View Full Version : Police foil murder plot against Danish cartoonist
Goofball
02-13-2008, 00:45
Jessum Crow.
This just makes me mad:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23125346/
My favorite part:
Kasem Ahmad, a spokesman for the Copenhagen-based Islamic Faith Community, a network of Muslim groups that spearheaded protests against the cartoons in Denmark, said he hoped Tuesday's arrests would not rekindle the uproar.
"We urge Muslims to take it calmly," he told the TV2 News network.
I love it. He urges Muslims to not be offended that the interfering, meddling police prevented some of their brethren from doing murder in the name of Muhammed (PBUH).
Ah, the religion of love...
Crazed Rabbit
02-13-2008, 00:51
I thought it was the Religion of Peace?
CR
Goofball
02-13-2008, 01:05
I thought it was the Religion of Peace?
CR
My bad.
It's just so loving and peaceful I often have a hard time figuring out which one it is.
I thought it was the Religion of Peace?
CR
In theory it's suppose to be. These people aren't really Muslims, but corrupt versions of what they say they are.
Religious Nut jobs fits better.
I thought it was the Religion of Peace?
CR
lol. As Bill Maher has once put it: "You should always say that Islam is a religion of peace, otherwise they'll kill you."
Crazed Rabbit
02-13-2008, 02:48
In theory it's suppose to be. These people aren't really Muslims, but corrupt versions of what they say they are.
Religious Nut jobs fits better.
Well, when you read about some of the things Mohammad did back in his time...
@rvg: Bill Maher said that? Good for him.
CR
Proletariat
02-13-2008, 02:49
@rvg: Bill Maher said that? Good for him.
CR
Equally shocked..
Equally shocked..
Yeah, he's pretty outspoken about it.
Ignoramus
02-13-2008, 03:24
Typical of Muslims. Offending us = death.
HoreTore
02-13-2008, 08:37
Typical of Muslims. Offending us = death.
You couldn't find a broader brush?
As for the statement, that was said because some danes published muhammed pictures again...
At least that's what we think they did, it's impossible to understand what a dane says anyway.
Typical of Muslims. Offending us = death.
Typically generalization is nonsense.
I love it. He urges Muslims to not be offended that the interfering, meddling police prevented some of their brethren from doing murder in the name of Muhammed (PBUH).
Ya, that is moral support for the hatebeards who wanted to mutually respect the poor sod.
Ignoramus
02-13-2008, 10:04
Really, I wonder why there's so much evidence of it then?
HoreTore
02-13-2008, 10:22
Really, I wonder why there's so much evidence of it then?
I can't for the life of me remember a time anyone getting caught for pedophilia wasn't a middle-aged white guy.
Does that mean it's typical of middle-aged white guys to molest children?
Ignoramus
02-13-2008, 10:43
Look at history then.
My honest opinion is that the religion of peace part does exist as a more modern form of Islam, influenced by western values and probably people who are sick of the constant warfare. If Muhammed had a peaceful religion in mind, then he should have acted upon it like Jesus (and IIRC Buddha) did, no matter how hard his times were, it's not like Palestine was a peaceful lalaland during Jesus' times but he didn't gather a bunch of people to start killing romans even though that's what people expected him to do.
Doesn't mean I despise muslims, it just means that if they really believe I should die for being an infidel, then they choose to be my enemies and I may critisize them for that, like it or not. Of course generalizing all muslims is like generalizing all christians or saying all atheists are goths. :dizzy2:
I do think that the true Islam is a violent religion established by a violent guy and that it is against my beliefs and values but I appreciate all muslims who do not go that way and/or try to live a peaceful life, however, I'm not an islam expert either. :sweatdrop:
My honest opinion is that the religion of peace part does exist as a more modern form of Islam, influenced by western values and probably people who are sick of the constant warfare. If Muhammed had a peaceful religion in mind, then he should have acted upon it like Jesus (and IIRC Buddha) did, no matter how hard his times were, it's not like Palestine was a peaceful lalaland during Jesus' times but he didn't gather a bunch of people to start killing romans even though that's what people expected him to do.
Doesn't mean I despise muslims, it just means that if they really believe I should die for being an infidel, then they choose to be my enemies and I may critisize them for that, like it or not. Of course generalizing all muslims is like generalizing all christians or saying all atheists are goths. :dizzy2:
I do think that the true Islam is a violent religion established by a violent guy and that it is against my beliefs and values but I appreciate all muslims who do not go that way and/or try to live a peaceful life, however, I'm not an islam expert either. :sweatdrop:
Seing how many wars that has been started in the name of the Christian God, it appears that the "interpretation" of holy books that really matters.
http://www.net-games.biz/funny-pictures/pictures/1465.jpg
sorry I had to
CountArach
02-13-2008, 11:17
Typical of Muslims. Offending us = death.
*Hides from the Muslim friends he has*
Seriously - no need to generalise...
Ser Clegane
02-13-2008, 11:18
sorry I had to
Not that the actual signs that were shown at this "protest" were any better with regard to the message , but you are aware that this picture is fake ... aren't you?
but you are aware that this picture is fake ... aren't you?
Yup, but it's hilarious. Death to reality when I can just have a laugh.
It is a real shame this whole islamo-fascism has happened in the 21st century, long after it is permissible to engage in continent sized bloodbaths where various groups within a given religion butcher each other until the winning group is ascendant, and the will of both to get hot-blooded in the name of religion is expended. The thirty years war in Germany is a good example.
Islam is still basically adolescent, and needs war and death to enter the middle years of its existence. To continue my analogy; christianity would by these terms be late middle-aged by now.
Sadly, the kind of event necessary to make the transcendence happen would require intervention by all kinds of worthy bodies such as the UN, and no doubt, the EU with its rapid reaction force. :laugh4:
Geoffrey S
02-13-2008, 11:44
Police foils murder plot, certain people on both sides try to disconnect the murder issue from reality by making it a religious issue. I recall a Churchill quote about fanatics and not changing the subject...
Police foils murder plot, certain people on both sides try to disconnect the murder issue from reality by making it a religious issue.
Maybe because it's a religious issue? Just a thougt...
Geoffrey S
02-13-2008, 12:23
No, it's a murder plot. Religion aside, the average Muslim and average whatever agree that's not allowed. A minority doesn't agree, an even smaller group of generally easily influenced lunatics acts on their perception of religion in the West. It's their perception of religion, one which most don't share, not even those dishing out the orders.
The only reason most senior Western Muslims don't denounce such idiots isn't religious, but financial and political - they don't want to alienate their often Saudi backers. Similar to many black rights or feminist groups in the US, who seek publicity with ludicrous claims and don't rely represent most blacks or women.
It would help immensely if both sides acknowledged that cases like this are fringe nuts. The only way to get Muslims to do that is to disconnect them from their Saudi ties, which will only happen if we can provide a viable alternative.
Doesn't matter what the average muslims thinks of it, now you are making it a religious issue yourselve. The planned attack was against what this cartoonist stands for, freedom of speech, not against who he is as a person, that makes it more then a normal murder, I would classify this as a religiously motivated terrorist plot.
It would help immensely if both sides acknowledged that cases like this are fringe nuts. The only way to get Muslims to do that is to disconnect them from their Saudi ties, which will only happen if we can provide a viable alternative.
Agree with this though.
Geoffrey S
02-13-2008, 12:41
Doesn't matter what the average muslims thinks of it, now you are making it a religious issue yourselve.
From both the quotes by that Muslims Faith network or whatever it was called, and the way quite a few westerners take it, no it doesn't seem to matter what average muslims think. Shame, that, since the amount agreeing would probably be comparable with the amount of people who think European troops should continue occupying parts of the Middle East...
From both the quotes by that Muslims Faith network or whatever it was called, and the way quite a few westerners take it, no it doesn't seem to matter what average muslims think. Shame, that, since the amount agreeing would probably be comparable with the amount of people who think European troops should continue occupying parts of the Middle East...
I am sure your average muslim cares more about what is for dinner tonight, but when it comes to the morality behind these actions I can't shake the feeling that there is some dangerous authism going on, sort of a blind spot. That is because we don't allow them to be any more then a muslim giving them no other choice then be a group, and I am not talking downward pressure that is discrimination upward pressure that is promotion.
Seing how many wars that has been started in the name of the Christian God, it appears that the "interpretation" of holy books that really matters.
I'd say it's the parts that people prefer, while they forget about others, may call that interpretation though. I also forgot about tolerance of many muslim kingdoms/caliphates in the middle ages, which sorta undermines my point about modern western values, but there are so many factors to consider. :sweatdrop:
Vladimir
02-13-2008, 13:13
To add another one liner: Good on the Danish cops. :policeman: :denmark:
This is a disgrace. The two Tunisians are now to be expelled without ever being tried in a court of law. The Moroccan-born Danish citizen has been released from custody as there was not enough evidence to hold him and its likely there never will be a case.
PET calls it a "preventive" action and are allowed to do so because of the anti-terror laws.
If these people really were oh so dangerous terrorists then PET has just given two men a second chance to commit terrorist acts.
CBR
This is a disgrace. The two Tunisians are now to be expelled without ever being tried in a court of law. The Moroccan-born Danish citizen has been released from custody as there was not enough evidence to hold him and its likely there never will be a case.
PET calls it a "preventive" action and are allowed to do so because of the anti-terror laws.
If these people really were oh so dangerous terrorists then PET has just given two men a second chance to commit terrorist acts.
CBR
Okay I will bite. Why is it a disgrace?
Were the two Tunisians there on a visa? Were they granted citizenship prior to the police picking them up? What are the rules on behavior concerning foreign nationals on visas?
Most nations have expulsion rules for behavior that does not require a hearing, only being picked up on certain charges by the authories.
Has the government violated thier own laws to expell the two from the nation?
People on visas are expected to be on their best behavior in another land, not getting themselves caught up in murder plots against citizens of the nation that they are visiting. Being expelled is not a violation of someone civil rights by the state.
Gregoshi
02-13-2008, 15:18
When I first read the title of this thread I thought "Bijo?" :laugh4:
Sorry Bijo, couldn't resist. ~:pat:
Quirinus
02-13-2008, 15:43
My honest opinion is that the religion of peace part does exist as a more modern form of Islam, influenced by western values and probably people who are sick of the constant warfare. If Muhammed had a peaceful religion in mind, then he should have acted upon it like Jesus (and IIRC Buddha) did, no matter how hard his times were, it's not like Palestine was a peaceful lalaland during Jesus' times but he didn't gather a bunch of people to start killing romans even though that's what people expected him to do.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Christianity an obscure Jewish sect during the life of Jesus himself? When he died he only had twelve disciples, or something like that, right? So I don't think it was a matter of whether he wanted to-- circumstances clearly did not permit him to do so.
It would help immensely if both sides acknowledged that cases like this are fringe nuts.
What about the mass demonstrations when the controversy first broke? Are all those people fringe nuts, too? Living in a Muslim country, I can tell you from first-hand experience that such extreme views do not merely reside on the fringes of society.
By the way, not too sure if it's relevant to the discussion, but here's something I found during the controversy then:
https://img82.imageshack.us/img82/550/billdaysb6.jpg
Such an attitude, of course, does not apply only to Muslims..... >.<
I can tell you from first-hand experience that such extreme views do not merely reside on the fringes of society.
Could you please repeat that a few times.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Christianity an obscure Jewish sect during the life of Jesus himself? When he died he only had twelve disciples, or something like that, right? So I don't think it was a matter of whether he wanted to-- circumstances clearly did not permit him to do so.
He had a few more people following him around though and he clearly said he wouldn't want any violence against the Romans, he didn't even try to resist his arrest etc.
Geoffrey S
02-13-2008, 16:07
What about the mass demonstrations when the controversy first broke? Are all those people fringe nuts, too? Living in a Muslim country, I can tell you from first-hand experience that such extreme views do not merely reside on the fringes of society.
Views, perhaps. How many do anything? A lot of Europeans protested against the war in Iraq, but when push comes to shove... such mob opinions are easily overestimated, and in the case of the cartoon demonstrations I'd be interested to know how many of the placards calling for people to kill the cartoonist actually attempted to do so, and how many of them there were in the large crowds.
And personally I don't give a damn about what Muslims in Muslim countries think. That's their business. When they come here, they should stick to our laws - what I find damaging is activities like those of the Saudis and a number of other cases, influencing Muslim groups inside Europe. That should not be tolerated.
Ja'chyra
02-13-2008, 16:16
And personally I don't give a damn about what Muslims in Muslim countries think. That's their business. When they come here, they should stick to our laws - what I find damaging is activities like those of the Saudis and a number of other cases, influencing Muslim groups inside Europe. That should not be tolerated.
That's about the size of it
I cannot comment on how a majority of other nations handle cases like that. But from what I can read on Danish news sites, the UK use specially selected lawyers and judges in deciding if a foreigner can be expelled based on (sensitive) evidence.
Here a branch of the police (PET- the police intelligence service) can just point a finger on a foreigner and claim he or she is danger to national security and then off he/she goes and no judge can see the evidence.
The two Tunisians are not Danish citizens but have lived here for 7-8 years.
The Moroccan born Danish citizen was released after being questioned so no judge involved there either. All we have is PET's word for them being so dangerous and that PET cant reveal anything because the information is sensitive etc etc.
Ultimately the government might actually have problems doing this, as they cannot expel people to nations that use torture which Tunisia apparently does.
Why do I find it a disgrace?
1) That as long as you a citizen then sure we have law and order but if you are foreign national then to hell with human rights and its a police state instead.
2) If these guys really are terrorists then they are now free to keep on planning stuff, maybe not this murder but then something else. Would it not be better to actually prosecute them. But of course it will not be our problem anymore so everything is fine...
CBR
And personally I don't give a damn about what Muslims in Muslim countries think. That's their business. When they come here, they should stick to our laws - what I find damaging is activities like those of the Saudis and a number of other cases, influencing Muslim groups inside Europe. That should not be tolerated.
One 100%
edit, well less you forgot complete idiots
I cannot comment on how a majority of other nations handle cases like that. But from what I can read on Danish news sites, the UK use specially selected lawyers and judges in deciding if a foreigner can be expelled based on (sensitive) evidence.
Again was the process violated by the authorities who expelled them? If I remember correctly the UK is not a Danish government.
Here a branch of the police (PET- the police intelligence service) can just point a finger on a foreigner and claim he or she is danger to national security and then off he/she goes and no judge can see the evidence.
Many nations have that ability - for instance in the United States the INS can expell any national from another country if their visa papers are not in order. This was in place prior to 9-11 also.
The two Tunisians are not Danish citizens but have lived here for 7-8 years.
Then they should of applied for citizenship, living in another country with a visa requires the individual to remain on their best behavior.
The Moroccan born Danish citizen was released after being questioned so no judge involved there either. All we have is PET's word for them being so dangerous and that PET cant reveal anything because the information is sensitive etc etc.
Still dont see where its an embrassment or a violation of a person's civil rights. It seems the government honored the rights of the individual who is a citizen, and has decided to expell vistors to the nation who they felt were a behavior risk to their nation.
Ultimately the government might actually have problems doing this, as they cannot expel people to nations that use torture which Tunisia apparently does.
Then there must be an appeal process I would image for these two to attempt to stay.
Why do I find it a disgrace?
1) That as long as you a citizen then sure we have law and order but if you are foreign national then to hell with human rights and its a police state instead.
When one is a vistor to another land - one should be on their best behavior. If a house guest in my home is rude to my family or does things I find not quite right, I ask them to leave my house. I dont see where a nation can not do the same thing to a vistor who seemly misbehaves. So your going to have to have a stronger arguement that these two individuals have had their human rights violated. It seems to me from reading that the two individuals in question are suspected of wanting to do harm to a citizen of Denmark, which fits into my expectation justification for the nation to expell them from the land.
2) If these guys really are terrorists then they are now free to keep on planning stuff, maybe not this murder but then something else. Would it not be better to actually prosecute them. But of course it will not be our problem anymore so everything is fine...
CBR
Now that might be a better arguement. One that might actually fit into the disgraceful tag that you have painted it.
Again was the process violated by the authorities who expelled them? If I remember correctly the UK is not a Danish government.
Nothing seems to be in violation with current laws. Thats not what Im questioning. Im questioning the morality of the current system.
You said "Most nations have expulsion rules for behavior that does not require a hearing" and I provided an example of one nation that IMO does it better.
Many nations have that ability - for instance in the United States the INS can expell any national from another country if their visa papers are not in order. This was in place prior to 9-11 also.
Either visa papers are in order or not in order. It is a system which makes sense and has records to check.
Then they should of applied for citizenship, living in another country with a visa requires the individual to remain on their best behavior.
Cannot comment to why they didnt but it is not my point.
...and has decided to expell vistors to the nation who they felt were a behavior risk to their nation.
It's the how and why they get the that feeling I question.
Then there must be an appeal process I would image for these two to attempt to stay.
AFAIK there is yes.
It seems to me from reading that the two individuals in question are suspected of wanting to do harm to a citizen of Denmark, which fits into my expectation justification for the nation to expell them from the land.
I certainly do not deny a nations right to expel foreigners. Its how the procedure works. There is no independent review of PET's assessment and ruling.
They actually dont even have to specify what the case is about, just that a person(s) is a danger to national security and thats it.
I dont mind secrecy but I dont like an agency/branch to have such power.
So yeah sure it is the law but I still find it a disgrace.
CBR
Nothing seems to be in violation with current laws. Thats not what Im questioning. Im questioning the morality of the current system.
The morality is not the question. Rules concerning immgration and naturalization of foreign nationals is not a moral issue, but an ethical one. Besides that where is morality defined in issues regarding to naturalization, and foriegn nationals visiting another land?
You said "Most nations have expulsion rules for behavior that does not require a hearing" and I provided an example of one nation that IMO does it better.
That makes it an opinion not necessarily a better system.
Either visa papers are in order or not in order. It is a system which makes sense and has records to check.
That is only one of the many ways for the United States INS can expell an individual from the states. A foreign national picked up on suspecion of a crime can also be expelled just like these individauls in Denmark. In fact many are return to their country of origin just in the way that Denmark is doing. Picked up for suspecion of a crime and return home regardless if charges are presented for trial or not.
Cannot comment to why they didnt but it is not my point.
Then I would say your point is invalid - it can not be an embrassment or a disgrace to your nation to expell foriegn nationals who do not present their best behavior while visiting your nation.
It's the how and why they get the that feeling I question.
Suspecion of plotting murder of a citizen is a pretty valid reason for expelling a foreign national. While it might not be a crime especially if the police moved while it was just talk, but it demonstrates a willingness to possibly break the law. Justifiable reasons for expelling the foreign national.
AFAIK there is yes.
So it can not be that big of a disgrace of a policy.
I certainly do not deny a nations right to expel foreigners. Its how the procedure works. There is no independent review of PET's assessment and ruling.
If there is an appeal process then there is an independent review. It would seem to me that you have just contradicted your position.
They actually dont even have to specify what the case is about, just that a person(s) is a danger to national security and thats it.
I dont mind secrecy but I dont like an agency/branch to have such power.
So yeah sure it is the law but I still find it a disgrace.
CBR
Again nations have the right to expell vistors that they do not feel are presenting their best behavior. How can that be a disgrace to the law of the land? If your visiting someone's house you should be on your best behavior. The Host does not have to specify why he wants you to leave, only that he wants the individual to leave. National laws can read the exact same way. Which is how it seems the law in Denmark is. Expecting vistors to present their best behavior seems to be a realistic expectation of the state, and ejecting them when they don't seems a realistic outcome when they don't.
In no way does expelling two accused plotters of murder of a Danish citizen violate those individuals human rights, they should of thought about that before getting wrapped up in suspecious behavior.
Views, perhaps. How many do anything? A lot of Europeans protested against the war in Iraq, but when push comes to shove... such mob opinions are easily overestimated, and in the case of the cartoon demonstrations I'd be interested to know how many of the placards calling for people to kill the cartoonist actually attempted to do so, and how many of them there were in the large crowds.
True. ~:) People with such views might give power to those-who-should-not-have-power, however..
MerlinusCDXX
02-13-2008, 19:06
Originally posted by Redleg
Suspecion of plotting murder of a citizen is a pretty valid reason for expelling a foreign national. While it might not be a crime especially if the police moved while it was just talk, but it demonstrates a willingness to possibly break the law. Justifiable reasons for expelling the foreign national.
Agreed.
Doesn't really matter if it was "just talk" or not here in the US, many states here have laws against "conspiracy to commit ________", which makes talking about commiting crimes illegal. These conspiracy laws were in place before 9/11. IIRC they were enacted sometime in the '70's as a "safety net" for what the federal "RICO" act didn't cover (RICO= racketeering influenced corrupt organizations- a way of federally prosecuting organized crime/"mafia" type organizations)
If Denmark has any similar "criminal conspiracy" laws on the books, then talking about murdering someone IS illegal.
The morality is not the question. Rules concerning immgration and naturalization of foreign nationals is not a moral issue, but an ethical one. Besides that where is morality defined in issues regarding to naturalization, and foriegn nationals visiting another land?
Huh? after looking up morality, morals, ethical and ethics I see that as splitting hairs.
I consider it an (insert any of the above mentioned terms you like) issue because I dont see why we should use a different procedure just because they are foreign nationals. Especially when all power needed is given to just one organisation, with no real control over that organisation.
That makes it an opinion not necessarily a better system.
Any system that means less absolute power than we currently have is better, but of course thats just my opinion.
Then I would say your point is invalid - it can not be an embrassment or a disgrace to your nation to expell foriegn nationals who do not present their best behavior while visiting your nation.
And how do we know that? One organisation is what's it called? judge, jury and executioner with a pretty much empty transcript.
So it can not be that big of a disgrace of a policy.
-----
If there is an appeal process then there is an independent review. It would seem to me that you have just contradicted your position.
The appeal only comes into the picture because of the nation they are being expelled to. If it had been a country where there was no torture then no chance.
..they should of thought about that before getting wrapped up in suspecious behavior.
And you have already judged them havent you? Are all suspects guilty now? Why should we apply different standards just because someone happens to be a foreigner. We have no way of knowing if PET made a mistake because no one can check out what PET has on these suspects.
CBR
HoreTore
02-13-2008, 21:08
Suspecion of plotting murder of a citizen is a pretty valid reason for expelling a foreign national. While it might not be a crime especially if the police moved while it was just talk, but it demonstrates a willingness to possibly break the law. Justifiable reasons for expelling the foreign national.
Hell no. That's why we have our court system. If he WAS plotting to kill someone; fine. However, the suspects here are just that; suspects. They have not been found guilty in a court of law, therefore they are still innocent men who are being sent out of the country for no valid reason. A place where our politicians decide who stays and who is removed from our country isn't somewhere I want to live. This is Denmark, but where basically doing the same thing up here...
As CBR said, if you're a citizen, you get the full benefit of the legal system. Non-citizens are subject to whatever the immigration minister/PM feels like doing.
Huh? after looking up morality, morals, ethical and ethics I see that as splitting hairs.
Not at all - morals have a basis in a moral code - immigrantion issues fall within ethics, which has many different forms of input to include morals. Ethics do not necessarily have a right and wrong answer, morals by definition have a right and a wrong. So no its not splitting hairs when you called it immoral in the first place. Lets see if you can provide the moral basis for immigration laws and their enforcement? Define what moral is immigrantion law attempting to prevent, enforce, or protect? If you can not come up with one - it falls within the concept of ethics.
I consider it an (insert any of the above mentioned terms you like) issue because I dont see why we should use a different procedure just because they are foreign nationals. Especially when all power needed is given to just one organisation, with no real control over that organisation.
The procedure is based upon behavior. Do you go to your neighbors house and plot to kill his dog in his presence? Would you not expect your neighbor to ask you to leave?
Any system that means less absolute power than we currently have is better, but of course thats just my opinion.
The less power the government has the better. However when the state is actually attempting to protect a citizen against harm, the expelling of individuals who are not citizens, who seemly demonstrate bad behavior by plotting to kill a citizen does not fall into the line of abuse of power. In fact it seems that the state has indeed followed the law of the land in its handling of the matter.
And how do we know that? One organisation is what's it called? judge, jury and executioner with a pretty much empty transcript.
And how do you know that they are not doing their job correctly? Does this organization have a history of abusing the public trust? From what I have read of Danish law enforcement its not a very abusive system toward the individual rights.
The appeal only comes into the picture because of the nation they are being expelled to. If it had been a country where there was no torture then no chance.
Again it doesnt demonstrate an unfair system. Where the individuals investigated by the police and picked up for plotting to harm a citizen of Denmark?
And you have already judged them havent you? Are all suspects guilty now? Why should we apply different standards just because someone happens to be a foreigner. We have no way of knowing if PET made a mistake because no one can check out what PET has on these suspects.
CBR
When one results to this type of arguement they are not address their own position, they are attempting to argue at the man. Read what I first wrote in my first response - okay I will bite.
It seems you are all eager to think that the government of Denmark is doing something wrong because it is taking the interest of its citizen versus two individuals that got caught up in a misbehavior. So your now trying to turn the arguement around by claiming I believe all suspects are guilty, did you not do the same thing about a police agency of Denmark that you just accused me of? And no, I did not say they were guilty - just that the state is correct in expelling them from the country because they got caught up in suspecious activities. Vistors have an obligation to remain on their best behavior - getting involved in a murder plot - is not being on your best behavior.
You call it a different standard - frankly its not a different standard. They are only being asked to leave the terrority of that nation - not sent to prison. They even have an appeal process because they come from a nation that uses torture, so if they demonstrate that their lives are in danger because of the explusion it will most likely be reversed. Vistors can be asked to leave or told to leave at any time at the host nations discretion.
Is not the state primarily purpose to ensure the welfare of its citizens first and foremost?
Being on a Visa and asked to leave is not a violation of your human rights. You are a guest in the country which means you have to be on your best behavior or your going to be asked to leave. Will mistakes happen, sure because people are not automates that do everything perfectly. However explusion from a nation is not a death sentence, nor is it an unfair prison sentence without a trail.
Hell no. That's why we have our court system. If he WAS plotting to kill someone; fine. However, the suspects here are just that; suspects. They have not been found guilty in a court of law, therefore they are still innocent men who are being sent out of the country for no valid reason. A place where our politicians decide who stays and who is removed from our country isn't somewhere I want to live. This is Denmark, but where basically doing the same thing up here...
With freedom comes responsiblity there HoreTore. You have tried on several occasions to argue once that one can say whatever one feels without having to worry about the consequences of those words. Here is a prime examble that words can get one into trouble just as easy as doing an actual crime. These two men just discovered the error in your line of reasoning, to their cost. Care to guess how many nations expell individuals on visa's that conduct themselves in suspecious behavior?
As CBR said, if you're a citizen, you get the full benefit of the legal system. Non-citizens are subject to whatever the immigration minister/PM feels like doing.
The benefits of being a citizen in a free nation. If you got a problem with that - turn back the clock to the old USSR where everyone was locked up at the whim of the state. Again if your a visitor to someone's house, you had best be on your best behavior, or don't be surprised when they ask you to leave.
HoreTore
02-13-2008, 21:44
The benefits of being a citizen in a free nation. If you got a problem with that - turn back the clock to the old USSR where everyone was locked up at the whim of the state. Again if your a visitor to someone's house, you had best be on your best behavior, or don't be surprised when they ask you to leave.
That the police says they have behaved poorly and whether they actually have behaved poorly is two different things, and we use our courts to decide whether the police is correct or not. Having the police perform the role of the courts is indeed a sign of a police state. Or even worse - having the politicians decide...
But then, I lost all faith in the police security force(PST) when they investigated me for terrorism a few years back... Thank god I'm white and aryan, or I'd likely be in gitmo by now :laugh4:
That the police says they have behaved poorly and whether they actually have behaved poorly is two different things, and we use our courts to decide whether the police is correct or not. Having the police perform the role of the courts is indeed a sign of a police state. Or even worse - having the politicians decide...
It seems that you really don't. If two individuals can be expelled without the court in Denmark - it kinds of give proof that you are incorrect. Then again a Police State does something a little different then having the police arrest and then having foreign nationals on visa's expelled from the state. If you know anything about a Police State you would understand what the intent of that statement is. Police states dont normally just arrest and release citizens they charge, nor do they normally just expel people that have been detained for suspecious behavior.
But then, I lost all faith in the police security force(PST) when they investigated me for terrorism a few years back... Thank god I'm white and aryan, or I'd likely be in gitmo by now :laugh4:
Investigation is not necessarily a bad thing, it all depends on the circumstances involved. Giving the way you write things - especially making comments about burning recruiters at the stake - would indicate that an investigation might have been warranted to ensure it was just an angry, mis-understood youth that was being mouthy versus someone that might need to be arrested. So maybe your PST was actually doing its job and ensuring your protection and safety.
Non-citizens are subject to whatever the immigration minister/PM PET feels like doing.
There I corrected it for you
Our minister of integration has stated she doesnt like the law and never did since it was made back in 2002. But she still signed the papers for expelling them as she couldnt do anything else.
CBR
Papewaio
02-14-2008, 01:54
Not at all - morals have a basis in a moral code - immigrantion issues fall within ethics, which has many different forms of input to include morals. Ethics do not necessarily have a right and wrong answer, morals by definition have a right and a wrong. So no its not splitting hairs when you called it immoral in the first place. Lets see if you can provide the moral basis for immigration laws and their enforcement? Define what moral is immigrantion law attempting to prevent, enforce, or protect? If you can not come up with one - it falls within the concept of ethics.
Its a moral question because all humans should be treated as equals particularly when it comes to the process they are handled by government. Government's actions should be transparent and accountable. Also no branch or group should have the power of judge, jury and executioner without any form of oversight.
Liberty is the freedom to act within the law. If one believes that all men are equal and that they are allowed the same Liberty then they should have the same due process. Now the consequences could be different, say deportation to a foreign jail vs staying in a domestic one. Also it could violate visa conditions and then they risk expulsion. But I do think all humans should get a trial by jury and the worse the crime the more public and transparent the process should be.
Terrorism works out of fear and fear works out of the unknown. I think if they were really are terrorists one would want to trumpet to the world their capture and trial. There are worse things in life then terrorism, one of which is the road to a police state.
So maybe your PST was actually doing its job and ensuring your protection and safety.
“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
And how do you know that they are not doing their job correctly? Does this organization have a history of abusing the public trust? From what I have read of Danish law enforcement its not a very abusive system toward the individual rights.
Problem is that its secret heh. But there has been some cases over the years which suggests that even the minister of justice doesnt have the faintest clue about what they are working on. There has been ongoing discussions for decades about precisely how many were registered and if they were breaking the laws on who they did register.
Back in 1999 it was decided to let a commision go through PET's work during the Cold War. 9 years later it still hasnt finished. The politicians are actually waiting for the conclusions of that report before they can start making some better controls of PET.
It seems you are all eager to think that the government of Denmark is doing something wrong because it is taking the interest of its citizen versus two individuals that got caught up in a misbehavior.
Oh I wish it was the government. But PET is the one doing it. And TBH I really dont trust them enough to take care of everything as they currently are allowed to do.
Even the former head of PET (for 10 years) stated in a interview that he thought it was an odd way of handling it.
One newspaper writes that the murder plot was detailed. If that info is correct then why are they to be expelled and not tried in court.
Apparently PET had them under surveillance for 3 months and during that time they could not come up with anything to hold in court?
In the big terror trial that ended late last year they arrested 8 but 4 were quickly released and one of the 4 tried was acquitted.
Does PET fire a shotgun and hope some of the pellets hit something?
Tomorrow the 72 hours are up so PET will have to face a judge if they want to keep the two Tunisians in custody. It will interesting to see what happens.
CBR
Problem is that its secret heh. But there has been some cases over the years which suggests that even the minister of justice doesnt have the faintest clue about what they are working on. There has been ongoing discussions for decades about precisely how many were registered and if they were breaking the laws on who they did register.
Back in 1999 it was decided to let a commision go through PET's work during the Cold War. 9 years later it still hasnt finished. The politicians are actually waiting for the conclusions of that report before they can start making some better controls of PET.
So the issue you have is that the government set up an agency that is allowed to operate in Secercy for the benefit of the government. Again makes for bad law, and demonstrates that we often get the government that we deserve by our own inaction concerning how our governments operate
Oh I wish it was the government. But PET is the one doing it. And TBH I really dont trust them enough to take care of everything as they currently are allowed to do.
PET does not function as a representive of the government? Interesting a governmental police agency that operates without any government oversite. Again demonstrates the previous point.
Even the former head of PET (for 10 years) stated in a interview that he thought it was an odd way of handling it.
One newspaper writes that the murder plot was detailed. If that info is correct then why are they to be expelled and not tried in court.
Apparently PET had them under surveillance for 3 months and during that time they could not come up with anything to hold in court?
In the big terror trial that ended late last year they arrested 8 but 4 were quickly released and one of the 4 tried was acquitted.
Does PET fire a shotgun and hope some of the pellets hit something?
Tomorrow the 72 hours are up so PET will have to face a judge if they want to keep the two Tunisians in custody. It will interesting to see what happens.
CBR
Yes indeed - should be interesting. If they determine to arrest the two and charge them - then their activities should be tried in court. It doesn't necessary mean that the government can not expel them from Denmark.
Like I said at the very beginning - I will bite on this arguement for the simple reason people often claim that trail by courts for violations of visa and immigrantion law, but often fail to read what is written by their own governments regarding such visa's. Most visa's can be pulled by the host nation for a whole mix of reasons that do not require a court to decide. An individual's behavior can cause that visa to be revoked, and this is true for many nations. Suspecious behavior is a weak reason for the visa to be pulled and the visitor to be expelled from the host nation - but the expectation of the host nation is that the visitor will be on their best behavior. Vistors have to remember that they are visiting on the good grace of the host.
Its a moral question because all humans should be treated as equals particularly when it comes to the process they are handled by government. Government's actions should be transparent and accountable. Also no branch or group should have the power of judge, jury and executioner without any form of oversight.
Liberty is the freedom to act within the law. If one believes that all men are equal and that they are allowed the same Liberty then they should have the same due process. Now the consequences could be different, say deportation to a foreign jail vs staying in a domestic one. Also it could violate visa conditions and then they risk expulsion. But I do think all humans should get a trial by jury and the worse the crime the more public and transparent the process should be.
Terrorism works out of fear and fear works out of the unknown. I think if they were really are terrorists one would want to trumpet to the world their capture and trial. There are worse things in life then terrorism, one of which is the road to a police state.
Good attempt at equating immigration issues to a moral equation, but it still falls a little short. Where is the absolute right and wrong in the equation? What you are missing in your equation is that most nations in the visa application inform the individual about certain expectations, especially activities that might get them expelled. If the individual violates those expectations then why should he be granted a trail for violating a behavior expectation that was known to him? Especially if the behavior does not necessarily require that the individual be given a criminal trail.
With your attempt here - every immigrant caught crossing the border illegally should be given a trail before they are expelled to their home of origin. Where is the fundmental purpose of the state - protecting the welfare of its citizens served in your equation?
“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
Nice attempt - but immigrantion issues and law does not equate to a society giving up liberty to gain a little security. Has Denmark given up any liberty with the formation of PET?
Papewaio
02-14-2008, 05:01
Good attempt at equating immigration issues to a moral equation, but it still falls a little short. Where is the absolute right and wrong in the equation? What you are missing in your equation is that most nations in the visa application inform the individual about certain expectations, especially activities that might get them expelled. If the individual violates those expectations then why should he be granted a trail for violating a behavior expectation that was known to him? Especially if the behavior does not necessarily require that the individual be given a criminal trail.
Really, your forefathers seem to differ, it looks like they felt that it was morally imperative enough that they made it as one of their opening statements in the Declaration of Independence. An article which was designed to give them the moral force to declare war on their Sovereign.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
It then goes into a list of Tyrannies:
"The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences.
A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."
My natural assumption would be that the Founding Fathers thought that Juries were a big thing and that all men were created equal and that they liked to be able to apply their laws to the Foreigners. After all they stated all men are created equal not just local citizens. They appealed to a higher power, they appealed to a moral force and in the appeal they specifically went out of their way to say that 'we have equal rights to everyone else' and they were correct. Just as anyone anywhere should have equal rights and the benefits of a Trial. To do less would in the their words be the actions of Tyrants.
With your attempt here - every immigrant caught crossing the border illegally should be given a trail before they are expelled to their home of origin. Where is the fundmental purpose of the state - protecting the welfare of its citizens served in your equation?
Nice strawman, but I stated Visa = legal immigrant. If you don't have the papers to prove you were legally in a place then you should leave. Mind you in Aus it generally is a bit different as we don't have identity cards.
Nice attempt - but immigrantion issues and law does not equate to a society giving up liberty to gain a little security. Has Denmark given up any liberty with the formation of PET?
Liberty is not diluted by doling it out to the many. It is the opposite, Liberty is strengthened the more it is shared.
HoreTore
02-14-2008, 08:41
So maybe your PST was actually doing its job and ensuring your protection and safety.
They were wasting government resources tracking down a bunch of 15-year olds, even arresting one(not me), for a joke. Sent to the FBI, but still... A harmless joke :beam:
And they proceeded to give NATO clearance to two(at least, not sure what clearance the others have, if any) of us a few years later....(including me)
As to the original topic, I don't see any reason to comment after what pape has said... And if there is anything else I have to add to that, I'm sure he will post it before I'm able to.
Pleased to see most of the newspapers, except naturally the english, are reprinting the cartoons, screw you beards.
Quirinus
02-14-2008, 11:02
Views, perhaps. How many do anything? A lot of Europeans protested against the war in Iraq, but when push comes to shove... such mob opinions are easily overestimated, and in the case of the cartoon demonstrations I'd be interested to know how many of the placards calling for people to kill the cartoonist actually attempted to do so, and how many of them there were in the large crowds.
And personally I don't give a damn about what Muslims in Muslim countries think. That's their business. When they come here, they should stick to our laws - what I find damaging is activities like those of the Saudis and a number of other cases, influencing Muslim groups inside Europe. That should not be tolerated.
As Viking mentioned very succintly, views do matter. Support for the violent extremists' cause might empower them -- covert funds, places of asylum etcetera do help.
That's their business.
Adherents to Islam constitute such a large chunk of the wrold's population that I would say their business is automatically the whole world's business.
Also, AFAIK, the demostrations became riots where people were killed. They were screaming for the blood of the cartoonists specifically, and of the 'western nations' in particular.
Geoffrey S
02-14-2008, 11:29
As Viking mentioned very succintly, views do matter. Support for the violent extremists' cause might empower them -- covert funds, places of asylum etcetera do help.
Politics. What I was arguing against was the idea that religion is really what's behind it. Inciting mobs for political purposes (note that the riots were some time after the publishing of cartoons...) is something else entirely, done by Middle Eastern governments who unfortunately still have the ear of Muslims world wide.
Adherents to Islam constitute such a large chunk of the wrold's population that I would say their business is automatically the whole world's business.
I'm not saying that there shouldn't be responses if what they do impacts on us. When the Taliban made the existence of Al-Qaeda possible, and practically sponsored 9/11 a reaction was thoroughly justified and necessary.
But by and large I'd recommend letting events run their course - most damaging is when business interests coincide with politicians, prompting a conflict of interests quite clearly shown by the invasion of Iraq. All we can do is create an artificial, and ultimately fragile situation at best. What Muslims, who you rightly position as a large chunk of the world population, think inside their borders is their business in the sense that their (cultural) sovereignty must be acknowledged, because forcing a change in balance will anger that large mass of people.
Also, AFAIK, the demostrations became riots where people were killed. They were screaming for the blood of the cartoonists specifically, and of the 'western nations' in particular.
Again, 'western nations'. Not Christians, atheists or anything. Note that they have no issue with the atheist Chinese, who have kept well away from overt interference.
Ignoramus
02-14-2008, 12:53
Because the Chinese aren't "Christian", whereas most Muslims in the Middle East still perceive the west as Christian, even though it's not anymore.
Really, your forefathers seem to differ, it looks like they felt that it was morally imperative enough that they made it as one of their opening statements in the Declaration of Independence. An article which was designed to give them the moral force to declare war on their Sovereign.
And what issues were they addressing. Were they addressing the volunteer worker who is working in another country while maintianing citizenship in another?
Again where is the moral absolute regarding that.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
It then goes into a list of Tyrannies:
"The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences.
A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."
Correct, again where is the moral charter that the founding fathers of the United States address those who have volunteered as workers in a foriegn land but remain citizens in another? If I accept your premis on its face, where is asking/ordering an individual to leave your nation because of his mis-behavior violates this concept? Does not the host have the ability to ask a guest to leave when their behavior is not acceptable? Does not the host have the ability to ask a guest to leave when they are informed of their behavior requirements and that individual violates those requirements?
Again if a guest in your home plots to harm your dog, would you not ask him to leave?
My natural assumption would be that the Founding Fathers thought that Juries were a big thing and that all men were created equal and that they liked to be able to apply their laws to the Foreigners. After all they stated all men are created equal not just local citizens. They appealed to a higher power, they appealed to a moral force and in the appeal they specifically went out of their way to say that 'we have equal rights to everyone else' and they were correct. Just as anyone anywhere should have equal rights and the benefits of a Trial. To do less would in the their words be the actions of Tyrants.
Well two things - we are discussing Denmark which doesn't necessarily follow the reasoning of the Founding Fathers. And second you have still not addressed the guest status that a visa implies. A guest status requires that individuals remain on their best behavior. Since the individual is not being tried and sent to jail only being asked to go home the moral equilevant your after does not necessarily fit. If they were being held for crimes in Denmark - I would agree completely that they must be given a trail. However so far they haven't been charged with a crime, only asked to leave because someone in the government found their behavior questionable.
Nice strawman, but I stated Visa = legal immigrant. If you don't have the papers to prove you were legally in a place then you should leave. Mind you in Aus it generally is a bit different as we don't have identity cards.
Yes indeed it was a nice strawman - however you also argue all men. Are not illegal immigrants also men? So an illegal has to leave, an individual that is on a guest status viva a visa can not be asked to leave but must be given a trail. Sorry that logic just defeats your premise. If your a guest, and the host asks you to leave, that is the host's right. No trail is necessary for that to be valid, nor is it a violation of another's human rights.
Liberty is not diluted by doling it out to the many. It is the opposite, Liberty is strengthened the more it is shared.
Correct - however once again a visa implies that one is a guest, guests can be asked/told to leave.
They were wasting government resources tracking down a bunch of 15-year olds, even arresting one(not me), for a joke. Sent to the FBI, but still... A harmless joke :beam:
Still not accepting that intent is not what concerns law enforcement concerning words - its the impact it has on the reciever. What you might of intented as a harmless joke has real impact on security when threats or accusations are made.
And they proceeded to give NATO clearance to two(at least, not sure what clearance the others have, if any) of us a few years later....(including me)
Still not accepting the fact that the government had to investigate the circumstances of what you called a joke. Police and security outfits normally take all things seriousily until they can determine the nature of the thing.
As to the original topic, I don't see any reason to comment after what pape has said... And if there is anything else I have to add to that, I'm sure he will post it before I'm able to.
So when a guest enters your house he can stay until he decides he wants to leave?
So the issue you have is that the government set up an agency that is allowed to operate in Secercy for the benefit of the government. Again makes for bad law, and demonstrates that we often get the government that we deserve by our own inaction concerning how our governments operate.
They have expanded its responsibilities since 2002 without increasing the control. Before that it was mainly an intelligence gathering service. Some argue it didnt even have enough control back then.
PET does not function as a representive of the government? Interesting a governmental police agency that operates without any government oversite.
Im not sure what you mean? Does ordinary police function as a representative of the government? Politicians are not meant to interfere with ongoing investigations.
If you are ever bored you can always check out their website http://www.pet.dk/English.aspx
The two Tunisians are to be held in custody for another 4 weeks. The prosecutor did not say anything else than the murder plot bit so we dont know more. The two men have appealed the expulsion to the minister of integration.
It also came up that only one had a residence permit while the other had applied for one but it had been rejected.
So all in all they are not gonna be charged with anything but just to be expelled.
CBR
Papewaio
02-15-2008, 01:38
And what issues were they addressing. Were they addressing the volunteer worker who is working in another country while maintianing citizenship in another?
Again where is the moral absolute regarding that.
I don't think that the process for determining guilt should be circumvented based on citizenship. Again I will reiterate that the outcome can and probably will vary based on it. But I do think that a fundamental part of a modern democracy is justice. And that justice is blind, that an accuser gets to see the facts that they are accused of, and that they get a fair trial.
Correct, again where is the moral charter that the founding fathers of the United States address those who have volunteered as workers in a foriegn land but remain citizens in another? If I accept your premis on its face, where is asking/ordering an individual to leave your nation because of his mis-behavior violates this concept? Does not the host have the ability to ask a guest to leave when their behavior is not acceptable? Does not the host have the ability to ask a guest to leave when they are informed of their behavior requirements and that individual violates those requirements?
Again if a guest in your home plots to harm your dog, would you not ask him to leave?
On the level of a person who is legally there they should have normal legal means. Do you think a person who is on a visa has less rights under the law? Why should they not been innocent until proven guilty? And if they are guilty of terrorism then by all means imprison them or execute them. Just don't deny them due process.
Well two things - we are discussing Denmark which doesn't necessarily follow the reasoning of the Founding Fathers. And second you have still not addressed the guest status that a visa implies. A guest status requires that individuals remain on their best behavior. Since the individual is not being tried and sent to jail only being asked to go home the moral equilevant your after does not necessarily fit. If they were being held for crimes in Denmark - I would agree completely that they must be given a trail. However so far they haven't been charged with a crime, only asked to leave because someone in the government found their behavior questionable.
Customs and Immigration are different to normal law enforcement arenas. However I do not think any one unit should be able to investigate, judge and sentence an individual. Basic rights should be universally applied. And when accused of a crime such as murder or terrorism then the accused should get their day in court. Now if they can appeal the decision and have their day in court it is fair. But I don't think we want a situation where an organisation can accuse someone of a capital crime and not have the accused a means of addressing those accusations.
Yes indeed it was a nice strawman - however you also argue all men. Are not illegal immigrants also men? So an illegal has to leave, an individual that is on a guest status viva a visa can not be asked to leave but must be given a trail. Sorry that logic just defeats your premise. If your a guest, and the host asks you to leave, that is the host's right. No trail is necessary for that to be valid, nor is it a violation of another's human rights.
I've always believed that a guest gets treated well by the host, while an intruder gets treated with disdain. I do think once you extend the invitation to an individual to a country they should behave themselves, that if they do anything wrong that they should get kicked out (including not entering with a visa), that if they are accused that they should get the right of appeal and that the worse the accusation the more formal/legal the process should go through. And I believe even illegal immigrants should be treated humanely while they are held prior to deportation. They also should have the right to appeal their deportation so that they can disprove their status as a citizen/resident/visa or refugee. We (Aus) have actually deported several of our own citizens in the past for a variety of murkey reasons (including the Mental state of the citizens not being of sound enough mind to figure out they were in fact an Aussie).
Correct - however once again a visa implies that one is a guest, guests can be asked/told to leave.
Yes, but a country just like a pub will get a black reputation for wrongfully kicking someone out without a just reason.
HoreTore
02-15-2008, 08:22
Still not accepting the fact that the government had to investigate the circumstances of what you called a joke. Police and security outfits normally take all things seriousily until they can determine the nature of the thing.
Might be how things have been/are handled in your country, it sure wasn't that way here before the recent hysteria.
And Denmark has joined the burned car club, congrats :yes:
ps, oh, they are dismayed about being treated differently, as their self-appointed spokesmen managed to throw up.
Alexander the Pretty Good
02-15-2008, 11:13
I read the opening post and though DevDave hacked Goofball. :hide:
They have expanded its responsibilities since 2002 without increasing the control. Before that it was mainly an intelligence gathering service. Some argue it didnt even have enough control back then.
That would be a function of what your government has allowed them to become thien.
Im not sure what you mean? Does ordinary police function as a representative of the government? Politicians are not meant to interfere with ongoing investigations.
The police are a representive of the government because they enforce the laws of the government. If Politicians are interfering with ongoing invstigations then the politician should be voted out of office and maybe investigated themselves.
If you are ever bored you can always check out their website http://www.pet.dk/English.aspx
The two Tunisians are to be held in custody for another 4 weeks. The prosecutor did not say anything else than the murder plot bit so we dont know more. The two men have appealed the expulsion to the minister of integration.
It also came up that only one had a residence permit while the other had applied for one but it had been rejected.
So all in all they are not gonna be charged with anything but just to be expelled.
CBR
Is the holding for 4 more weeks tof the appeal process?
Now it seems from that note that one was a legal permit holder while the other would have an illegimate status for being in the country from what you wrote. Those this change your opinion about the expulsion of at least one of them since on the surface it seems he did not have the right to be in your country in the first place?
Veho Nex
02-15-2008, 15:08
Religion, ones way to generalize and authorise war against the "lower" religions. Man now that is funny.
I don't think that the process for determining guilt should be circumvented based on citizenship. Again I will reiterate that the outcome can and probably will vary based on it. But I do think that a fundamental part of a modern democracy is justice. And that justice is blind, that an accuser gets to see the facts that they are accused of, and that they get a fair trial.
Good thing I am not talking about criminal guilt in a court of law then. What I am talking about is the right of a nation to expell vistors that they decide are no longer welcome. One can argue about the definition of how they decide, but saying that a host has to have a trail to ask a non-citizen to leave seems a bit much to me.
On the level of a person who is legally there they should have normal legal means. Do you think a person who is on a visa has less rights under the law? Why should they not been innocent until proven guilty? And if they are guilty of terrorism then by all means imprison them or execute them. Just don't deny them due process.
Are you saying a host has to have a trail to ask a guest to leave? I am simply saying that a host nation has the ability to ask any visa holder to leave for any reason that violates the visa agreement. If suspecious activity and getting involved in murder plots (yes even just accussed) violates the visa agreement the host nation should have the ability to expel the individual solely based upon the violation of the visa agreement. I am not discussion criminal charges - only the expected behavior of a guest in a host's home. You will probably find that the normal legal means is to ask the individual to leave even if they are not guilty of a crime.
Customs and Immigration are different to normal law enforcement arenas. However I do not think any one unit should be able to investigate, judge and sentence an individual. Basic rights should be universally applied. And when accused of a crime such as murder or terrorism then the accused should get their day in court. Now if they can appeal the decision and have their day in court it is fair. But I don't think we want a situation where an organisation can accuse someone of a capital crime and not have the accused a means of addressing those accusations.
If it was a criminal trail I would agree with you. However its an immigrantion and visa issue. Most visa applications that I have seen have an expectation of behavior of the individual. Being expelled is not a criminal case its a civil manner that must follow the process of the host nation. There is no conviction of a crime per sea only the expellsion from the host nation.
I've always believed that a guest gets treated well by the host, while an intruder gets treated with disdain. I do think once you extend the invitation to an individual to a country they should behave themselves, that if they do anything wrong that they should get kicked out (including not entering with a visa), that if they are accused that they should get the right of appeal and that the worse the accusation the more formal/legal the process should go through. And I believe even illegal immigrants should be treated humanely while they are held prior to deportation. They also should have the right to appeal their deportation so that they can disprove their status as a citizen/resident/visa or refugee. We (Aus) have actually deported several of our own citizens in the past for a variety of murkey reasons (including the Mental state of the citizens not being of sound enough mind to figure out they were in fact an Aussie).
I also agree, and it seems the two gentlemen in Denmark are getting an appeal concerning the expullsion order. But remember expulsion from a host nation is a civil manner, that follows the host nation's visa agreement. Its not a criminal process. Most individuals enter into the visa agreement through a process where the expectations should be presented to them.
Yes, but a country just like a pub will get a black reputation for wrongfully kicking someone out without a just reason.
Correct - however that still does not require a criminal trail only an established process.
Geoffrey S
02-15-2008, 15:17
Because the Chinese aren't "Christian", whereas most Muslims in the Middle East still perceive the west as Christian, even though it's not anymore.
Yes, as opposed to those devout atheist Chinese.
Whether we're Christian or not makes no difference. In the first place they view the West as a political enemy, in the second they label it with what they perceive to be the common factor. Whether it is or not is irrelevant, it's a label which could just as easily have been the 'white man'.
Might be how things have been/are handled in your country, it sure wasn't that way here before the recent hysteria.
Words have power - they always have. One must always accept the responsibility that comes with thier use. Regardless if the outcome was different then the intent.
Vladimir
02-15-2008, 17:44
Religion, ones way to generalize and authorise war against the "lower" religions. Man now that is funny.
It also built the pyramids.
Quirinus
02-15-2008, 18:07
Yes, as opposed to those devout atheist Chinese.
Whether we're Christian or not makes no difference. In the first place they view the West as a political enemy, in the second they label it with what they perceive to be the common factor. Whether it is or not is irrelevant, it's a label which could just as easily have been the 'white man'.
I don't disagree. Still, how does that invalidate the point I was making?
The police are a representive of the government because they enforce the laws of the government.
Then yes PET is a representative of the government.
Is the holding for 4 more weeks tof the appeal process?
No thats because they are considered dangerous or that there is a danger of them going into hiding.
Now it seems from that note that one was a legal permit holder while the other would have an illegimate status for being in the country from what you wrote. Those this change your opinion about the expulsion of at least one of them since on the surface it seems he did not have the right to be in your country in the first place?
Since he would have to leave the country anyway at one point (when visa runs out, not sure when his application was rejected) then I guess one could say it doesnt matter. But as matter of principle it does not change my opinion: PET has expelled him based on reasons that only PET knows with no independent review of the evidence.
CBR
Then yes PET is a representative of the government.
Then if you disagree with the methods being used - there is a recourse for you to pursue if you live in one of the forms of democracy that is in Western Europe - write your representive.
No thats because they are considered dangerous or that there is a danger of them going into hiding.
Given that they are going to be expelled that might be a wise decision to hold them until transportation can be arranged and the appeal process allowed to function.
Since he would have to leave the country anyway at one point (when visa runs out, not sure when his application was rejected) then I guess one could say it doesnt matter. But as matter of principle it does not change my opinion: PET has expelled him based on reasons that only PET knows with no independent review of the evidence.
CBR
It always matters because one should understand how their governmental system works in most areas of public concern. If PET is not functioning the way the government envisioned it to work upon its founding then it should be reviewed by the government to either bring it on line, change its charter to the mission its being asked to perform, or done away with. That is how I envision a representive government should function.
Boyar Son
02-17-2008, 00:01
Because the Chinese aren't "Christian", whereas most Muslims in the Middle East still perceive the west as Christian, even though it's not anymore.
I disagree. The west is the predominant place of christianity. Unless you mean not to the extent as it was before.
Also, wont people learn that immigrant muslims has to be westernized lest they want more murders of extremism to happen...They have to be westernized, or europe is gonna have to cater to their lifestyle instead of immigrants integrating.
ajaxfetish
02-17-2008, 01:29
I disagree. The west is the predominant place of christianity. Unless you mean not to the extent as it was before.
Also, wont people learn that immigrant muslims has to be westernized lest they want more murders of extremism to happen...They have to be westernized, or europe is gonna have to cater to their lifestyle instead of immigrants integrating.
Saying the West isn't Christian anymore doesn't mean it's no longer the primary location of Christians. It means that the identity of the west is no longer defined by Christianity. If it were, then in the second part of your post where you assert that Muslim immigrants must be westernized, you would be asserting that they must convert to Christianity.
Ajax
Boyar Son
02-17-2008, 01:33
Saying the West isn't Christian anymore doesn't mean it's no longer the primary location of Christians. It means that the identity of the west is no longer defined by Christianity. If it were, then in the second part of your post where you assert that Muslim immigrants must be westernized, you would be asserting that they must convert to Christianity.
Ajax
Nope. They just have to adjust to living in europe, not saudi arabia.
Nope. They just have to adjust to living in europe, not saudi arabia.
Yep, but in a consensus-culture it pays to be rigid, you can just keep on demanding.
ajaxfetish
02-17-2008, 07:00
Nope. They just have to adjust to living in europe, not saudi arabia.
You're not understanding me. If the west were still 'Christian' and they were to be 'westernized,' they would have to convert. Of course, they don't have to. Because the west is no longer 'Christian.'
Ajax
Leet Eriksson
02-17-2008, 13:53
what the danish police did was repulse an anti-islamic attempt at further ruining the image of muslims today.
Its very evident in the first page how many posters don't care anymore and resort to the lazy "all muslims = terrorists" brush and move along.
As a muslim, I thank the Denmark for doing us a service. :2thumbsup:
Can we please stop using that word? Blowing up a mosk is anti-islamic, a plot to kill a cartoonist is anti-cartoonist.
Quirinus
02-17-2008, 16:10
Which word are you referring to?
The latest pc trend is to call muslim terrorism 'anti islamic', kinda odd.
Leet Eriksson
02-17-2008, 17:08
Can we please stop using that word? Blowing up a mosk is anti-islamic, a plot to kill a cartoonist is anti-cartoonist.
Now, why should I stop? do you think you know the entire picture?
A bunch of weak willed muslims got cheered on by an equally stupid group following some madman in some cave in afghanistan whose vapid dreams of insurrection have all but gone away, the former idiots thought they'd do the world a favor yet the latter think its the perfect thing for their little plot IF it succeeds, since the negative media could really swing opinions and recruit yet more potential idiots, yet it failed and the danish police saved us all another media circle jerk.
Branding them as heretics is an age old tactic used universally by everyone, and i'm pretty sure every muslim in this board agrees with me, along with every arab government (including saudia arabia) who branded them as "Anti-islamic" or un-islamic if you prefer, because such a dispicable act truly is one.
Now, why should I stop? do you think you know the entire picture?
A bunch of weak willed muslims got cheered on by an equally stupid group following some madman in some cave in afghanistan whose vapid dreams of insurrection have all but gone away, the former idiots thought they'd do the world a favor yet the latter think its the perfect thing for their little plot IF it succeeds, since the negative media could really swing opinions and recruit yet more potential idiots, yet it failed and the danish police saved us all another media circle jerk.
Branding them as heretics is an age old tactic used universally by everyone, and i'm pretty sure every muslim in this board agrees with me, along with every arab government (including saudia arabia) who branded them as "Anti-islamic" or un-islamic if you prefer, because such a dispicable act truly is one.
The way you put it is like it's all about the muslims, a terrorist attack is pretty anti-western if it happens on western ground, but you only see something that goes against your religion when something says boom?
Kralizec
02-17-2008, 21:06
what the danish police did was repulse an anti-islamic attempt at further ruining the image of muslims today.
Leet Erikson, I agree with something what has been said more than once here: that you shouldn't blame an entire group of people for something that a few of them have done.
I have a problem with this, though. Saying "all muslims are terrorists" is wrong, but doesn't that imply that saying "these terrorists aren't muslim, what they did was unislamic" is an empty statement as well?
Leet Eriksson
02-17-2008, 23:30
Leet Erikson, I agree with something what has been said more than once here: that you shouldn't blame an entire group of people for something that a few of them have done.
I have a problem with this, though. Saying "all muslims are terrorists" is wrong, but doesn't that imply that saying "these terrorists aren't muslim, what they did was unislamic" is an empty statement as well?
I'm pretty sure i'm not the only one calling them unislamic, its really coming from a muslim you see so i'm pretty baffled why i should even consider these people as muslim when what they are doing aren't even going to reflect very well on us.
Also last i checked several imams across the arab world also condenmend such actions as unislamic, i'm pretty sure that it carries alot more weight when Al Sudayes the grand mufti of mecca said it.
Boyar Son
02-18-2008, 00:04
You're not understanding me. If the west were still 'Christian' and they were to be 'westernized,' they would have to convert. Of course, they don't have to. Because the west is no longer 'Christian.'
Ajax
the west is predominantly christian, but you have to convert to another religion tho. Jews live here just fine when nazis arent involved.
i'm pretty sure that it carries alot more weight when Al Sudayes the grand mufti of mecca said it.
No, you have to elect some sort of grand mufti pope first. ~;)
Then have him say all sorts of things "in your name" that you don't agree with.
I'm pretty sure i'm not the only one calling them unislamic, its really coming from a muslim you see so i'm pretty baffled why i should even consider these people as muslim when what they are doing aren't even going to reflect very well on us.
Well yeah but they are muslims nevertheless, nutty ones, but they are. So maybe it's unislamic I wouldn't know, but it certainly wasn't an anti-islamic attempt at further ruining the image of muslims as you put it, it was an attempt to ship a cartoonist to halalistan. Nothing anti-islamic about it because it wasn't the islam that was attacked.
Leet Eriksson
02-18-2008, 15:00
Well yeah but they are muslims nevertheless, nutty ones, but they are. So maybe it's unislamic I wouldn't know, but it certainly wasn't an anti-islamic attempt at further ruining the image of muslims as you put it, it was an attempt to ship a cartoonist to halalistan. Nothing anti-islamic about it because it wasn't the islam that was attacked.
I'm pretty sure they don't really care about the cartoonist, they just want some negative hype to recruit more people to their ranks, becuase i can't see any other reason for it.
I'm pretty sure they don't really care about the cartoonist, they just want some negative hype to recruit more people to their ranks, becuase i can't see any other reason for it.
Possibly, feed the flame. Peaceloving muslims really need to get their act straight, I have grown a lot milder over the years but I am really getting tired of this crap, we don't deserve it.
Kralizec
02-18-2008, 15:34
Also last i checked several imams across the arab world also condenmend such actions as unislamic, i'm pretty sure that it carries alot more weight when Al Sudayes the grand mufti of mecca said it.
So Imams can retroactively declare that any person who did something bad is not a muslim afterall.
I see.
HoreTore
02-18-2008, 17:52
So Imams can retroactively declare that any person who did something bad is not a muslim afterall.
I see.
Would that be just like a member of any religion/ideology/organization routinely denounce those who make them look bad?
For example:
Stalin abused the socialist system.
The crusades were influenced by worldly greed, not christian belief.
etc, etc
Any argument is like water in your hands if imams can denounce responsibility so easily, just say it's unislamic and be done with it. That makes those that do and those that watch, can't be too pleased with either. Believe there is even a word for it 'taqfir'(?) but under muslim law only a grand-beard is allowed to declare it, is supposed to be somewhat of a point of discussion between the sunni's and the shii'tis.
Leet Eriksson
02-19-2008, 14:04
Would that be just like a member of any religion/ideology/organization routinely denounce those who make them look bad?
For example:
Stalin abused the socialist system.
The crusades were influenced by worldly greed, not christian belief.
etc, etc
Its ok if its everyone except muslims, you see.
Its ok if its everyone except muslims, you see.
That wasn't his point. His point is that everyone claims that those who commit evil acts in the name of that organization/religion are acting in a way against the principles after the fact.
For instance what do you think of the teaching of children to commit violence and hate against their fellow man? If I point to the Aryan Nation here in the United States, I would say that they are a bunch of dumn knuckleheads who haven't a clue. Who are misguided in their interpation of the Bible that they are using as a tool to preach hate. That when I see such knuckleheads I normally call them out on their behavior, unless of course I see danger in doing so. Calling them un-christian or anti-christian is of little meaning.
What we see is that we have cleric calling them un-islamic but what I dont see is the active process of saying that teaching our children to hate is wrong.
Leet Eriksson
02-19-2008, 16:35
That wasn't his point. His point is that everyone claims that those who commit evil acts in the name of that organization/religion are acting in a way against the principles after the fact.
I completely agree with his point and fully understand it, but my reply was aimed towards fragony, in an ironic way :juggle2:
but what I dont see is the active process of saying that teaching our children to hate is wrong
If you think thats not happening you're deluding yourself, go read al jazeera english or al khaleej times or other arab publications in english, and ask other muslims you know in life, on the internet (my opinion is not enough), get an idea of whats actually happening in the middle east.
I completely agree with his point and fully understand it, but my reply was aimed towards fragony, in an ironic way :juggle2:
The ironic nature of your post defeated you then. Your message is lost in your attempt.
If you think thats not happening you're deluding yourself, go read al jazeera english or al khaleej times or other arab publications in english, and ask other muslims you know in life, on the internet (my opinion is not enough), get an idea of whats actually happening in the middle east.
Instead of being defensive about your religion, and what another's honest viewpoint states because it contradicts yours, maybe you should actually read what is stated and attempt to explain what is being done to actually stop the teaching of hate. Are you jumping to a conclusion because you are becoming defensive about an image that unfortunately those who use violence is creating concerning muslims? Where is the clerics telling muslims not to hate jews for instance,? Havent read that in any paper. What about the consent violence done in Israel by both sides? What are the clerics saying to help stop the violence in that area of the world? I happen to read recently of an attempt by Iran to do just the opposite because of the cartoons that drew this murder plot.
I happen to read several papers in english from the Middle-East to include the Jordan Times and Al Jazeera. Abit not recently but as of several months ago, and like I said I see lots about training kids to hate Israel and the United States - yes that is even in the Jordan Times and Al Jazeera. Care to comment about the last training video that has made the news where Kids are being trained to seize hostages? How about the textbooks in Palenstine that teach hate? Oh there are other personal observations from the Middle-East to include seeing a shop owner pulled from a store and beaten by Saudi Police because he didnt close the store fast enough prior to the call to prayer. So don't try to play that little game of saying someone is deluding oneself, because it often turns out that the one pointing the finger has four pointing back at himself.
Now if in the last 6 months the Middle-East is actually attempting to correct that image - then great, since I have been very busy lately and my reading is way behind. But when such events such as this still happen, I would say that the image you are trying to protray is not as accurate as you would like us to believe. Calling something un-islamic is a start - and maybe as time goes on it will develop into a stopping of the violence, but I remember the celebration concerning several violent events that happened in the Middle-East, so I would say that the clerics and muslims in general still have a long way to go to correct the misunderstanding of the zealots who use violence and the people who celebrate that violence in the name of religion. I will try to catch up on my readings on the subject that is sooner then the last 6 monthes, and maybe that shift has happened.
But you might want to do a little better job of explaining what your point is versus trying the ironic and sarcastic posts against the person whom disagrees with your point of view. It will go a lot farther then your current attempt.
The ironic nature of your post defeated you then. Your message is lost in your attempt.
Well, I got it.
Got it many times, critisize just this and you are against all that nothing new.
Tribesman
02-19-2008, 18:56
Well, I got it.
Yep , me too , its a pretty standard dig at Frag in any topic remotely mentioning the word muslim.:yes:
Yep , me too , its a pretty standard dig at Frag in any topic remotely mentioning the word muslim.:yes:
Or Frag mentioning the word muslim, kinda odd it never goes any further then that, omgyouhatemuslims, no matter what is said. Extremism is a weird thing.
Leet Eriksson
02-20-2008, 00:47
Oh snap!
http://politiken.dk/indland/article473491.ece
During the arrests of the men who according to the PET planned to kill a cartoonist, the PET didn't collect as much as a pen for evidence.
The Danish Security and Intelligence Service (PET) apparently did not feel a need to gather knowledge about the men who are suspected of planning to kill one of the Muhammad cartoonists.
When the police stormed the men's apartments in Århus, they took neither computers, CDs or cash with them, says a wife of one of the men to DR News.
Two Tunisian men are detained in the case. They are being deported administratively—without trial, that is.
Their attorney, Frank Wenzel, thinks the PET's lacking interest in a search clearly shows that they weren't looking to secure any form of evidence.
"It's a very odd mode of procedure. Right from the start it's been clear that they only wanted to deport the men. But then you don't need to bust down their doors at five in the morning, throw them to the floor and point guns at them. There would have been a better way to go about it," says Frank Wenzel to Ritzau.
"The wives of my clients say that the police didn't take as much as a pen," he adds.
He thinks the intelligence service probably has a reason for doing things that way.
"But whatever that is you'll have to ask the PET," says Frank Wenzel.
The PET refused to answer DR News' questions about the case.
This case just got weird.
Boom? This true? Dutch newspapers are living the dream and thus ignore this, danes?
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jakob_illeborg/2008/02/a_turn_for_the_worse.html
HoreTore
02-21-2008, 13:39
It's a sad thing really, after 9/11, every time a bomb goes off it's got to be dem terrorists.
Nobody(who matters, at least) are even suspecting this to be the work of muslims or in response to any drawings, frag.
The rioting isn't linked to the cartoons, and I highly doubt that this bomb was. What's the sense of bombing a suntanning place to scare off newspapers? :dizzy2:
Personally, I'm betting the owner was involved in some shady business and this was a "reminder" to pay off a debt or something...
There is nothing that suggests that the bombing has anything to do with the cartoons. Last night another solarium was burned.
And from all the stuff I read so far I have not seen many rioters claim it was because of the cartoons either. But ok its not like I sit glued to the TV all day.
CBR
Vladimir
02-21-2008, 14:27
There is nothing that suggests that the bombing has anything to do with the cartoons. Last night another solarium was burned.
And from all the stuff I read so far I have not seen many rioters claim it was because of the cartoons either. But ok its not like I sit glued to the TV all day.
CBR
It was the cops :yes:
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/080219/world/denmark_unrest_4
Yes that was the thing repeated the most AFAIK. Some of it might even be true. I think authorities will be looking into that.
Another likely reason would be parents that are totally out of touch on how to raise their boys in a modern western society.
CBR
There is nothing that suggests that the bombing has anything to do with the cartoons. Last night another solarium was burned.
Let me guess they are dissapointed by their social position. Ah well at least the Danish police were allowed to arrest a few of them when they were caught red-handed, that would be absolutily unthinkable here with the current leadership.
HoreTore
02-21-2008, 19:36
Another likely reason would be parents that are totally out of touch on how to raise their boys in a modern western society.
AHEM!
*kindly reminds CBR of the danish youth riot last year*
Vladimir
02-21-2008, 19:57
I like all this talk of Denmark. Reminds me of a backroom video.
AHEM!
*kindly reminds CBR of the danish youth riot last year*
And?
Just because some other people make riots doesnt mean it has to be same reasons behind it. The Danish youth didnt claim the police was after them nor was that the reason for it.
CBR
HoreTore
02-21-2008, 20:15
And?
Just because some other people make riots doesnt mean it has to be same reasons behind it. The Danish youth didnt claim the police was after them nor was that the reason for it.
CBR
The point was that it looks like the immigrants aren't the only ones who can't raise their kids to fit into society...
But hey, we've got a riot every 5-10 years in the capitol here too. I'd says it's human nature.
Besides - rioting is damn fun.
@Vladimir: it would be this one? https://youtube.com/watch?v=s-mOy8VUEBk :beam:
Vladimir
02-21-2008, 20:21
@Vladimir: it would be this one? https://youtube.com/watch?v=s-mOy8VUEBk :beam:
:laugh4: I can't see it from here but now I want to visit!
The point was that it looks like the immigrants aren't the only ones who can't raise their kids to fit into society...
But hey, we've got a riot every 5-10 years in the capitol here too. I'd says it's human nature.
Besides - rioting is damn fun.
If you are going to dismiss rioting as just a fun part of human nature I can see why you are not interested in understanding the reasons behind riots.
CBR
HoreTore
02-22-2008, 11:16
If you are going to dismiss rioting as just a fun part of human nature I can see why you are not interested in understanding the reasons behind riots.
Whoa - did I hit a nerve or something?
Whoa - did I hit a nerve or something?
Care to explain why rioting is the fun part of human nature? Ever see the end result of a violent riot? How about picking up the pieces after a riot? Especially the dead.
Calling riots fun is a ridiculous statement.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.