What is this I heard yesterday that Israel has been holding Palestinians without charges for five months or more? No access to attorneys? Not even being told why they are being held? This applies to both Palestinians who are Israeli citizens as well as those in the Occupied Territories according to the report I saw on CNN and on the BBC. Comments Israel lovers out there?
I'm shocked and appalled that this could happen in a democracy. Sincerely, John Ashcroft PS - way to provide a reference. CNN has nothing about it on their website. The Beeb has this - only we were the guys screwing with the guy's civil rights, not Israel. Oh, and it was over a period of five years, not five months. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2213326.stm PPS - are you sure you want to play the "Let's compare atrocities" game?
Seriously, who cares? These people have been fighting forever and we care about a couple of war prisoners being held for no charges while millions of people are starving in Africa and floods rip through Europe? I could care less.
"Atrocities"???? We held a guy who was in the country illegally raising money in order to kill children on schoolbusses, and finally, after obviously at least feeding the guy OK, send him back home. Biy, if this is what you call an atrocity, what was it Stalin did to the Lulaks? Mao to the Tibetans? You guys throw these words around until all basis fir rational debate is out the window. This guys' a "facist", that guys' a "nazi" holding an illegal alien terrorist is an "atrocity". And I love the "zionist terrorist" bit. I have not the words.
In fairness, I was the one who used the word "atrocities," and I meant to convey that on the grand scale of things, this doesn't register a blip. I don't think Ludahai would call his report an atrocity. I do think that Palestine's main strategy is entirely based on atrocities, though. And have I mentioned lately that the Jenin Massacre turned out to be bullsh**t? Even Ludahai's report at face value doesn't register on the scale, let alone the US sending this dumbass back so he's not breathing our air anymore.
You are correct, I never referred to it as an atrocity. However, like the unlawful detentions of some being held by the United States, I think it needs to be held up to scrutiny by all Americans because it is our tax dollars that has supported Israel's crimes for decades. If you are referring to me, sending me back to where? I was born in the United States and have lived 29 years there.
He was obviously referring to the Palestinian we deported, not you. Make an effort, will you? As for Israel's "crimes" you don't sound qualified to discuss rationally the sometimes ugly methods nations use when the alternative is extermination, so I'll not waste my time. Much as I'd love to rehash Sabra and Shatila, a place where Sharon is blamed for a massacre where one bunch of Arabs killed another bunch of Arabs, I'm not sure you'd have as easy a time rationalizing Yassir Arafat and the Munich Olympics massacres, so I'll just let it go.
We could have a go at blaming the Germans for that one - so then there's just the rest of Palestinian actions to rationalise. http://www.filmeducation.org/secondary/s_archive/documentary/September/#black
Ahhh, thought that would get a reaction from you. It was just a matter of time Anyway, back to topic.
Dan, Ludahai makes a valid point. Even supposed terrrorists are entitled to due process under the law. You cannot hold someone indefinately because you suspect them of having committed a crime. When a state acts in this manner it ceases to have any accountability or credibility to its citizens.
Alberto, I think you're missing the point. These people are NOT citizens. The term "Palestinians" refers to non-Israelis living in the West Bank, Gaza, and parts of Jerusalem. These are not Israeli-Arabs we're talking about.
That point was not lost on me. Apparently it was lost to the Israeli government. In the USA, if a foreign national commits a crime he is still given a due process hearing and trial in Federal Court and if the sentence is deportation, they are entitled to a hearing prior to deportation. Granted we do have some Cuban detainees, but their case will be heard in the courts.
Considering the human rights records of the states surrounding the place - and considering we just threw a couple of thousand guys into Camp X-Ray for far longer than five months, and not a lawyer in sight - this critique is, too put it mildly, rich. I think you'll find the legal precedents are slightly different in cases of wars and civil wars, which is another reason this is such a breathtakingly stupid reason to condemn Israel. If this was one random criminal idiot - let's say his name was Jose Padilla - then yes, the guy should get a lawyer and a trial and all the things the Constitution says he should. If he's a member of, say, a cavalry unit of the Confederate States of America captured in Tennessee, well, I'm guessing a quick and speedy trial isn't necessarily in the cards. Now, I realize by yours and Ludahai's logic, this means that the United States is guilty of an unspeakable violation of basic human rights, and that the Union had no accountability or credibility to run the nation. Obviously, I'm being too subtle and gentle with you and Ludahai. If out of the Israel-Palestine conflict, this is the subject that sticks out to you as the biggest outrage, then I have to question your sanity. Exactly what do you suppose the Palestinian "authorities" do with Israelis and suspected collaborators? As I re-read this, it occurs to me that we're still talking about a subject that is absolutely hypothetical, and is being treated as stone certainty. Just like the Jenin Massacre. Those poor dead thousands of non-violent innocent civilians, I'm crying myself to sleep every night thinking about it. Prats.
You're such a troll. Let jump to conclusions shall we Dan. Can you stick to the specifics of the original post? Or is the answer untenable? Again, are citizens and non-citizens of the State of Israel entitled to a quick and speedy trial or should they be held indefinately because of the potential risk to Israel's security? How do you answer? You already gave me (the why should they when nobody else in the region does it) rationalization. Just because they don't and the US hasn't in certain cases does not excuse it! Oh, and in military matters the writ of habeas corpus is not always suspended. It may be temporarily given the availability of a court and the transport of a prisoner in these extraordinary circumstances.
....okay, I guess this is you trolling me. Seeing as how the original post had no specifics, and all. Should the United States have held Professor Pinhead indefinitely? Probably not, although as a non-citizen who overstayed his visa, his civil rights were unfortunately tenuous at best, by ample legal precedent. Can I think of an instance where a Palestinian accused of terrorism would be turned over to Israeli military justice? Duh, gee, I THINK so. That's not rationalization, that's just a statement of basic fact. Since I have no specific instance where I can say, "Yes, so-and-so should have been let go." This is an academic question, until I read anything to connect this with reality - your fantasizing about judging alleged Israeli tyranny notwithstanding. I find it ever so slightly ironic that you would condemn an entire state based on absolutely no evidence. I'm guessing this is your way of admitting that circumstances might be slightly different in the middle of an intifada than in some random jaywalking case. Next time, don't strain your back ducking the question.