The islam menace.

Off-Topic Off Topic
#421

Give me a Frigin break!! This guy kills over a dozen people then wounds 32, many handicapped and forced to live in a wheel chair for the rest of their lives, and this IDIOT says he feels his rights are being violated because he can’t prey in his Fukin Arabic!?? GAS the idiot then hang him, then run him over with a cement truck, then cut up his body in little pieces, then feed them to a pit of pigs, then kill the pigs and grind the pigs and spread the pig guts out to the seagulls. THAT’S what they should do with someone like this!..Instead, he has the NERVE to complain that he can’t prey in Arabic? I did not know that the Devil speaks Arabic, because that’s where he is going to go-straight to hell. These religious idiots prey to God as if nothing ever happened. Is there something wrong with this picture? He’s preying to God? What about those poor servicemen he murdered and there families? Just when I thought I heard it all! First those Taliban people who lived there whole lives sleeping on cave floors complain that the beds at prison are not soft enough and there pillows are not fluffy enough, now this murderer complains he can’t prey in Arabic. Enough already!. Will someone please put a bullet in this guys head and put a stop to it already!

http://www.torontosun.com/news/world/2009/12/22/12238836.html
SAN ANTONIO — An attorney for the man charged in the deadly shootings at Fort Hood says the Army has prohibited his client from praying in Arabic with his family.
Attorney John P. Galligan said police stopped a phone conversation between Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan and his brother on Friday because it was not in English. Galligan told the San Antonio Express-News that police at Brooke Army Medical Center refused to let Hasan pray in Arabic.
Galligan says he thinks that’s illegal and a violation of Hasan’s religious rights.
Hasan has been charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder in the Nov. 5 attack.
The military has imposed restrictions requiring Hasan to speak only in English on the phone or with visitors unless an interpreter is present.

#422

Merry Christmas to you too, herman2!:shock:

The military has imposed restrictions requiring Hasan to speak only in English on the phone or with visitors unless an interpreter is present.

In Germany -and I guess in the US as well- these restrictions count for every remand prisoner (even if he stole a bag of chewing gums only). Exceptions would be conversations with his defense lawyer.

#423

Tell us what you really think, herman. :wink: :smiley:

#424

Just makes sense.

How should the guard know whether the prisoner is praying or giving secret information in a language he doesn’t speak? Could very well be that he’s telling his buddy to blow up the family home of one of the guards, or whatever.

No way of telling if you don’t speak the language, so this claim will run dry very quickly.

Would be a lot easier of course, if the CIA found “Terrorist” connections with him. Then we wouldn’t hear from him again for a very looong time. :smiley:

#425

So human rights only apply to people you personally like, is that it?

#426

Isn’t that pretty much the way it usually works, if we substitute “dominant ethnic or political group” for “personally”?

Magnificent human rights enshrined in the US Constitution didn’t do much for Negroes there until half a century ago, any more than they do for people recently subjected to the CIA rendition program.

Which doesn’t imply that the US is unique, but just that they’re good examples.

Most, probably all, countries have similar contradictions between their noble principles (assuming they have any noble principles to which they genuinely subscribe, which somewhere between about a third and two thirds of the nations in the world don’t to a greater or lesser extent) and their actions.

Mine certainly does.

#427

Human Rights?! Human Rights?! I think it was quite natural that mass murderers and people who are clearly guilty of multiple murder and maiming and sickening senseless acts of killing like this man, should not even be given any food to eat let alone a frigin right to prey to the god in Arabic, because you think it’s a Human right and so deeply offensive to deny this idiot murderer the right to prey in a language other than English? I’m sorry, but I did not know that God only speaks ARABIC! God forbid if he preyed in English, cause then God might not here him?? Do you really think god cares about this idiot who murdered so many innocent people and ruined the lives of dozens and dozens of family members who have to cry for years because of this idiot. What planet are you on? If someone rapes and murders your 12 yr old daughter and then gang bangs her all night for 3 days straight giving her Herpes, Aids and knocking her up, before dying, would YOU say…”Oh, does human rights only apply to people you like?”. NO…You would say fry the bastard. The only person that I could possibly think of that is offended that this Fort Hood idiot isn’t allowed to prey in Arabic, is another Muslim person, who is probably half a terrorist to begin with. Why is it that Muslim people see the human right issue of the prayer language as a greater concern then the actual crime and heinous Murder that the muslim idiot committed in the first place. I say the hell with human rights and fry the bastard. When he’s roasting on the fire pit, he can prey all he frigin wants in whatever language he feels his God would understand. Give me a break!

#428

Yes, human rights. It’s what separates the animals from the civilized. Laws. Even the Nazis–who murdered millions–were given trials. And as for this scumbag, he never should have been in the position he was in to begin with. It was the typical case of the US Army shuffling off one of their problem officers to somewhere else to get rid of him and where they thought the slack from his readily apparent ineptitude could be covered for…

#429

You could argue about that.

And as for this scumbag, he never should have been in the position he was in to begin with. It was the typical case of the US Army shuffling off one of their problem officers to somewhere else to get rid of him and where they thought the slack from his readily apparent ineptitude could be covered for…

In my eyes, it’s a typical case of undue political correctness coming back to bite people in the ass. I’m sure that there were plenty of indicators, plenty of situations where, had the people not been afraid of appearing racist, this could have been prevented.

It’s a Catch 22. On the one hand, a lack of civility towards him might have been what brought him over the edge, on the other hand, political correctness by the wrong people at the wrong time allowed him to go on a killing spree.

#430

Yeah that :!:

#431

But many were tried for crimes which did not exist at the time they were committed, being crimes against humanity.

Thus breaching the basic principle that criminal laws should not apply retrospectively, so that an act which is not illegal at the time it is committed cannot later be made illegal.

The laws, dealing with matters during the war, were so grossly retrospective that they were not even published until August 1945, several months after the end of the European war.

The laws offend the principle that everyone is equal under the law, because only Axis offenders could be tried under them.

So, were the Nazis tried by the Allies under an inherently more ‘legal’ system than the people tried under the Nazi regime in their at times laughable Party oriented courts?

Were the post-war trials of the Nazis really all that much different to the ideas underlying herman’s strongly expressed position, which is that the law should be tailored to deal with people which the majority of the population; or those in power; or the victors, despise because of the enormity of their crimes?

Even mature and supposedly democratic legal systems which enshrine human rights (whatever that means) always adapt themselves to extreme circumstances or circumstances which are seen to threaten the established order by doing exactly what herman suggests and depriving people accused of such crimes of their legal rights and protections and allowing a form of legally sanctioned vigilantism. As many countries have seen since 9/11 as evidenced by things such as US legal opinions allowing torture and rendition, and the execution of an innocent Brazilian by police in London with no criminal charges against the executioners. Or the legal system in Northern Ireland to deal with the IRA etc in the 1970s onwards, run by the British who pride themselves on having the best justice system in the world.

#432

I think there were arguments made at the Wannsee Conference (the conference in which the final solution was planned in earnest) regarding the fact that the Holocaust was clearly a violation of German law. This argument was made by the very lawyer that drew up the Nuremberg Laws regarding the treatment of the Jews and that under German law, their murder was still obviously illegal (technically), and brought up a whole host of sticky questions regarding death certificates, inheritance, marriage laws (regarding gentile spouses), etc. I believe the Nazi regime also broke numerous international laws regarding their wars of aggression to which the German gov’t had previously been signatories too. Not only did Germany violate international law during WWII, they violated their own military justice system and simply ignored their own written laws to become a lawless state. Many of the crimes they were prosecuted under did in fact exist, although “crimes against humanity” was moralistically grandiose, it was meant to have a deterrent effect for future generations.

One could also argue that the scale of inhumanity that took place in the Second World War defied all precedent, and thus needed a specific address to such questions as genocide. I would also mention that the Nuremberg Trials as a method of determining culpability and command responsibility was in fact an alternative to the preferred Stalin method of packing up large segments of German society and either summarily executing them or sending them east. I believe that FDR thought Stalin was joking when he mentioned something along these lines at Yalta whereas Churchill was horrified…

Thus breaching the basic principle that criminal laws should not apply retrospectively, so that an act which is not illegal at the time it is committed cannot later be made illegal.

But many of their criminal acts WERE illegal at the time, as the Nazi regime and her allies simply ignored their own laws…

The laws, dealing with matters during the war, were so grossly retrospective that they were not even published until August 1945, several months after the end of the European war.

The laws offend the principle that everyone is equal under the law, because only Axis offenders could be tried under them.

To my knowledge, this was to set some sort of legal framework from where none such existed before, and to have a deterrent effect upon future transgressors. We can argue about “victor’s justice,” but that is another matter. The Allies could counter, at least the Western ones, that they did in fact try some of their officers and soldiers for war crimes (on occasion though I agree it was largely sporadic and imperfect at best) and attempted to enforce some form of military good order and discipline in regards to the capture and care of prisoners.

So, were the Nazis tried by the Allies under an inherently more ‘legal’ system than the people tried under the Nazi regime in their at times laughable Party oriented courts?

That would be a matter of subjective opinion. The problem I have is that the Nazi party courts were completely illegal monstrosities that had no bearing on the written code of the German criminal justice system and its precedents…

Were the post-war trials of the Nazis really all that much different to the ideas underlying herman’s strongly expressed position, which is that the law should be tailored to deal with people which the majority of the population; or those in power; or the victors, despise because of the enormity of their crimes?

IIRC- Wasn’t Nuremberg conducted under the premise that the Nazi regime essentially fostered a “lawless state” that completely ignored all of its own criminal codes and therefore could not be trusted to meet out justice to its own war criminals? The Nazi court trials had little in common with what one would call justice. Did the Jews ever get a trial? Did the (up to) 4.5 million Soviet POWs ever get a trial? The only people who got a trial were mainly the German opponents of the Nazi regime–such as the Rose Group and the July 17th coup plotters. But I think we can hardly compare a very selective series of trials of those in command responsibility to the paranoid, sadistic witch hunts that were the highlight of Nazi ‘justice.’ Foreign opponents of the regime were lucky to get a merciful guillotine after torture, and were clearly executed extra-judicially as they weren’t even given benefit of a mock, show trial or kangaroo court…

Even mature and supposedly democratic legal systems which enshrine human rights (whatever that means) always adapt themselves to extreme circumstances or circumstances which are seen to threaten the established order by doing exactly what herman suggests and depriving people accused of such crimes of their legal rights and protections and allowing a form of legally sanctioned vigilantism. As many countries have seen since 9/11 as evidenced by things such as US legal opinions allowing torture and rendition, and the execution of an innocent Brazilian by police in London with no criminal charges against the executioners. Or the legal system in Northern Ireland to deal with the IRA etc in the 1970s onwards, run by the British who pride themselves on having the best justice system in the world.

The US legal opinions allowing torture have been found to be irresponsibly dubious at best, and the US Attorney General here caused quite a stir when he mention prosecuting CIA and military officers for conducting such activities. I agree such efforts have been a bit piss-weak, and the real people that should be thrown in jail are the Bush lawyers who essentially ignored their laws out of convenience or who allowed illegal programs such as the “Copper Green” to result in the abortion that took place at Abu Ghraib (which was repeated in dozens of detention facilities after the Iraq War BTW, with full knowledge of the Sunnis–even without the fucking photos that everyone pissed themselves over the release of) which did nothing but inflame the Sunni insurgency and cause MORE terrorism and resistance to the occupation. Yet, if you’re going to indict the extremes of the previous administration, we also must acknowledge that the US military and civil authorities have tried and convicted their members (as well as civilian mercenaries working for security contractors such as Blackwater) of crimes at Haditha and other places–for murder, rape, summary executions of Iraqi insurgent suspects and regarding other illegal conduct…

#433

ok, you guys win. The next time I read about a 12 year old girl getting gang banged and tortured and starved to death eaten by rats, I’ll make sure I have sympathy for the culprit and show due concern that his pillow is soft and fluffy at night and that the prison he is in, builds a 2 million dollar mosque for him so he can prey to his God in Arabic, as it would be too much against the basic rights afforded to our prisoners.:rolleyes:

#434

That’s why I like the death penalty. :smiley:

Let’s have some fun - Old Testament Style!

#435

#436

I really hope that the accused has a nice fluffy pillow to sleep on in his cell…I mean, we wouldn’t want to deny him his basic rights now then, would we….

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2009/12/24/12258636-sun.html
PETERBOROUGH – The 13-year-old victim rushed out of the courtroom.
Her grandmother wiped away tears, smiled and softly said “Yes” while the victim’s mother clutched her boyfriend’s arm and wept.
They were tears of joy after a judge found 33-year-old Stanley Tippett guilty on seven counts, including kidnapping, sexual assault and sexual interference.
Escorted through a herd of reporters outside Peterborough’s Superior Court, Tippett maintained his innocence while being placed in the back of a police cruiser.
“They made a mistake,” he said. “I told the truth.”
Tippett testified he wasn’t responsible for the abduction and sexual assault in August 2008. He admitted to placing the heavily intoxicated, semi-conscious 12-year-old in his van after discovering her on the road in Peterborough’s north end.
But before he could take the girl to the hospital, he was the victim of a carjacking, he said. Two men stopped him at gunpoint and drove him to a secluded area west of Hwy. 115, where he was struck on the head and abandoned.
That story simply wasn’t true, Justice Bruce Glass ruled.
“I find Mr. Tippett’s account of the events is unbelievable,” Glass said. “The testimony of Mr. Tippett does not raise a reasonable doubt.”
Glass accepted the Crown’s version of events.
Sometime after midnight Aug. 6, 2008, Tippett came across a group of intoxicated young girls on Collison Ave. Two got into his van.
The older teen was dropped off at Del Crary Park. The victim – who had a toxic level of alcohol in her system – never made it home.
Police found her more than an hour later, emerging from a dark schoolyard in Courtice, just east of Oshawa, naked from the waist down.
A resident heard a girl screaming and called police at 2:18 a.m.
A Durham Regional Police officer spotted Tippett fleeing the schoolyard in the van, and later identified him in court.
It was Tippett who removed the victim’s pants and underwear and tore her shirt, Glass found.
After fleeing, Tippett abandoned his van in an Oshawa neighbourhood. Two condoms found in his van contained the victim’s DNA, and her pants and underwear were discovered blocks away.
Cellphone evidence places Tippett in the vicinity and tracks his movement eastward to where he caught a cab in Bowmanville, court heard.
At that point, Tippett’s only choice was to concoct a carjacking story, Glass said. He called police at 7:30 a.m. and did just that.
Crown attorney Jim Hughes immediately informed Glass he’d be seeking a dangerous offender application.
If successful, Tippett could be locked up indefinitely. Hughes will make submissions on the application when the case returns to court Jan. 13.

#437

Herman, WTF does the preceding story have to do with this topic? Would you prefer he be dealt with by an Islamic law court in Saudi Arabia?

#438

That’s the feeling I get. Maybe you wouldn’t have a problem with an Islamic Republic of North America after all :smiley:

#439

What on earth does that case have to do with the OP?

#440

I bet the defendant would prefer it.

Because under that bizarre system of male dominated archaic bullshit he couldn’t be convicted of rape unless at least four other Muslim men saw it happen.

Which, given experience here, would probably be the other rapists.

The suppression and oppression of women in Islam is intolerable by anyone committed to equality of all humans.

And as happens every summer I’ve been pissed off in the past few days by some Lebo body builder thug swaggering around in shorts, tee shirt and sandals while his sweating missus in the full gear trails behind him with the shopping and pram.

I wish those women would wake up to themselves and throw off the yoke of domination by men who think they’re special just because they’re men and that being born male entitles them to exercise dominion over women.