the outcome of the election

[kandrathe]

I personally like this one.

Imagine how they'd feel if they lost the election? :)

Edit: Can't seem to get the link to work. I can still reach the article from other sites. The URL is http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=5652. A rather funny example of the crazies on the other side of the fence. The far left and far right are both quite alarming.
[right][snapback]59853[/snapback][/right]

That site is not far right. Right of center, and solidly right, but not extreme.

These are extremist right and they also use religion to sow intolerance;
http://www.panzerfaust.com/
http://www.cbn.com/700club/
http://www.falwell.com
http://www.kkk.bz/

I think a tactic of both sides is to point at the other and say they are extreme. Kerry and Bush are not examples of extremist left or right.

Edit: Occhi is spot on about this article however, is is BS. I live in a Blue state, but there were nearly 50% of people who voted for Bush. Times change and perhaps next time we will be a Red state. Even in my neighborhood by lawn signs I'd say we are evenly divided, but we still get along and solve our local problems together.

[Occhidiangela]

That's not far right.  Right of center, and solidly right, but not extreme.

These are extremist right and they also use religion to sow intolerance;
http://www.panzerfaust.com/
http://www.cbn.com/700club/
http://www.falwell.com
http://www.kkk.bz/

I think a tactic of both sides is to point at the other and say they are extreme.  Kerry and Bush are not examples of extremist left or right.
[right][snapback]59867[/snapback][/right]

Thompson's article, the call for expulsion, is complete crap. While he is correct in excoriating the liberal left, the "blue" for their bigoted characterization of non Kerry voters as Fundies with no wit, the rest of his article is as full of holes as Swiss cheese. I guess he wrote it for people who:

Do not read the Constitution. Do not bother to delve into the details of American history. Wait a minute, who is his audience again? :angry:

E pluribus unum. It used to mean something, but apparently Mr Thompson does not speak Latin. Nor does he speak with a civil tongue in his mouth. The idea is to "keep working toward common aims and goals" and not stop working. Politics is a continuum, the pendulum swings, and at the moment it is swinging in a different direction than it did in the 60's 70's. It will swing again.

Occhi

[Medicine Man]

That site is not far right.  Right of center, and solidly right, but not extreme.
[right][snapback]59867[/snapback][/right]

I meant to imply that the article had an air of wild-eyed craziness about it, not that the site itself was extreme. I've only read one thing off of that particular site.

[Armin]

Your concern for human rights for a member of Al Qaeda is noted, I do not share your sympathy for them. 
[right][snapback]59865[/snapback][/right]

The one thing about your continuing argumentation that makes me question if we even speak the same language.

WHO the hell DECIDES if anyone is a member of Al Qaeda BEFORE you arrest, detain, question him, transport him to another continent, deny him sleep, dignity and a normal trial?

Guilty by suspicion it is?

Is it enough that someone, *anyone* points a finger at me and calls "Al Qaeda!" and everything you defenders of democracy and freedom once stood for is void?

[LiquidDamage]

E pluribus unum.  It used to mean something, but apparently Mr Thompson does not speak Latin. 

[sarcasm]
I can read that latin, but what does that phrase have to do with anything? Our National Motto is "In God We Trust". Our country isn't about "unity from diversity", I don't know where you get that crazy commie idea, it is about God. All those Godless liberals should get the hell out.[/sarcasm]

[Occhidiangela]

The one thing about your continuing argumentation that makes me question if we even speak the same language.

WHO the hell DECIDES if anyone is a member of Al Qaeda BEFORE you arrest, detain, question him, transport him to another continent, deny him sleep, dignity and a normal trial?

Guilty by suspicion it is?

Is it enough that someone, *anyone* points a finger at me and calls "Al Qaeda!" and everything you defenders of democracy and freedom once stood for is void?
[right][snapback]59885[/snapback][/right]

Not guilty by suspicions, arrested under probable cause. The major issue is the length of detention.

You don't pick someone up without probable cause or factaul evidence. Plenty of these folks were picked up in Afghanistan during the operations to Al Qaeda fighting operation.

What led to other arrests, particularly some that probably will result in eventual release in the near future, is info from those first prisoners, which leads to probable cause for picking up other parts of a terrorist network, a global enterprise.

Which brings us to the real concern, which is shared with many. When a considerable body of the evidence is classified due to the source involved, and it leads to the arrest, how does normal due process occur? I can't say that much of anyone has extensive experience with that puzzle, and I certainly don't.

How does classified due process occur?

You assume it does not occur. That is your point of departure.

I assume that certain simple fundamentals occur, such as "you don't pick people up without probable cause and common sense linkage." You'd have too damned many people in the pen if you did not use simple "police work" in the first place.

I wish I had a simple answer to you for the screwy situation that exists in re the classified nature of the info:

How soon is it considered perishable?

How quickly can it be declassified?

Which operatives in Afghanistan and elsewhere will die when it is? That is not to be discounted as a factor in the decision to expose sensitive information to a court, wherein it will be in the papers the next day.

To say that it is a procedural dilema is true.

I find your assumptions more hype than substance, but do understand why you feel there is grounds for concern: as noted above, any number of American jurists are asking similar questions.

Occhi

[ShadowHM]

I find your assumptions more hype than substance, but do understand why you feel there is grounds for concern:  as noted above, any number of American jurists are asking similar questions.

Occhi
[right][snapback]59894[/snapback][/right]

For Armin:

Please do not assume that the U.S. of A. is the only country that faces procedural dilemnas in dealing with accused terrorists.

Following is a story printed in the Toronto Star recently, highlighting a case here that is symptomatic of the problems that can arise.

Nov. 6, 2004. 01:00 AM

Terror court hearing: one defendant, no witnesses
Government reveals little of case against terror suspect

Lawyers challenging secret process used for detainees


MICHELLE SHEPHARD
STAFF REPORTER

It's often referred to as a quasi-judicial procedure, but even that definition might be generous when describing Mohamed Harkat's day in court last month in Ottawa.

There was little that resembled a traditional legal hearing when the Algerian refugee, one of five men currently accused by the federal government of belonging to a terrorist organization, took the stand to profess his innocence.

Harkat's defence consisted only of simple denials of the chilling accusations levelled by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

"No sir" or "never, ever" were his answers when asked if he was an Al Qaeda sleeper agent or a supporter of violent Islamic fundamentalism.

The government did not call any witnesses to bolster the case it laid out in a 40-page summary at the time of Harkat's arrest.

The only fact that did become clear during the four days of Harkat's hearing was the realization that this wasn't where the real trial was occurring.

Before this hearing took place, the judge had heard secret evidence from the government that neither Harkat nor his lawyer are able to access.

"It's Wonderland in there," Harkat's lawyer Paul Copeland said outside court last month.

"We're defending ourselves against something we don't know anything about."

Harkat is one of 27 non-Canadian citizens who have been detained in the past decade under a security provision in the immigration act. Based on intelligence gathered by CSIS, two federal ministers signed what's known as a national security certificate, seeking to deport Harkat as a threat to the country's security.

Five men are currently detained on certificates in Ottawa, Montreal and Toronto, accused of belonging to Al Qaeda or organizations associated with the terrorist group.

Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel is also in detention on a security certificate, facing deportation on the grounds that he is a threat to the country by influencing white supremacist groups to commit violence.

In all certificate cases, a Federal Court of Canada judge reviews the evidence to determine if the certificate is "reasonable." Upholding the certificate clears the way for deportation. That decision cannot be appealed.

The Federal Court has only overturned two of the 27 certificates issued. One of those cases involved Scarborough resident Mahmoud Jaballah, who is now again detained after being arrested on a second security certificate shortly after the first one was quashed.

According to the legislation, the judge has a responsibility to protect CSIS's information, "if, in the opinion of the judge, its disclosure would be injurious to national security or to the safety of any person."

And since sources, and information gleaned from foreign countries, must be protected, that's the only way these cases can be handled, say some intelligence experts.

But opposition to what have been dubbed "secret trials" is starting to build, both at a grassroots level and through the legal and academic communities. Court challenges are also beginning to mount.

"It's such a travesty of justice," says Queen's University law professor and former immigration lawyer Sharryn Aiken.

"It is, to me, the most pressing problem in the entire immigration scheme."

Aiken co-authored a letter to Public Safety Minister Anne McLellan last month arguing that the security certificate process should be reviewed.

The appeal was signed by more than 50 of Canada's most prominent civil rights lawyers and academics.

Critics of the process highlight three main objections: the secrecy of the hearings, the low threshold of proof required for a judge to uphold the certificate, and the lack of a right to appeal the court's decision.

"Canadian citizens have more rights to appeal a parking ticket, and I don't mean to sound trite, but I think that's a really critical problem.

"It's not to say all the judges do a terrible job, but mistakes can be made and it's very troubling there's no appeal or further review of such an important decision that carries with it such profound consequences for an individual," Aiken says.

A Federal Court judge reviewing a certificate does not have to be satisfied "beyond a reasonable doubt," as is the standard of proof in criminal matters, or held to the civil law standard of a "balance of probabilities."

That means the threshold of proof is set too low, critics argue.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`We're defending ourselves against something we don't know anything about'

Paul Copeland, lawyer for

Mohammed Harkat


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"The judge need not be convinced or persuaded that the government's case is actually correct or even more likely than not correct," Aiken says.

"He, or she, merely needs to be convinced that it's a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence that he or she has."

Amnesty International recently joined the discussion concerning the constitutionality of the legislation, noting in its 2004 annual report that Canada's security certificate process "denies detainees full access to evidence against them, and may result in an individual being returned to a country where they face serious human rights violations."

Although security certificates date back to 1967, the process was amended most recently with the implementation of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act two years ago.

One of the most significant changes shifted the power to review the certificates from the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC), the civilian oversight body for CSIS, to rest exclusively with the courts.

Prior to 2002, landed immigrants accused of terrorism connections could have their cases heard before SIRC where an independent lawyer, the committee's council, could challenge the government's evidence.

On Monday, a constitutional challenge of the new legislation will be heard for the first time in Ottawa's Federal Court of Appeal.

Lawyers defending Montreal detainee Adil Charkaoui, a landed immigrant from Morocco, will argue that the process breaches international laws and protections guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

"It doesn't respect the right to a fair trial," says Charkaoui's lawyer, Johanne Doyon.

"A fair trial means having a real possibility to defend yourself in front of the court. If you have a mere summary of the allegations and no access to witnesses, you cannot defend yourself."

Before the immigration act was amended, the Supreme Court delivered a seminal decision on the security certificate process in January 2002.

The decision granted the government the power to deport suspected terrorists to countries where they may face torture in "exceptional" cases of national security.

Both sides claimed the ruling as a victory.

Then-immigration minister Elinor Caplan said it showed "Canada is not a safe haven for terrorists," while others noted the court's strong language that deportations should be rare and only in "exceptional cases."

The ruling led to the expulsion of Mansour Ahani, who CSIS claimed was an Iranian secret service assassin and a threat to Iranian dissidents here and abroad. The high court deferred to Ottawa's view that Ahani didn't face a substantial risk of torture and had a fair opportunity to make his case to the minister.

But Jaballah's case and the case of another Toronto detainee, Mohamed Mahjoub, will test the Supreme Court ruling one step further.

In both cases, the federal government has determined that the men are at "substantial risk" of being tortured if removed to Egypt, but that the national security concerns outweigh that consideration.

If the government proceeds with the deportation, Canada is sanctioning the torture of terrorism suspects and is in violation of international laws, argues their lawyer John Norris.

"These are going to be the first cases to really test what (the Supreme Court) meant by the `exceptional' case, " Norris says.

It's an issue the United Kingdom recently considered while drafting immigration legislation and concluded that the country would never deport suspects if they were likely to be tortured upon their return.

Legislators also implemented what's known as an "appeals commission" with the power to review deportation orders concerning security suspects.

Critics of Canada's national security legislation are recommending adopting the United Kingdom system or returning to the process that existed before the 2002 immigration act was amended and allowing independent interveners to participate during the private hearings to challenge the government's evidence and cross-examine witnesses.

"They were there to ensure that (SIRC) had the correct tools to actually get at the truth. In my view that was a process with some safeguards," Aiken says.

While protests on Parliament Hill have been met with little response, "security certificates" were listed on a work plan for the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration released last week.

Aiken says she hopes politicians and the public soon become engaged in the issue.

"The reason I say that is not just because I'm a knee-jerk human rights defender, but security issues have very high stakes both for individuals who may be wrongly accused of being a security risk, but equally for the state," Aiken says.

"We're all interested in ensuring our security is protected. We all have a stake in ensuring the government gets the right people and not let the wrong people go."

If you want to check the source online, or follow the story, it can be found here. Be aware that you have to subscribe to the service to be allowed access.

[Armin]

I assume that certain simple fundamentals occur, such as "you don't pick people up without probable cause and common sense linkage."  You'd have too damned many people in the pen if you did not use simple "police work" in the first place.
[right][snapback]59894[/snapback][/right]

Well, lets skip the what "to assume" means...

According to Amnesty International at some time earlier this year, there had been 43.000 people in Iraq arrested and detained, often for months.

Only 600 of those have been handed over to Iraqi officials and charges pressed.

Why? most of them were collected during raids done by regular soldiers, with NO police training at all, that don't speak a word arabic and certainly don't read it. Who have no idea of Iraqi mentality, culture or everyday life and rely on pretty dubious sources.

Evidence? Probable cause? Common Sense? And then a ratio of one hard case per 72 arrests?

Pardon me if I doubt your faith in humanity here :blink:

[Occhidiangela]

Well, lets skip the what "to assume" means...

According to Amnesty International at some time earlier this year, there had been 43.000 people in Iraq arrested and detained, often for months.

Only 600 of those have been handed over to Iraqi officials and charges pressed.

Why? most of them were collected during raids done by regular soldiers, with NO police training at all, that don't speak a word arabic and certainly don't read it. Who have no idea of Iraqi mentality, culture or everyday life and rely on pretty dubious sources.

Evidence? Probable cause? Common Sense? And then a ratio of one hard case per 72 arrests?

Pardon me if I doubt your faith in humanity here  :blink:
[right][snapback]59917[/snapback][/right]

Pardon me, Armin, but you have mixed apples and oranges, for one, and AI of course fails to follow up, that is their reputation. And you have detailed figures on those released? Right.

The Gitmo situation is tied to the Afghanistan operation, and subsequent efforts by law enforcement and security agents in re AL Qaeda and the Taliban. The Iraq issue is not germane to that discussion, and is a war in progress, a civil war as of about May of 2003.

It should surprise no one that any number of Iraqi's, and other parties, are trying to fill in the power vacuum left when Saddam's gang went south, nor is it any surprise to me that the "provisional government," the one abandoned by the UN, is not embraced by any number of the factions fighting for control.

Lack of confidence in government leads to anarchy, and the soldiers were directed to "maintain stability." With the police system severely disrupted by the war, soldiers were forced, due to political pressure and a noted lack of involvement by any number of high falutin' international organs, to act in a role somewhat at odd with their training.

As for the rest, Amnesty International can kiss my ass. Where were they when Saddam was in charge? Nowhere. It took men to go in and "lay bare the pits of Angaband."

I don't think our conversation will go much further. What is the likelihood of you changing my point of view? About zero.

It seems that you and I are now talking at each other, more than to each other.

Or is there any more to add?

Occhi

[Chaerophon]

As for the rest, Amnesty International can kiss my ass. Where were they when Saddam was in charge? Nowhere. It took men to go in and "lay bare the pits of Angaband."

Yeah, what a bunch of assholes :rolleyes:

[Minionman]

In a war, there is no "we're better" attitude, unless this means we're better at killing. You try taking the high road, and that road will lead to the cemetery. No, there's no need for unnecessary violence, like killing their kids (although frankly, I think that this actually might get the message across... umm, maybe). However, Muslim militants are like rabid dogs. Rabid dogs bite anyone they can sink their teeth into. So, what's the usual procedure in dealing with rabid dogs? What's the usual procedure with even normal seeming dogs that attacked humans violently? No, definately no need for extra violence. Just the right amount will do.

In WW2, we were not as violent overall as the Germans and the Japanese were against us (if anyone wants to start a nuke discussion, just zip it. Same goes for Drezden). Even the russians who were significantly less "civilized" than the western forces were, did not on the whole approach the levels of violence exhibited by the germans. However, and this is important.... we were violent *enough*.
-A
[right][snapback]59843[/snapback][/right]

You just love to talk tough, and seem to be assuming that if there are enough bombings, all the problems will go away from that region. That viewpoint is totally wrong.

You do say that terrorists will go after anyone and anything. That doesn't change whether there are a ton of revenge bombings or not. There are a lot of people who simply have a lot of hate floating in them. Some revenge bombings won't change that, so doing them just to show how tough you are is a waste of people's lives and money. In your rabid dog example, you shoot the rabid dog, you don't shoot another dog to try and scare the rabid one off. Maybe you shoot another animal by accident if it's near the dog and the dog is running to attack someone, but that's it.

Do I suggest taking the "high road"? Sort of, because in this case I think the "high road" can be more effective a lot of the time. Hopefully people have added extra security, and the intelligence and military people can find some of these terrorists and either kill or capture them. But revenge bombings don't help with that, and over the long term, hurt, killing people for esentially nothing. And of course the U.S. still will be around for a long time in the future, so revenge bombings now mean people are more willing to do them in the future, instead of finding other ways to deal with problems.

I'm not going to talk about world war 2, but the firebombings and atom bomb are part of it so you will have to talk about it, and not tell people to "zip it", if you bring up cruelty in the war.

[Ashock]

You just love to talk tough, and seem to be assuming that if there are enough bombings, all the problems will go away from that region.  That viewpoint is totally wrong.

You do say that terrorists will go after anyone and anything.  That doesn't change whether there are a ton of revenge bombings or not.  There are a lot of people who simply have a lot of hate floating in them.  Some revenge bombings won't change that, so doing them just to show how tough you are is a waste of people's lives and money.  In your rabid dog example, you shoot the rabid dog, you don't shoot another dog to try and scare the rabid one off.  Maybe you shoot another animal by accident if it's near the dog and the dog is running to attack someone, but that's it.

Do I suggest taking the "high road"? Sort of, because in this case I think the "high road" can be more effective a lot of the time.  Hopefully people have added extra security, and the intelligence and military people can find some of these terrorists and either kill or capture them.  But revenge bombings don't help with that, and over the long term, hurt, killing people for esentially nothing.  And of course the U.S. still will be around for a long time in the future, so revenge bombings now mean people are more willing to do them in the future, instead of finding other ways to deal with problems.

I'm not going to talk about world war 2, but the firebombings and atom bomb are part of it so you will have to talk about it, and not tell people to "zip it", if you bring up cruelty in the war.
[right][snapback]59934[/snapback][/right]

I am not suggsting revenge bombings. That is for weak cowards, those who specialize in picking on the weak and the helpless, and therefore that is what the terrorists choose to do. We don't need to do that. We just need to kill them, all of them. Taking the high road and letting them be, is the reason we are here in the first place now. You say that my view is totally wrong? Well, your POV is what led us here.

The reason I said "zip it" about WW2, is because that is a whole can of worms that has been beaten to death, and that belongs in it's own separate thread, if you feel like talking about. Oh and just in case you are confused, bombings as in bombs from airplanes during a war and bombings as in car bombings etc, are two different things.


I'll tell you what would be effective. Lets take the example of the russian school. There are around 500 kids who were killed there, give or take a couple of dozen of little infidels. Well, you take 500 muslim chechen families. You put the kids in foster homes (unlike the terrorists, I would not suggest killing kids under any circumstances), and you kill all the adults. You announce that this will be the standard procedure every time a similar event happens. Guaranteed to severely cut down future incidents of such nature. Would I personally do this? Probably not. I'm not that ruthless. The point is that the terrorists are. They simply can not be reasoned with. It's been tried, over and over and over. And over. Did I mention over and over? Ok good, I wasn't sure. Therefore, they all need to be killed. End of story. If you don't agree, fine. I don't really care.



-A

[Chaerophon]

Oh and just in case you are confused, bombings as in bombs from airplanes during a war and bombings as in car bombings etc, are two different things.

Interesting perspective. Why? Dresden was a terror bombing. It had no strictly strategic purpose. The A-bomb was a 'show of strength', demonstrating "how far America would go". I'm afraid your distinction is a bit arbitrary.

[eppie]

I'll tell you what would be effective. Lets take the example of the russian school. There are around 500 kids who were killed there, give or take a couple of dozen of little infidels. Well, you take 500 muslim chechen families. You put the kids in foster homes (unlike the terrorists, I would not suggest killing kids under any circumstances), and you kill all the adults. You announce that this will be the standard procedure every time a similar event happens. Guaranteed to severely cut down future incidents of such nature. Would I personally do this? Probably not. I'm not that ruthless. The point is that the terrorists are. They simply can not be reasoned with. It's been tried, over and over and over. And over. Did I mention over and over? Ok good, I wasn't sure. Therefore, they all need to be killed. End of story. If you don't agree, fine. I don't really care.
-A
[right][snapback]59935[/snapback][/right]

You read unrealshadow13's guide for trolling the LurkerLounge didn't you? If you don't care what other people think I'll advice you to switch of you computer and start talking to your mirror.

[Ashock]

You read unrealshadow13's guide for trolling the LurkerLounge didn't you?  If you don't care what other people think I'll advice you to switch of you computer and start talking to your mirror.
[right][snapback]59938[/snapback][/right]

My dear child. I was posting here before you learned how to talk. Do yourself a favor and don't bother me until you learn how to write and more importantly to think. Now, stop picking your nose and run along now.



-A

[eppie]

My dear child. I was posting here before you learned how to talk. Do yourself a favor and don't bother me until you learn how to write and more importantly to think. Now, stop picking your nose and run along now.
-A
[right][snapback]59939[/snapback][/right]

Well you did not make a lot of progress then. ...And if you don't want to be bothered when you write down certain things, you might spend your time checking some history of chechenya instead. You will find that the russians have been doing the things you proposed (and worse) continously.....and it did not seem to help a single bit.

p.s. how did you know I was picking my nose?

[Medicine Man]

As for the rest, Amnesty International can kiss my ass.  Where were they when Saddam was in charge?  Nowhere.  It took men to go in and "lay bare the pits of Angaband." 
[right][snapback]59919[/snapback][/right]

That's a bit ignorant by your standards, Occhi. Deriding the messenger when you don't like the message comes awfully close to fitting a particular internet axiom about arguements. As the person trying to make an arguement, the onus is on Armin to back up his figures with some sources or facts -- so I can't fault you for questioning his charges. Dismissing a humanitarian group as a bunch of useless, handwashing, assholes is a bit harsh though.

Were AI a military group who's mandate was overthrowing dictators, I'd agree with you. In reality they are civilian group concerned with alleviating the suffering of political prisoners and I am reasonably sure they were active in Iraq, to some extent. If you consider this a topic of discussion, I'll do some research and get back to you. If you aren't interested, at least get some facts yourself before you start thrashing them.

Cheers.

[Ashock]

Well you did not make a lot of progress then. ...And if you don't want to be bothered when you write down certain things, you might spend your time checking some history of chechenya instead. You will find that the russians have been doing the things you proposed (and worse) continously.....and it did not seem to help a single bit.

p.s. how did you know I was picking my nose?
[right][snapback]59941[/snapback][/right]

Russians have been doing these things inside and outside of their borders for what seems like forever, to everybody not just to chechens. Interestingly enough, the so-called chechen uprising started when they stopped doing these things, around 10 years ago. Up until 10 years ago, no one would even have considered attacking a russian school, since they knew that that could only result in them and their family members being caught and killed. Western press did not even hear of Chechnia until the early 90's and for a good reason. There was nothing to hear about. Now in general, I suggest you stop making suggestions.


-A

[eppie]

Russians have been doing these things inside and outside of their borders for what seems like forever, to everybody not just to chechens. Interestingly enough, the so-called chechen uprising started when they stopped doing these things, around 10 years ago. Up until 10 years ago, no one would even have considered attacking a russian school, since they knew that that could only result in them and their family members being caught and killed. Western press did not even hear of Chechnia until the early 90's and for a good reason. There was nothing to hear about. Now in general, I suggest you stop making suggestions.
-A
[right][snapback]59951[/snapback][/right]

Before 1990 Chechenya was part of the sovjet-union (and russia). I'm not pointing at that period. I meant the period after the break-up of the sovjet union. Chechenya wants to be independent and the russians don't like it. They are allready occupying (or what you want to call it) the area, for quite some time now. With a complete army. People get raped, tortured and murdered there every day. (unlike before 1990). The situation is extremely volitle there, and might be compared with Iraq at the moment. The Beslan-drama and other suicide bombings are a result from this russian occupation. I don't approve of it, of course not, but this is the reason. And it directly shows that the (super) tough way does not work. With violence you only create terrorists.

[kandrathe]

That's a bit ignorant by your standards, Occhi. Deriding the messenger when you don't like the message comes awfully close to fitting a particular internet axiom about arguements. As the person trying to make an arguement, the onus is on Armin to back up his figures with some sources or facts -- so I can't fault you for questioning his charges. Dismissing a humanitarian group as a bunch of useless, handwashing, assholes is a bit harsh though.

Were AI a military group who's mandate was overthrowing dictators, I'd agree with you. In reality they are civilian group concerned with alleviating the suffering of political prisoners and I am reasonably sure they were active in Iraq, to some extent. If you consider this a topic of discussion, I'll do some research and get back to you. If you aren't interested, at least get some facts yourself before you start thrashing them.

Cheers.
[right][snapback]59943[/snapback][/right]

I support AI, but I don't agree with all the bleeding heart crap they spew either. Occhi is right to question the stats and the way they were presented makes it seem like nearly 42400 people are locked up in prisons in and around Iraq for breaking curfew or being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I'm not sure if those numbers are accurate, but I doubt it is that large. There are possibly thousands, however, each is a human being that deserves to be afforded human rights.

And, AI has been active for decades trying to intercede on behalf of justice and for individuals who might otherwise be forgotten and disposed of. Such as,
Denmark/Iraq: International Justice for the victims of Halabja
IRAQ Hussam Mohammad Jawad, aged 67

I have written thousands of letters to various dictators, or politicians world wide in support of following a dignified due process in either punishing or releasing detainees, especially political prisoners.