadian citizen is accurate, I am appalled at the CSIS's glee at handing him over to US agencies. Countries, even [constitutional] monarchies, have an absolute duty to protect their citizens. Protection is the bargain people make for being ruled.

The US has a very vengeful justice system at the best of times. Worse since Sept 11. Mr Jabarah ought at least to have had an extradition hearing under Canadian law to prove the non-apparent merits of the US claim.

Actions like this also establish to the Omanis and anyone else watching that Canada is nothing more than a US stooge.



Spelling nit: St. Catharines (none / 0) (#157)
by czth on Mon Aug 05, 2002 at 02:55:58 PM EST

... not St. Catherines.

czth, who used to live about 15 minutes from there.

Canadian al for it . (1.00 / 1) (#164)
by hebertrich on Thu Aug 08, 2002 at 07:01:50 AM EST

Sorry , im a Canadian and all for getting rid of people that come to the country , that are at least suspects in international terrorism. The US want em ? great let em have him ! Second thing that is most important in this matter.What he didnt speak neither English nor french ? ah ! When one immigrates to a country he should learn the language.If i go to Germany im expected to learn German.If i go to Russia . well im expected to learn and use russian. This is simple curtesy to the land that welcomes you ! The problem is not Canadians in this . HE brought it upon himself not learning one of the official languages. This is cutthroat poetic justice and a lesson to all the immigrants in all countries that dont learn the local language. In fact before you're allowed in a country for emigration purposes you should be screened for your abilities in the local language. When i came to the US i knew english .. even though in French Canadian .. it was .. well kind of a good idea to do so. Richard

A Case of Injustice | 169 comments (155 topical, 14 editorial, 1 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!