Re: AC AC AC AC AC AC 'Hating America is a crime'
> "Torture in Gitmo has been documented....." Yes, but torture of Aamer has NOT, and you are trying to take the generalisation and insisting it applies to all cases.
Not at all. This conversation originated from your Sherlock Holmes freestyle which led to you anticipated "very predictable bleating of the claims of torture as motive" from me which you then went on to try to refute. Now if you want to argue with yourself, that's fine by me but I thought it pertinent to point out that it doesn't seem anywhere near as far-fetched as you claim.
Specifically my response was to you stating "laughably unsubstantiated claims of torture are common amongst the Gitmo detainees released so far" and it was that of course those claims were common since it's a known fact that torturing of gitmo detainees has happened. Why set up a strawman? Oh, sorry, I forgot you haven't got any genuine points to make.
> ".....Aamer Shakar has been there pretty much from the start, it seems extremely unlikely he got spared...." One does not follow the other, and you so you cannot even claim it is likely he was tortured
I didn't. I said it *seems* likely. Welcome, strawman number 2, make yourself at home.
> ... Kurnaz also claims "the attack on 9/11 was in the Koran and approved as an attack against infidels"
This was alleged in the 2001/2 BKA (~ German FBI) file and could not be substantiated. There was quite a bit more than that, including the claim that he had connections to the "Hamburg Cell", four (IIRC) of whom participated in the 9/11 attack. And his best friend was alleged to have performed a suicide attack yet continued to live undisturbed in Bremen. There was more of this, none of which stuck. Care to explain why he was cleared despite this? Care to explain why Germany ultimately got him back when they could have said first responsibility is with the Turkish since he wasn't (despite your claim to the contrary) a German citizen?
> ...Actually, from his own interviews with numerous press agencies, and his own laughable "biography"...
Yes, that is the sort of thing I was hoping for when I asked you for evidence. Still unsubstantiated though: Where in his book, what press releases?
> remember, he was traveling to Afghanistan AFTER the fighting had started? ... seeing as it makes him look like a wannabe terrorist.
I've asked you before for the evidence which you haven't as yet provided. Once that's sorted, go on to explain how traveling to the country in itself is a criminal offence and how it follows from it that he would have fought. How many guns and explosives did they find on him again? Maybe a Leatherman? No?
> Or maybe you want to explain how he could even afford the ticket ... his excuse for his phone turning up with other terrorists was that he had to sell it
As it happens, I have been temporarily broke in my life every now and again, yet have not remained so for long. And even while broke I was always able to turn to friends or family for a temporary cash injection. Also, I have no control over where my used/sold/stolen phones go. Does Kurnaz have to?
> And then we have Kurnaz also switching his claims depending on his audience - one minute he was "tortured" at Kandahar by the CIA, then it was ordinary US servicemen, ...
Evidence, please. Let's say he's a liar and does tell different people different stories. Perhaps he's got something to hide. Perhaps he was shit-nervous trying to present his story in the best light, first to get out of Guantanamo, then greedy to make the most out of his book. Doesn't prove him a terrorist or sympathiser. You allege Cameron is a liar.
> ".....He hasn't been _cleared_ of the allegations in the same way as _you_ haven't been _cleared_ of being a paedophile...." Big difference - I was not investigated ...
Look up the word "hypothetically" at the end of that paragraph, it may come in useful. You'll be surprised to find that I wasn't even claiming you've ever been to Thailand. What I'm saying is that if you had been investigated under such circumstances, "innocent until proven guilty" would apply and so I would consider you cleared once the police (or the judge) have set you free. I'll be happy to rephrase "cleared" as "innocent" if that makes you happy.
> Given that those "good Muslim" Afghans that Aamer and Kurnaz so loved seem very keen on little boys [...]
It is unusual and delightful to see you use the words "seems" and "maybe". I'm somewhat used to you stating opinion as plain fact. I feel we're making progress. Do you think it probable that church-going Catholics are likely to be paedos, too? I mean seeing that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases
>"....reasonable thought, I'll say...." The problem is what you consider "reasonable" is just more apologist nonsense and "what ifs". Again, you got called on a bullshit story and your groping about for a reason to deny it's implausibility because you WANT to baaah-lieve.
I gave you a number of explanations merely to clarify how what you've presented as showing that Aamer was lying is not at all showing that. My explanations are as unsubstantiated as yours is and I don't particularly believe in any one of them, or yours. In other words: (a) Mine are just as much a "what if" as (b) yours is, (c) in sum they show that different explanations are readily available (d) with no one necessarily being true until sufficiently substantiated. That's what you need to grasp. You've evidently taken the first step with (a) and I applaud you. Your point, sadly, remains to be made.
> ".....How can we ever fully prove a negative?" By showing it is not a negative. Associating with known terrorists IS a crime...
My understanding is that 13224 is a decree which permits the US Executive to seize assets etc. e.g. when someone is associated with a terrorist/organisation and as such it is a tool (and a somewhat controversial tool at that) to pre-empt potential attacks.
IANAL but since you claim to be able to predict court cases never even started, perhaps you want to explain and substantiate the following to actually make your point: The decree is not as far as I can see defining association with terrorists as being a crime but merely empower the US to seize their assets. Am I overlooking something? And how does it applies to Kurnaz?
> ... fact he was heading towards the fighting, with other terrorists?
In your own words: "Gosh, there's a surprise, another completely unsubstantiated claim!"
> ".....But the known! fact! that the Americans are holding people for years and years without trial...." Get real! It's called internment, it happened in both World Wars...
It's been done before so it must be alright. Your arguing is at your very best. Personally I'm a big fan of the spirit of the Geneva Convention.
> And Aamer's buddies were the ones that declared war on us, so tough.
So you say we have a US law against association with terrorists and terrorists are his buddies. He's interned by the US and they've cleared him twice. Huh? Is it because they've got as little evidence as you have? Because association isn't a crime?
> "....a "pretty harmless" muslim organisation....." That sent suicide bombers to Afghanistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murat_Kurnaz#Combatant_Status_Review_Tribunal).
Where/How does the linked page show the org is not "pretty harmless" or sent suidice bombers to Afghanistan?
Jamayat Al Tabliq (aka Tablighi Jamaat) is a pretty massive multi-million people organisation. They are decidedly apolitical though of course they can't force members to abide by that. TJ are frequently criticized by jihadists for being so fucking unjihadic and they try to entice away and radicalise TJ members. --> http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/tablighi_jamaat_indirect_line_terrorism
As I indicated, Die Zeit provides pretty decent journalism.
>>>> it would be childishly easy for HMG to argue the NDAA cannot be applied...
>>> You still have not answered why - if he was so innocent - the US didn't release him straight away in 2007...
>> I can hardly know.
> And that's just it - you don't know, you're just singing from the libtard hymnbook unquestioningly.
Both Cameron and Hague are on record demanding him back. It's the US, not the UK holding him captive. It's on you to show evidence that your alternative story has any basis whatsoever in reality and is not just a figment of your imagination. If the US as a whole (Democrats and Republicans) really wanted to release him they could publicly state that he's a free man and can return to the UK. If they do that and Cameron then refuses, we'll talk again. As long as they don't do that, they are quite clearly responsible for his continued incarceration, even if Cameron indeed secretly asked them to please please please not release him, which - again - is pure conjecture on your part. It's what you desire to "baaah-lieve".
> "....you seem to think they know he's the bad guy, yet neither you nor they have anything at all to prove their points...." More to the point, YOU cannot prove your points or disprove the ones I raise.
That's the thing with guilt. I don't have to. He's guilty until proven innocent and he has been cleared twice. The onus is on you.
> There are obviously very serious reservations about Shaker Aamer,
Yet apparently no evidence to show his guilt.
> Your comical faith in political statements [...] so what HMG should actually be saying is "not our problem".
Yet, they are on record saying the exact opposite.