Six Months for burning a baby alive

First topic message reminder :

Israel Has Jailed a Jewish Extremist for Six Months Without Trial

The Defense Minister signed an order that jails extremist Mordechai Meyer

(JERUSALEM) — Israel has jailed a Jewish extremist for six months without charges or trial, expanding a crackdown against militant Jews and deploying a contentious measure typically used for Palestinians suspected of staging attacks.
This was the first time the measure, known as administrative detention, was applied against an Israeli since the crackdown began following a pair of deadly attacks last week.
Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon signed an order late Tuesday that jailed extremist Mordechai Meyer, from the West Bank settlement of Maaleh Adumim, for six months.
A statement from Yaalon’s office said Meyer, 18, was being held in connection to “his involvement in violent activities and recent terror attacks.”

http://time.com/3985207/jewish-extremism-west-bank-attack/




!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   They give Palestinians children 10 years for throwing stones.   Fucking bastards!

OFGS!!!!!  Honestly Quill, you simply don't get it at all.  They know he did it, it gets him out of the way until the heat dies down.   And they don't use criminal charges against settlers, they just quietly let them go.

sassy wrote:OFGS!!!!!  Honestly Quill, you simply don't get it at all.  They know he did it, it gets him out of the way until the heat dies down.   And they don't use criminal charges against settlers, they just quietly let them go.

Ok, now back to my first question: what is your proof that "they know he did it"?

Let's say I don't trust you anymore than the Israelis.  The Israelis have proffered their case: they don't have the evidence to prosecute Meyer.

Now, what proof do you have that: 1) Meyer did it; 2) the administrative detention is a dodge to shield him from prosecution.

I'm also a bit confused about this thread. This chap has been jailed for terrorist activities, but nowhere does it say that anyone knows for sure he burnt the baby. Also, how can anyone be sure that he will be let out after six months?

Didn't we have a similar thing here where people suspected of terrorism could be locked up, but then there was an appeal, so they couldn't do that any more?

Raggamuffin wrote:I'm also a bit confused about this thread. This chap has been jailed for terrorist activities, but nowhere does it say that anyone knows for sure he burnt the baby. Also, how can anyone be sure that he will be let out after six months?

Didn't we have a similar thing here where people suspected of terrorism could be locked up, but then there was an appeal, so they couldn't do that any more?

If I recall correctly, that was the legal rationale used to detain so-called terrorists at Guantanamo  Bay.  The government assigned them a status of 'enemy combatants' (i.e., POWs), and claimed under the Conventions they were being held without trial as legitimate detainees.

Only they weren't POWs of any war.  The Administration claimed that they were detainees in the War on Terrorism, giving a metaphor new status.  It is like detaining someone as an 'enemy combatant' in the war on poverty.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I'm also a bit confused about this thread. This chap has been jailed for terrorist activities, but nowhere does it say that anyone knows for sure he burnt the baby. Also, how can anyone be sure that he will be let out after six months?

Didn't we have a similar thing here where people suspected of terrorism could be locked up, but then there was an appeal, so they couldn't do that any more?

If I recall correctly, that was the legal rationale used to detain so-called terrorists at Guantanamo  Bay.  The government assigned them a status of 'enemy combatants' (i.e., POWs), and claimed under the Conventions they were being held without trial as legitimate detainees.

Only they weren't POWs of any war.  The Administration claimed that they were detainees in the War on Terrorism, giving a metaphor new status.  It is like detaining someone as an 'enemy combatant' in the war on poverty.

Yes, it was something similar. Actually, maybe they can still do it - not sure now.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

If I recall correctly, that was the legal rationale used to detain so-called terrorists at Guantanamo  Bay.  The government assigned them a status of 'enemy combatants' (i.e., POWs), and claimed under the Conventions they were being held without trial as legitimate detainees.

Only they weren't POWs of any war.  The Administration claimed that they were detainees in the War on Terrorism, giving a metaphor new status.  It is like detaining someone as an 'enemy combatant' in the war on poverty.

Yes, it was something similar. Actually, maybe they can still do it - not sure now.

Well, they never could do it constitutionally within the US.  It's a violation of the 5th-Amendment to the US Constitution.

That's why the detainees are held off-short of the US proper. Guantanamo is leased property from Cuba.