Why does the media love Arabs and hate Americans?

[Anti_Hypeman]

Kevin Mitnick spent 4 years in prison without a trial. He spent 8 months straight in solitary. If he hadnt agreed to plead guilty and not to sue then he may very well still be in the hole waiting to be charged with something. Who wouldnt plead guilty after all that just to get out?

Where was the media outrage? They were busy overhyping his alleged crimes. They were running absurd scare stories about how this terrorist could nuke the planet by whistling into a phone.

When an Arab is held for a few years without trial its a different story. Why?

[Rob Lister]

Mitnick's story, captian crunch whistle and all, is all over the hacker sites.

What's not all over the hacker sites is the explaination as to why he spent so much time in jail without a trial. He could have demanded and forced a trial within 18 months (worse case) but did not.

Why not?

Mitnick was a hack and a hacker. Not worthy of my spit...but I'd be happy to grace him with a fine yellow luggie anyway (I've a soft heart).

[Zep]

Compared to David Hicks in Gitmo? 4 years plus, and STILL no trial. No release either...

[Rob Lister]

Good.

[KelvinG]

Good.

Even if he's innocent?

[Rob Lister]

Innocent of what?

[KelvinG]

Innocent of what?

I don't know. He hasn't been charged with anything.

But, why did you say "good" when Zep mentioned he's been held there for 4 years without a trial.
You seem to happy with that. Why?
Isn't it possible he's being held for no good reason. Surely you can't be "good" with that.

[Rob Lister]

Even if he's innocent?

Oh, for reference, he also goes by Abu Muslim al-Austraili and Mohammed Dawood...erm...presumable.

I recommend he not get caught up in wars against the United States. Still, eventually (currently in progress) we'll get a soft heart and release him...probably return him to his home land (such a prize he). That's always a useful thing to do when you're in a war fighting, killing and capturing thousands of compatants. Our courts are fully capable of assigning each a lawyer at tax-payers expense and enduring a years-long trial -- also at tax-payers expense.

Shame he didn't catch one on the forehead during the conflict.

Again for reference...

[gumboot]

I'm sorry, but wasn't David Hicks captured fighting in Afghanistan? And wouldn't that make him a POW?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't charge POWs with anything. You simply hold them until the ceasation of hostilities.

Last time I checked hostilities were still ongoing. So he waits. All sounds good to me.

-Andrew

[KelvinG]

Oh, for reference, he also goes by Abu Muslim al-Austraili and Mohammed Dawood...erm...presumable.

I recommend he not get caught up in wars against the United States. Still, eventually (currently in progress) will get a soft heart and release him...probably return him to his home land (such a prize he).

Again for reference...

Hey, if he's guilty, I hope he pays the price. But, you know the old saying "innocent until proven guilty." Of course, we all know that doesn't really apply at Gitmo.

I just found it rather odd that your response was "good" when it was mentioned that someone has been held 4 years without a trial. I don't see how that is "good" no matter who the person is.

[Rob Lister]

Hey, if he's guilty, I hope he pays the price. But, you know the old saying "innocent until proven guilty." Of course, we all know that doesn't really apply at Gitmo.

I just found it rather odd that your response was "good" when it was mentioned that someone has been held 4 years without a trial. I don't see how that is "good" no matter who the person is.

Get used to the oddity.

[gumboot]

Incidently...

After World War 2 the British only repatriated German POWs that were considered to have been "re-educated" and given up their Nazi ideologies. Some were not repatriated until as late as 1949 - potentially 10 years as a POW for some. (Technically Fallschirmjäger Obergefreiter Hans Teske, captured in 1943, is still a POW to this very day...).

I wonder how many of these Al Qaeda / Taliban POWs would ever be repatriated if they had to demonstrate they had rejected Islamic Extremism before being let go.

-Andrew

[KelvinG]

Incidently...

After World War 2 the British only repatriated German POWs that were considered to have been "re-educated" and given up their Nazi ideologies. Some were not repatriated until as late as 1949 - potentially 10 years as a POW for some. (Technically Fallschirmjäger Obergefreiter Hans Teske, captured in 1943, is still a POW to this very day...).

I wonder how many of these Al Qaeda / Taliban POWs would ever be repatriated if they had to demonstrate they had rejected Islamic Extremism before being let go.

-Andrew

Yes, but are they POW's? Aren't they enemy combatants?

[gumboot]

Yes, but are they POW's? Aren't they enemy combatants?


POWs are enemy combatants that have been captured...

-Andrew

[KelvinG]

Get used to the oddity.

No thanks. If repressive injustices are being practiced I'd rather not just throw my hands up in the air and say "get used to it."

Although I realize it's a lot easier when it's people with dark skin and funny Muslim names cause those bastards just "look guilty.":rolleyes:

[KelvinG]

POWs are enemy combatants that have been captured...

-Andrew

Well, Bush and Co. have been forced (kicking and screaming mind you) into acknowledging them as POWs.

[gumboot]

Well, Bush and Co. have been forced (kicking and screaming mind you) into acknowledging them as POWs.


I don't know about that.

Almost immediately vast populations were in arms about the US detaining people without trial and holding them indefinately. Seems they were making an effort to get rid of them all to shut the protestors up.

Unfortunately, detaining them without trial and holding them indefinately is EXACTLY what SHOULD be happening. (This also gives them plenty of time to identify any that have committed war crimes and put them on trial accordingly).

For some reason the protestors want it both ways.

-Andrew

[Skeptic]

I just found it rather odd that your response was "good" when it was mentioned that someone has been held 4 years without a trial. I don't see how that is "good" no matter who the person is.

I suppose that, in that case, you'd have released--say--all German POWs captured in 1941 by the end of, say, 1943? After all, two years in a POW camp is quite enough, no matter who the person is, wouldn't you say?

You don't seem to get what being a POW is. It means that one is (a) held without trial and (b) that this is done indefinitely, e.g., until the cessation of hostilities.

[gumboot]

You don't seem to get what being a POW is. It means that one is (a) held without trial and (b) that this is done indefinitely, e.g., until the cessation of hostilities.



Or indeed, until the holding power considers they are no longer a threat to their country.

Given we are mostly talking about slavering-mad western-civilisation hating religious zealots... it's same to assume under these conditions they will all die in US prisons.

The liberals might scream blue-murder, but the US must abide by the Geneva Conventions unfortunately...

-Andrew