Truth, Justice, and The American Way

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Adam
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the detention of two Australians, Hicks and Habib, at Guantanamo Bay, focusing on the legality and implications of their prolonged detention without charges. Participants explore themes of justice, human rights, and the political context surrounding these cases, with references to broader issues of government accountability and public awareness.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express concern over Hicks and Habib being held without charges, describing their situation as illegal and a violation of human rights.
  • Others question the characterization of their detention as illegal, citing the Patriot Act and suggesting that the detentions are lawful under current legislation.
  • There are calls for more factual support in discussions and campaigns related to the detainees, with some participants criticizing the lack of evidence in public discourse.
  • One participant humorously notes the need for a flyer supporting the detainees, suggesting that it should include factual information.
  • Some participants challenge each other's memory and understanding of previous discussions, indicating a lack of consensus on the facts presented.
  • Concerns are raised about the broader implications of detaining individuals without charge, with references to human rights violations and the potential for wrongful detention.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the legality and morality of the detentions, with no clear consensus reached. Some argue for the legality of the detentions under the Patriot Act, while others assert that the detentions are illegal and a violation of human rights.

Contextual Notes

The discussion reflects differing interpretations of legal frameworks, including the Patriot Act and international law, as well as varying perspectives on the ethical implications of detaining individuals without charges.

Adam
Messages
65
Reaction score
1
So Hicks has finally been allowed to see his family, after three years held illegally in limbo. No charges yet. He'll go before a "court" soon, in which the judge will also sit on the jury.

Habib has been held for three years. He hasn't seen anyone. Not even a lawyer. Not once. Nor has he been charged with anything.

Superman would be proud.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
So who are Hicks and Habib? I knew a Habib once. Is it the same Habib? She was hot.
 
Hicks is also known as "The Australian Taliban". He was captured in Afganistan and has been held in Camp X-ray. The photo of him holding an RPG before his capture is quite lovely.
 
I've held many weapons, and have been in many photos. Does that make me a terrorist or something?
 
For those who are unaware of things happening around the world... They are two Australians abducted and held illegally by the USA at Guantanimo Bay, just as many others from other nations are illegally held.
 
Adam said:
For those who are unaware of things happening around the world... They are two Australians abducted and held illegally by the USA at Guantanimo Bay, just as many others from other nations are illegally held.

Look at me, I claim words like "illegally" but offer no backing for my statements.
 
I found this signature humorous.
Create a flyer supporting thes 2 men. Include some facts

Peaceful ideas to assist the campaign ?? Include some facts! :smile:
About time someone said this.
 
phatmonky said:
Look at me, I claim words like "illegally" but offer no backing for my statements.

This comment simply shows your lack of memory or reading capability. I've covered this a few times before.
 
  • #10
phatmonky said:
I found this signature humorous.


Peaceful ideas to assist the campaign ?? Include some facts! :smile:
About time someone said this.

Are you suggesting some facts are incorrect? Then which ones?
 
  • #11
Adam said:
This comment simply shows your lack of memory or reading capability. I've covered this a few times before.

No, actually it's requiring you to post specifics so that we can enter a debate, instead of trying to debate what each person 'remembers' from postings that may or may not be accurate today.
 
  • #12
Adam said:
Are you suggesting some facts are incorrect? Then which ones?
More of a cheap shot at the constant lack of facts on flyers and other media that is put out. I see all these doomsayer signs by PETA,greenpeace, or really any movement hijacked by politicos - and no one ever says "stop the overdone antics and just post facts"
 
  • #13
Holding of suspected terrorists is covered in the patriot act, signed into law by congress. If you want to claim the law is unconstitutional, you might want to provide some argument, but you might have a case. These detainments are certainly not illegal.
 
  • #14
By the way, isn't there some clause in the rules here stipulating that the title of a thread should be informative and be directly related to the content of the first post? Come on Adam. I clicked on that Kent State thread actually thinking you had something relevant to say about current events.
 
  • #15
loseyourname said:
Holding of suspected terrorists is covered in the patriot act, signed into law by congress. If you want to claim the law is unconstitutional, you might want to provide some argument, but you might have a case. These detainments are certainly not illegal.

Please see the international laws already covered here. The USA signed on for those too. And no, I am not subject to US domestic laws.
 
  • #16
it sounds like this is going to be a dark chapter in american history. i think it is quite wrong that so many people are detained without charge or reason and with the issues of human rights violations in american prisions its even worse. what are the chances a person has already been detained without charge, no access to any third party intervention, no apeal to law, had their human rights violated, and turned out not to have any connections with terrorist organizations? i personaly think the reasons for the iraq war were weak so i don't buy this whole idea of 'we know they know terrorists and wer holding them because of it, but we're not going to tell you why'.

its disgusting
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 87 ·
3
Replies
87
Views
8K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 70 ·
3
Replies
70
Views
13K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
10K
  • · Replies 86 ·
3
Replies
86
Views
9K
Replies
12
Views
4K
Replies
60
Views
13K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
10K