Nope. I don't say it didn't happen just that I don't recall it.

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
You don't remember the case of that Seattle lawyer who was abducted off
the
street, detained for months, then finally released? He didn't even have an
opportunity to call his family.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Vito" wrote in message
...
"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Vito, Didn't *we* do that to an attorney from Seattle?

I dunno - did we? Details?

"Capt. JG" wrote
You don't remember the case of that Seattle lawyer who was abducted off
the
street, detained for months, then finally released? He didn't even have an
opportunity to call his family.

Vito wrote:
Nope. I don't say it didn't happen just that I don't recall it.




I think Jon G may be talking about the lawyer suspected of being
involved in the Madrid bombing. It was another Richard Jewell like case
(the guy who did not do the Olympic bombing in Atlanta, but was hounded
& harasses and intermittently jailed for over a year), clearly the
police & Feds *way* overstepped their bounds. Heads should roll over
cases like this.

DSK

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 08:41:58 -0400, "Vito" said:

Gee, you're right Dave. It's crazy to assume that any local authority
looked
at each person before turning them over to Americans or that some
American
authority did the same before flying each one to Gitmo then feeding,
clothing and sheltering them, some for years.

No, Vito, that's not the problem. It's nonsense to characterize that kind
of
"looking at" as a hearing. And it insults your readers' intelligence to
expect them to be fooled by such transparent sophistry.

One cannot impose the Anglo-American court system on other cultures. A man I
knew got drunk and wrecked his car in Mexico. The was tried under Mexican
law and sent to prison without being asked to testify or even see the inside
of the courtroom. The Judge felt he had all the info needed to convict
without it. When his relatives complained the US Government told them tough
****. If you don't like Mexican law then don't do crimes in Mexico. I
understand that France, Italy, Spain and other democracies are the same.

Friends who work(ed) in Muslim countries say it's even stricter there. Their
employer advised them to get out of the country at the first sign of trouble
rather than face local justice. One of them narrowly escaped when the taxi
he hired had a wreck. He was spirited out before a mullah could decide it
was his fault and have him killed! You or I may not like it but that's why I
don't go to these places.

Now what is going to happen to (say) a Sudanese who went to Afghanistan to
enjoy the Taliban paradise, murdering women for literacy, who gets caught
leading a band of ununiformed foreigners and Afghans shooting and killing
other Afghans? Are they going to convene a court and let him pick a jury as
we do here? Hell no! The local tribal chief and mullah are going to agree on
his guilt and cut his head off out of hand. Should the US intervene in local
law and custom to save him? I think not.

But US Intel looks at him and decides he may have info that could help
prevent another 9/11 or English or Spanish terror attack, so we ask the
Afghans to loan him to us. Now, what do we owe this guy? A fair trial under
US law?

One might argue that we shouldn't have intervened at all - that we should
have let the Afghans kill him - and in light of current events I'd have to
agree. Perhaps we should simply put the lot of them to death, but imagine
the howls from the bleeding-heart do gooders then. Do you think we should
let them go?

In article , Vito
wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 08:41:58 -0400, "Vito" said:

Gee, you're right Dave. It's crazy to assume that any local authority
looked
at each person before turning them over to Americans or that some
American
authority did the same before flying each one to Gitmo then feeding,
clothing and sheltering them, some for years.

No, Vito, that's not the problem. It's nonsense to characterize that kind
of
"looking at" as a hearing. And it insults your readers' intelligence to
expect them to be fooled by such transparent sophistry.

One cannot impose the Anglo-American court system on other cultures. A man I
knew got drunk and wrecked his car in Mexico. The was tried under Mexican
law and sent to prison without being asked to testify or even see the inside
of the courtroom. The Judge felt he had all the info needed to convict
without it. When his relatives complained the US Government told them tough
****. If you don't like Mexican law then don't do crimes in Mexico. I
understand that France, Italy, Spain and other democracies are the same.

Dunno, but Indonesia does. If you're involved in a traffic accident and
are a Westerner driving, it's automatically your fault, as if you
hadn't been in the country, the accident couldn't have hapened.

Fortunately local drivers are dirt cheap and then you don't need to
find a parking space in places like Jakarta.

One might argue that we shouldn't have intervened at all - that we should
have let the Afghans kill him - and in light of current events I'd have to
agree. Perhaps we should simply put the lot of them to death, but imagine
the howls from the bleeding-heart do gooders then.

Probably, but not from people like me. Australia currently has one
citizen facing execution for drug smuggling in Singapore, and likely
another 9 facing the same penalty in Indonesia. Tough ****, everyone
knows the penalties and some of them were caught in Customs &
Immigration on the way out of the country with the drugs strapped to
them, captured on full video. Stupidity like that should be a capital
offense.

Do you think we should
let them go?

Let *who* go? The guys in Gitmo? Sure. Either that or charge them.
Look, I could easily construct a scenario for people like David Hicks
where he would have a defensible case for being where he was and doing
whatever he was supposed to have done. I don't know the why's and
wherefores.

The *point* is - you guys won't allow him to challenge his detention in
an open court. That's wrong.

PDW

"Dave" wrote in
"Vito" said:

Do you think we should
let them go?

Had you been following my posts on the topic that question would be
ridiculous. I suggest you go back and read them.

No offense - I reply to others besides yourself.

Meanwhile, however, I take it you're now prepared to admit that your
so-called "hearings" in other countries bear no resemblance to what we
would
call a "hearing" in the US.

Sure, always did. However, few foreign trials do - even those in what we
consider "western democraies". I just feel that a criminal, duly convicted
under his own legal system, has no additional rights under our system just
because we happen to be questioning him.

"Peter Wiley" wrote
Let *who* go? The guys in Gitmo? Sure. Either that or charge them.

We are chasing our own tails. AFAIK everybody in Gitmo has been charged,
convicted and sentenced in the country where captured before being sent to
Gitmo. You mention convicts being held for execution in Oz. If one of them
could help US law enforcement break a big international drug ring, would you
let us question him, perhaps even outside Oz if assured all Australian laws
would be upheld? Probably. Now if instead of returning him we gave him a new
US trial and let him go you'd be understandably ****ed. Substitute
Afghanistan for Oz and that's the case here AFAIK.

Look, I could easily construct a scenario for people like David Hicks.....

No need, he admits he went to Afghanistan, joined al Qaeda, and participated
in unlawful activities that could (should?) have got him executed there.
Instead, after determining his guilt per their own local custom, he was
given over to the US for questioning. Right so far?

The *point* is - you guys won't allow him to challenge his detention in
an open court. That's wrong.

Hey, he'd have gotten the same or worse had he committed similar crimes in
Spain, France, et cetera. If he wanted Anglo-American justice he should
have stayed where it is practiced. Instead, he left Oz and fought to impose
a very different draconian system on other peoples - a system where women
were systematically killed for being literate! He has been tried under that
same Islamic system he wanted to impose on others and, were he not in Gitmo,
he'd have been killed. Perhaps he should be returned to Afghanistan for
summary execution, but an Anglo-US type trial? You gotta be kidding!

"Vito" wrote in message

I just feel that a criminal, duly convicted
under his own legal system, has no additional rights under our system just
because we happen to be questioning him.

What are your views on the USA apprehending a lawful Canadian Citizen,
enroute to a destination outside your country, based on ethnic profiling,
refusing to allow him to return to Canada, and sending him to Syria for
interrogation and torture without due process, charges, cause, court
appearance.... nor notification of his country of origin?? Just asking
because your nation does it all the time. This person was held and tortured
for over a year ... by request of the US government... because they couldn't
do it legally on their territory. This is done routinely by your government
now. . ???

Don't talk to me about how the USA is upholding international law... please!
It reeks of gross ignorance of your own government on your part. Just tell
the people complaining about the US actions to go screw themselves... that
attitude they'll understand as a typical American response.

CM

based on ethnic profiling,


Dave wrote:
That part sounds like a damned good idea.

Especially if you're a bigot.

...If you know what most of the bad
guys look like, it makes sense to look at people who look like the bad guys
do and not at 90 year old grandmothers. Damned few Finns fighting in
Afghanistan.


The problem is that a lot of people who "look Arab" or "look Muslim" are
in fact loyal tax-paying Americans. The success rate of finding
criminals (or terrorists) based on racial profiling is *proven* to be
lower than that of random chance.

There are several indicators that can improve the odds above random
chance, but dumb-ass prejudice against people whose skin is a different
color ain't one of them.

DSK

"Capt.Mooron" wrote
What are your views on the USA apprehending a lawful Canadian Citizen,
enroute to a destination outside your country,....

Well, since he was Canadian, he was surely up to no good so arresting him
must have been justified, eh?

Seriously, you provide too little info to form any opinion in this case. If
he was apprehended in Afghanistan in local civilian garb shooting at
Americans, like that guy from Oz, then I'd say his detention was justified.
And, if he had been arrested and convicted in Syria then loaned to us for
questioning I'd say it was right to return him. Otherwise ???

"Vito" wrote in message
Seriously, you provide too little info to form any opinion in this case.

http://www.maherarar.ca/mahers%20story.php

http://www.counterpunch.org/arar11062003.html

Let me know what you think... it's been done to several Canadians,
Australians, British citizens by the USA already. you are having a third
World Nation do your torture and interrogation for you.

CM