- Joined
- Feb 19, 2012
- Messages
- 29,957
- Reaction score
- 14,683
- Location
- Netherlands
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
If nothing else we can have our spec ops suicide him where he is. No problem.
ISI - Pakistan? What does that have to do with it? The probability of a person extradited by a European nation to the US being tortured was always remote, but is now less likely than were they extradited to some European countries.
But the Obama/Feinstein idiocy as intellectually corrupt as the broad brush allegations were have made sensible action more difficult for the court.
The point was that the dutch were denying extradition before the report came out. There is no way to determine that they would have given the suspect to the US without the report. As such, all we have is that the Dutch have remained consistent in their stance that they won't release suspects if they fear those suspects may be tortured.
Good afternoon MMC
I have to ask, if the man was in the hands of the Pakistani ISI, how is it that he was not handed over to the US when the Pakistanis were finished with him and how did he manage to find his way to the Netherlands? Seems to me another example of the Pakistanis not being the best of US friends.
No, the issue is that the Netherlands has signed a treaty, to which the Dutch government is legally bound to comply, that makes it impossible to extradite suspects to countries who have in the past used torture against that suspect.
That's why we use spec-ops, so that we get away with it, that's what spec-ops are for.Except that would be a violation of just about every basic international law, it would risk and international incident no country would need or want and it would risk the death/prosecution of the suspects of such a crime.
The Netherlands is a nation of laws and I see no reason why they should break their own law for the sake of appeasing the US.
Ah. The individual may not have been tortured.
Was he tortured? What exactly was done? And who did it?
I don't remember the specifics of individual case right now. It's too long ago that I looked.
That's why we use spec-ops, so that we get away with it, that's what spec-ops are for.
I don't know what the Dutch laws are regarding suicide, you would have to take it up with Sabir Khan before he slips and falls in the showerThey are good, but not infallible. And again, totally and completely illegal.
So the average American is similar to a terrorist?
How did you phrase that question to your friends? And how many of them were Christian?
Right and wrong are relative. If you don't want to be tortured, don't stand against us. All hadji has to do is stop beating his wife and work on his own community before judging the rest of the world. But he doesn't want to do that, he wants to play dirty, and if he wants to disregard the "rules" well then we can disregard the "rules" too.Out of a sample of about 8, most or all of them are Christian, practicing to one degree or another, all replied that they thought the torture was OK, that Cheney was right.
The question was simply "what do you think about the Senate report showing we tortured?" And it was not simply a poll, it was a discussion with statements and questions back and forth.
"Terrorist" here is defined neither by me or by you. No, I don't think that the average American is 'similar' to a terrorist, whatever exactly that means.
But, within my group, the average American is a moral midget, unable to tell the difference between right and wrong, or at least unable to take a stand against torture.
Right and wrong are relative. If you don't want to be tortured, don't stand against us. All hadji has to do is stop beating his wife and work on his own community before judging the rest of the world. But he doesn't want to do that, he wants to play dirty, and if he wants to disregard the "rules" well then we can disregard the "rules" too.
It is too simple to state that. The Dutch government cannot extradite him at this moment in time. This is because this was a ruling in a "kort geding" (preliminary relief proceedings) which is a preliminary court case which normally is followed by a more extensive court case about the extradition question.
The court, in a previous court case ordered the Dutch government to investigate the circumstances of the original arrest which lead to the torture of Khan.
This court case has been going on for years, it went all the way to our version of the Supreme Court. And as said it all boils down to the international treaty (of which the Netherlands is a participant) that forbids governments from extraditing suspects if it can be suspected that the country who asks for the extradition was involved in the torture of the suspect.
All in all a very difficult case. At first the court ruled in favor of the government but on appeal the court decided that, in part due to the known involvement of the CIA with the ISI, there are too many unanswered/un-investigated questions left for them to decide to approve the extradition. As said, this is in no means final. Extradition is still a possibility.
This is part of the court ruling (translated):
The circumstances mentioned in the letter from October 15 2014, that the Pakistani government had their own reasons to arrest the plaintiff, does not give the court reason to change it's opinion. The only thing that is different from the previous court proceeding is that this letter states that the plaintiff was also suspected of crimes on Pakistani soil, but this does not change the fact that the Pakistani government did not want to proceed with criminal proceedings against the plaintiff and instead extradited him to the Netherlands. This letter does not change the previous ruling from the court that this could indicate that it was the US all along, and not Pakistan, who asked/had grounds for his arrest in the first place. The court also notes that it has not been given a sufficient explanation as to why, within three days of his arrest, the US asked for extradition of the plaintiff and that the US petitioned the Netherlands for extradition of the plaintiff three months before the suspect was even transferred to the Netherlands. The fact that his extradition was asked so quickly after his Pakistani arrest and the fact that his extradition request precedes his actual transfer to the Netherlands by three months, has not convinced the court that the Dutch government has done a sufficient investigation, as mandated by this court, into the circumstances of the plaintiffs arrest in Pakistan.
3.7.
Concluding, based on the previous (all of the previous, not just the part I have just translated for you) is that the court is of the opinion, that the uncertainty as to whether or not there was a possible involvement of the US in the torture of the plaintiff still remains. This means that the extradition of the plaintiff to the US is still deemed unlawful. Now that the Government, at the hearing has indicated that it does not think that the question whether or not the CIA was involved has any relevance and that the state has not offered to ask further questions about this to the US government, and there has been no indication or evidence that the US government by their own volition has offered further information regarding the arrest, means that this court sees no reason to give the State the opportunity to further investigate this before the court gives it's ruling. The primarily requested ban on extradition, made by the plaintiff is here by awarded.
I have relatives I wouldn't try to save from Git'Mo. My aunt who's doing hard time for operating a meth lab, for example.Yes, of course, right and wrong are relative. If it's one of your relatives that is being tortured, it's wrong, unless it happens to be your mother-in-law.
Or anyone working to attack the US, yeah.If it is a muslim, a hadji, well it's just fine.
I also support intercepting the ball as long as it's not don to my team.That was the rationale offered by several in my sample group, members of the Dick Cheney Fan Club. YOU are in the majority of my sample group--supporting torture as long as it's not done to one of your own.
Yep, and it's not ever gonna stop. We may reduce it a bit, we may get better at it, but in the end we're not going to take casualties just so the terrorist can save a trip to the emergency room.MLK was quite right on a philosophical level--man was born into barbarism when killing (or torturing) his fellow man was a normal condition of existence.
These bureaucrats when given a desk, a dark uniform and a title, behave like bureaucrats everywhere. Holland would make a great Gitmo. Given the speed and efficiency of the Dutch Courts they'd be there for 50 years before they were considered for release.It is too simple to state that. The Dutch government cannot extradite him at this moment in time. This is because this was a ruling in a "kort geding" (preliminary relief proceedings) which is a preliminary court case which normally is followed by a more extensive court case about the extradition question.
The court, in a previous court case ordered the Dutch government to investigate the circumstances of the original arrest which lead to the torture of Khan.
This court case has been going on for years, it went all the way to our version of the Supreme Court. And as said it all boils down to the international treaty (of which the Netherlands is a participant) that forbids governments from extraditing suspects if it can be suspected that the country who asks for the extradition was involved in the torture of the suspect.
All in all a very difficult case. At first the court ruled in favor of the government but on appeal the court decided that, in part due to the known involvement of the CIA with the ISI, there are too many unanswered/un-investigated questions left for them to decide to approve the extradition. As said, this is in no means final. Extradition is still a possibility.
This is part of the court ruling (translated):
The circumstances mentioned in the letter from October 15 2014, that the Pakistani government had their own reasons to arrest the plaintiff, does not give the court reason to change it's opinion. The only thing that is different from the previous court proceeding is that this letter states that the plaintiff was also suspected of crimes on Pakistani soil, but this does not change the fact that the Pakistani government did not want to proceed with criminal proceedings against the plaintiff and instead extradited him to the Netherlands. This letter does not change the previous ruling from the court that this could indicate that it was the US all along, and not Pakistan, who asked/had grounds for his arrest in the first place. The court also notes that it has not been given a sufficient explanation as to why, within three days of his arrest, the US asked for extradition of the plaintiff and that the US petitioned the Netherlands for extradition of the plaintiff three months before the suspect was even transferred to the Netherlands. The fact that his extradition was asked so quickly after his Pakistani arrest and the fact that his extradition request precedes his actual transfer to the Netherlands by three months, has not convinced the court that the Dutch government has done a sufficient investigation, as mandated by this court, into the circumstances of the plaintiffs arrest in Pakistan.
3.7.
Concluding, based on the previous (all of the previous, not just the part I have just translated for you) is that the court is of the opinion, that the uncertainty as to whether or not there was a possible involvement of the US in the torture of the plaintiff still remains. This means that the extradition of the plaintiff to the US is still deemed unlawful. Now that the Government, at the hearing has indicated that it does not think that the question whether or not the CIA was involved has any relevance and that the state has not offered to ask further questions about this to the US government, and there has been no indication or evidence that the US government by their own volition has offered further information regarding the arrest, means that this court sees no reason to give the State the opportunity to further investigate this before the court gives it's ruling. The primarily requested ban on extradition, made by the plaintiff is here by awarded.
There is also the argument that all the democracies have to cooperate, trust, think quickly and move swiftly, given that there is a war going on. If the Dutch choose to dither then they should be bypassed whenever possible.Good morning, Peter King. :2wave:
Thank you for the excellent and informative explanation! :thumbs: This confirms to me that we are not aware of half of what is going on at any given time, or the reasons for same. There are courts and a legal system in place in most civilized countries to provide protection for the people, and I like to believe that most of the time they do the right thing. We all know that some who are guilty sometimes escape punishment, while some innocent are wrongly charged, but it's got to be more just and fair overall than the free-for-all that would be the alternative if only one person such as a dictator or other absolute ruler were making all the rules.
So, despite your claim thatOut of a sample of about 8, most or all of them are Christian, practicing to one degree or another, all replied that they thought the torture was OK, that Cheney was right.
The question was simply "what do you think about the Senate report showing we tortured?" And it was not simply a poll, it was a discussion with statements and questions back and forth.
"Terrorist" here is defined neither by me or by you. No, I don't think that the average American is 'similar' to a terrorist, whatever exactly that means.
But, within my group, the average American is a moral midget, unable to tell the difference between right and wrong, or at least unable to take a stand against torture.
Good morning, Peter King. :2wave:
Thank you for the excellent and informative explanation! :thumbs: This confirms to me that we are not aware of half of what is going on at any given time, or the reasons for same. There are courts and a legal system in place in most civilized countries to provide protection for the people, and I like to believe that most of the time they do the right thing. We all know that some who are guilty sometimes escape punishment, while some innocent are wrongly charged, but it's got to be more just and fair overall than the free-for-all that would be the alternative if only one person such as a dictator or other absolute ruler were making all the rules.
There is also the argument that all the democracies have to cooperate, trust, think quickly and move swiftly, given that there is a war going on. If the Dutch choose to dither then they should be bypassed whenever possible.
He supposedly was tortured in Pakistan.
These bureaucrats when given a desk, a dark uniform and a title, behave like bureaucrats everywhere. Holland would make a great Gitmo. Given the speed and efficiency of the Dutch Courts they'd be there for 50 years before they were considered for release.
Supposedly? Did someone cut his nose off or before his very eyes throw a Koran in the toilet? And who dunnit?
He was tortured by the Pakistani ISI.
Tortured? Supposedly Tortured? Did they cut off his nose? Throw his Koran in the toilet? Say they would hurt his mother? The ISI or the CIA?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?