But you cannot just say "But this situation is special" and that the rules don't apply. That makes the rule of law useless.

Heat of the moment battlefield decisions are not analogous to this situation as there has been plenty of time to make rational decisions here, and there were laws that could have been applied. Still, they chose to avoid the rule of law.

I do believe I addressed that point in my later-added edit which you didn't have at the time of your posting. Here repeated for your convenience:

...didn't you have to make some personal compromises about your "human rights" by just moving here and living as an expatriate? Didn't personal necessity overrule your own sense of your personal rights?

The thought comes to mind that this unfortunate circumstance is present in many situations throughout the world, often as an unfortunate result of extraordinary emergency or necessity. Think of a battlefield, and then think of the multitude of human rights irregularities that go on there. Sad, but true and part of the fabric of war. The stuff of a lot of war movie scripts.

Look at the American resettlement camps for Japanese and Germans in WW2. Bleeding-heart liberals call these "concentration camps" despite the fact that they were self-administered by the residents and had adequate food, clothing, and shelter. In peace time, 50 years later, we can show our sorrow and repentance for the alleged violation of human rights of these people.

But, a different mentality takes over in war when the existence of a country or society is threatened. Any one else who criticizes such a country/society, and is not involved as a threatened member of that society is simply an armchair pontificator who is seriously short-sighted about the greater issues at stake--such as physical survival.

Look at the American resettlement camps for Japanese and Germans in WW2. Bleeding-heart liberals call these "concentration camps" despite the fact that they were self-administered by the residents and had adequate food, clothing, and shelter. In peace time, 50 years later, we can show our sorrow and repentance for the alleged violation of human rights of these people.

Are we not supposed to learn from the mistakes of the past, not hope that once again we feel bad about it later?

...the point is that there is no legal protection against it if you can be classified in such a way, and taken to such a place where your rights cease to exist.

Ewwwww. Kinda reminds me of us farangs in Thailand if, god-help-us, we should ever get arrested! I know, I know. Or maybe not...

The thought comes to mind that this unfortunate circumstance is present in many situations throughout the world, often as an unfortunate result of extraordinary emergency or necessity. Think of a battlefield, and then think of the multitude of human rights irregularities that go on there. Sad, but true and part of the fabric of war. The stuff of a lot of war movie scripts.

In case you have forgotten, it's a declared war you're wringing your hands over.

Then why aren't they being treated as POWs?

Somehow you've missed the reality that this is not a conventional war. Some think that in the heat of battle, all well-oiled machines of justice and human rights should just keep perking along without a hitch. Get real. Yours is a Pollyanna view of reality.

5 years imprisonment without trial is not 'in the heat of battle'. Illegal torture and abuse of prisoners in Gitmo does your country no favours - especially with those of us who are your allies.

The subtitle of this thread was:

"What's happening to the World and 'our' legal rights ?"

In another thread, from Jet Gorgon, she asks: 'What is your worst fear?'

I answered with "what is my worst nightmare"....? ending up in jail, innocent.

I am 100% convinced that every single member of ThaiVisa will agree on the latter.

Every single one of us could end up in jail, completely innocent; you could be involved in some nasty accident; you could be -falsely- accused of drugs possession by an angry neighbour or businesspartner. You could be accused of being a terrorist. You could be accused of a murder. You could be falsely accused of being a pedofile.

There are hundreds of reasons why anyone of us could end up in jail....including Guantanamo or a Thai prison!

My point in this thread was: legal rights & human rights.

I strongly feel that anyone in the world is entitled to an honest and fair trial as well as defence.

LaoPo

boonie and spee defend your justice system and does it apply equally to all

What is this <deleted>' obsession with equating the civilian justice system with the military or covert justice systems, whether in the US or any other country? Oil and water. Apples and oranges. They aren't the same. They don't mix. Get it?

And why does everyone make it sound as if no one has ever been dealt with and/or released? If I recall correctly approximately 1/4 to 1/3 of the original peak population have been released. The remaining Gitmo slugs deserve whatever they get.

boonie and spee defend your justice system and does it apply equally to all

What is this <deleted>' obsession with equating the civilian justice system with the military or covert justice systems, whether in the US or any other country? Oil and water. Apples and oranges. They aren't the same. They don't mix. Get it?

And why does everyone make it sound as if no one has ever been dealt with and/or released? If I recall correctly approximately 1/4 to 1/3 of the original peak population have been released. The remaining Gitmo slugs deserve whatever they get.

guilty untill proven innocent, by the septic military.

boonie and spee defend your justice system and does it apply equally to all

What is this <deleted>' obsession with equating the civilian justice system with the military or covert justice systems, whether in the US or any other country? Oil and water. Apples and oranges. They aren't the same. They don't mix. Get it?

And why does everyone make it sound as if no one has ever been dealt with and/or released? If I recall correctly approximately 1/4 to 1/3 of the original peak population have been released. The remaining Gitmo slugs deserve whatever they get.

They deserve a fair trial by an impartial tribunal.

the septics have had to change their laws to charge Hicks.

Retrospective charges, testimony obtained by coersion (no torture though 5555555555), heresay is also allowed.

Time already served in conditions that are 10 times worse than saddam"s conditions, 22 hours a day in a cage.

Gitmo slugs, sure spee, slugs have a better life

guilty untill proven innocent

Ah, the confused mind. Again you confuse civilian legal concepts with realities of a war and a military system. Why is that? A very smart person once wrote "A confused society is a controllable society."

Being a PoW or enemy combatant or how ever you want to classify them has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. They are prisoners until such time as the captors decide otherwise. That simple fact hasn't changed for hundreds of years.

It's amazing that people can get such a big hard-on over a few hundred scumbag PoWs in Gitmo who were captured in the act of aggression against their captors, but remain strangely silent about tens of thousands of political prisoners held against their will in their home countries of China, Mexico, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, etc.

There's only one possible conclusion, and that is anti-US bias and a could-care-less attitude about worse things elsewhere in the world. So be it. Everyone is entitled to their own wrong opinion.

if that is so, then why did the septics have to change their laws to charge him?

It's amazing that people can get such a big hard-on over a few hundred scumbag PoWs in Gitmo who were captured in the act of aggression against their captors, but remain strangely silent about tens of thousands of political prisoners held against their will in their home countries of China, Mexico, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, etc.

and this is a fact in Hick's case? he was captured by the afganis and handed over to the septics, in unspecified circumstances.

the only reason he is still there is because bush's lapdog howard refuses to stand up to him.

Blair did it and the septics returned them to Britain.

Being a PoW or enemy combatant or how ever you want to classify them has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. They are prisoners until such time as the captors decide otherwise. That simple fact hasn't changed for hundreds of years.

And he right away contradicts himself with;

It's amazing that people can get such a big hard-on over a few hundred scumbag PoWs in Gitmo who were captured in the act of aggression against their captors, but remain strangely silent about tens of thousands of political prisoners held against their will in their home countries of China, Mexico, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, etc.

There's only one possible conclusion, and that is anti-US bias and a could-care-less attitude about worse things elsewhere in the world.

No. It could be that the US government likes to hold itself up as an example of freedom, and a champion of human rights. I don't see north korea making this claim. Many Americans, and no small amount of others actually believe that the US is a force for freedom, human rights and democracy, and that the present administration is letting the side down and staining that reputation.

The US has made it's share of mistakes in the past, but it's strength comes from being able to acknowlage and correct those mistakes. I only hope that these transgressions too will be righted in time, and the likes of Spee will be relegated to the dustbin of history like Jim Crow, Oswald Mosely, and joseph goebbels.

Being a PoW or enemy combatant or how ever you want to classify them has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. They are prisoners until such time as the captors decide otherwise. That simple fact hasn't changed for hundreds of years.

They're neither PoW's nor -proven- enemy combatants. These prisoners were mostly kidnapped from numerous countries.

If they're guilty ? YES, punish them accordingly.

The US has had some 6 years now to 'prove' whether they are guilty or not but they choose to let them stay at Guantanamo without any civilian or military trial and mis-inform/lie about their situation to the rest of the world.

And, Mr. Spee, if you wish to discuss about political prisoners elsewhere in the world, please be so kind and start your own topic since you care so much about decent human rights.

LaoPo

well said LaoPo.

I feel strongly about Hick's predicament, becuase it's such a sham, howard now has his back to the wall over this issue.

It's looming as one big election issue here in Oz and he cant make it go away.

back on track, Saddam was treated better than the "gitto slugs"

guilty untill proven innocent

Ah, the confused mind. Again you confuse civilian legal concepts with realities of a war and a military system. Why is that? A very smart person once wrote "A confused society is a controllable society."

Being a PoW or enemy combatant or how ever you want to classify

That's the problem. It's not how I classify them - it's how the US government seems unable to classify them other than as 'people we don't like - we can't find them guilty of any crimes and we daren't treat them as PoWs so we'll lock them up anyway'

them has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. They are prisoners until such time as the captors decide otherwise. That simple fact hasn't changed for hundreds of years.

It's amazing that people can get such a big hard-on over a few hundred scumbag PoWs in Gitmo who were captured in the act of aggression against their captors, but remain strangely silent about tens of thousands of political prisoners held against their will in their home countries of China, Mexico, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, etc.

I get a big hard-on over any injustice perpetrated by any state agency. The actions of China, Mexico, Iran, North Korea, Cuba etc. are truly despicable but at least they don't claim to be the world's moral arbiter.

There's only one possible conclusion, and that is anti-US bias and a could-care-less attitude about worse things elsewhere in the world. So be it. Everyone is entitled to their own wrong opinion.

No, there are least two possible conclusions. One is yours - the other is that the those of us who are natural allies of the USA don't agree with its present actions.

was David Hicks ever a member of any terrorist group, if the septics concoct their "evidence" corrrectly then he was

Bearded rifle slinging thugs are not the only kind of people being held in Cuba.

Tell us about 'em, Pump Boy. How many ended up there because of a senile old woman's accusations do you think? It's more like they had a gun up some coalition-force soldier's bum, or had bomb-making equipment stuffed among the radical Islamic pamphlets in their New York apartment. I agree with CDNVIC, we should get beyond the hyperbole to make this a more sane discussion. Point well-taken, CDNVIC.

We'll never know how many will we.

There are no trials being held to find out.

Well I don't see anyone able to rationally justify this situation, only a lot of mud slinging.

Spee and Toptuan are not concerned for the future implications this denial of human rights has for US citizens.

...Toptuan...not concerned for the future implications this denial of human rights has for US citizens.

Please don't pre-judge my concerns, as I have not addressed that point as yet.

But here, I will:

Temporary suspension of normal human rights/justice self-corrected after both world wars. Why not after this one? Not unlike the cycle Thailand has gone through over 17 times since 1900.

Just happy the US has experienced fewer cycles. Oh ye of little faith.

... David Hicks ...

... aka ... Islamic extremist convert Abu Muslim al-Austraili (aka Mohammed Dawood)

... who by his own free will joined and trained with a known terrorist organization Lashkar e Tayyiba

... who (according to a Gitmo cellmate) held the lofty goals of "go back to Australia and rob and kill Jews","crash a plane into a building", and "go out with that last big adrenalin rush".

... who by his own admission met with Bin Laden and trained with Al-Quaida forces in Afghanistan

... who claims to have not fought against US forces but by his own admission stayed with the (Taliban/Al-Quaida) army and shot at their enemy, and was captured while engaged in armed service for the Taliban.

I'd say that makes him the enemy and no different than anyone else being held at Gitmo. You want to play a game with no rules? Then don't sit back and whinge when things don't go your way.

.... this denial of human rights has for US citizens.

You must be referring to the 2000+ US citizens who were accused, tried, judged, convicted and executed in a single day.

...Toptuan...not concerned for the future implications this denial of human rights has for US citizens.

Please don't pre-judge my concerns, as I have not addressed that point as yet.

But here, I will:

Temporary suspension of normal human rights/justice self-corrected after both world wars. Why not after this one? Not unlike the cycle Thailand has gone through over 17 times since 1900.

Just happy the US has experienced fewer cycles. Oh ye of little faith.

Good at last a chance for some real dialogue.

I don't have faith in the US administration, and not because they are Republican, but because they have shown little regard for international law, they have deceived the public on many issues related to this war on terror and are only interested in serving their own interest and consolodating their grip on power.

I think that the suspension of human rights will not be reversed unless it is vehemently opposed.

This is not a war with a clearly defined end, but a continuous action, as has been stated by dubya himself.

If the suspension of rights in Guantanamo is allowed to continue it will set a precedence for the suspension of human rights in other circumstances, such as the possible use on US citizens that are deemed hostile to government interests.

Detention without a reason and trial without due process.

I don't have faith** in the US administration, and not because they are Republican, but because they have shown little regard for international law, they have deceived the public on many issues related to this war on terror and are only interested in serving their own interest and consolodating their grip on power.

I think that the suspension of human rights will not be reversed unless it is vehemently opposed.

This is not a war with a clearly defined end, but a continuous action, as has been stated by dubya himself.

If the suspension of rights in Guantanamo is allowed to continue it will set a precedence for the suspension of human rights in other circumstances, such as the possible use on US citizens that are deemed hostile to government interests.

Detention without a reason and trial without due process.

**Like I said, "Oh ye of little faith". Unlike some of the more repressive regimes/actions against human rights we've seen over the last century (Soviet Union, NK, Tienamen Square, etc.) the US administration has the potential of change every four years. The liberal/conservative swing is cyclical and predictable. The extreme swings of one administration tend to be corrected by another. This is one of the self-correcting mechanisms I referred to earlier. Anyone who has lived through five or six administrations has watched the pendulum swing with an almost boring predictability.

Give it an administration change or two and watch what happens. This is precisely why a multitude of foreigners, including Thai, regularly tell American expats--"We like you as a people, but we don't like your government right now." They have faith in the basic values Americans hold, and tend to realize that the government of the people, by the people, and for the people, will come front-and-center once again.

I see this panic over human rights as akin to Chicken Little's "The Sky is Falling." Dubya makes a convenient whipping boy for those already prone to America-bashing.

Yes we can always hope the next administration has a little more integrity.

This isn't about America bashing, this is a very unique situation, human rights are a benchmark for the moral values of humanity and those values are being brought into question.

This isn't about America bashing,

The <deleted> it isn't! Half your posts in this forum are about exactly that.

.... human rights are a benchmark for the moral values of humanity and those values are being brought into question.

Yet in all your b*tching and moaning about human rights, you haven't said one f*cking thing about tens if not hundreds of thousands of political prisoners held worldwide for no other reason that they have a voice of dissent with their native government. Nor have you said one f*cking thing about the tens of millions of people who have been murdered for the very same reason. All you can do is rant and rave about a few hundred losers who of their own free will made their bed and now don't want to sleep in it.

In all your b*tching and moaning, you haven't said one f*cking thing about the racist, apartheid, inhumane policies of radical theocracies like Iran and rogue dictatorships like Syria. Rather you spend your time bashing a country whose constitution and policies are the very antithesis of these whack-o-cracies.

Those are some pretty messed up priorities. You talk about integrity. You don't know the meaning of the word. You make me want to puke!

This isn't about America bashing,

The <deleted> it isn't! Half your posts in this forum are about exactly that.

.... human rights are a benchmark for the moral values of humanity and those values are being brought into question.

Yet in all your b*tching and moaning about human rights, you haven't said one f*cking thing about tens if not hundreds of thousands of political prisoners held worldwide for no other reason that they have a voice of dissent with their native government. Nor have you said one f*cking thing about the tens of millions of people who have been murdered for the very same reason. All you can do is rant and rave about a few hundred losers who of their own free will made their bed and now don't want to sleep in it.

In all your b*tching and moaning, you haven't said one f*cking thing about the racist, apartheid, inhumane policies of radical theocracies like Iran and rogue dictatorships like Syria. Rather you spend your time bashing a country whose constitution and policies are the very antithesis of these whack-o-cracies.

Those are some pretty messed up priorities. You talk about integrity. You don't know the meaning of the word. You make me want to puke!

This topic is about the Guantanamo ruling and legal rights.

There is no need for civilized people to use rude words, which you cover up with *'s.

Why don't you start another topic about 'worldwide political prisoners'/racists, apartheid etc. yourself?

Your rant is completely off-topic because I agree with Robski (amongst others) that this topic is NOT about America bashing. The overwhelming majority of the people of the US are fine people; this is about American politics and the decisions of 'Washington'.

LaoPo

Something for the Aussies to think about.

Govt 'not bound to help Aussies abroad'

Monday Feb 26 12:11 AEDT

The Australian government has no legal obligation to protect its citizens abroad, a court hearing a challenge by lawyers of Guantanamo Bay inmate David Hicks has been told.

The Australian government has no legal obligation to act to help Hicks, who has been detained without trial at the US naval base since January 2002, government lawyer Solicitor-General David Bennett QC told the Federal Court.

Source ninemsn

Something for the Aussies to think about.

Govt 'not bound to help Aussies abroad'

Monday Feb 26 12:11 AEDT

The Australian government has no legal obligation to protect its citizens abroad, a court hearing a challenge by lawyers of Guantanamo Bay inmate David Hicks has been told.

The Australian government has no legal obligation to act to help Hicks, who has been detained without trial at the US naval base since January 2002, government lawyer Solicitor-General David Bennett QC told the Federal Court.

Source ninemsn

'No legal obligation'....maybe legally true

and a

'Moral obligation' ?

LaoPo

How many of the people here standing up for the detainees have actually met or come in contact with these people or their kind?

How many have seen a once “normal” person change to a religious fanatic willing to kill or wound a former friend?

The change is rapid, almost unbelievable. Within the matter of months the guy you would drink and laugh with has found religion, and then one of the radical clerics will twist and bend their minds into what can only be described as a brain washed cult follower. No words or reason will convince them to change back.

Before anyone starts slagging me off let me say I have been on the receiving end of an attack by one of these radicals. 2 people died that morning.

A couple of years before the attack mentioned above I also recognized the photo of one of the 9-11 pilots. He worked in the same area as me for a while before he went off on his mission.

I’ve worked with Arabs who’ve been dragged off by the secret police for re-education after showing their sympathies to this radical form of the religion.

There’s no smoke without fire, The world is safer with them there and not out on the streets.

If this is so certain then there should be no shortage of evidence against them to show should there be?

People here aren't nessasarily standing up for the Guantanamo inmates specificly, but against the arbitrary imprisionment of people without the right to hear the charges and evidence against you. Something sucessive US governments have lambasted other regimes for.