Prisoners of war don't get an arraignment and bail. What are you even talking about.
I'm not talking about prisoners of war anywhere there.
Prisoners taken in a warzone under suspicion. Administrative detention. Call it however. No diplomatic status. Citizens of no legitimate state. Hamas is a terrorist organization. They don't get to have a state. They are actual war criminals for all intents and purposes, and in all pursuits. War crimes are never punished in Gaza, often rewarded, always revered. Hamas is indefensible and unredeemable for what they've done to millions of people of have lived and died in Gaza without any prospects, having turned every institution into modalities of Iranian-vassal terrorism. Give me a break.
Prisoners taken in a warzone under suspicion. Administrative detention. Call it however.
Again, nothing to do with war, NOT prisoners of war. Hostages by another name. How did you not know about this?
They are actual war criminals for all intents and purposes, and in all pursuits. War crimes are never punished in Gaza Israel, often rewarded, always revered.
Also true this way around. Israel has been committing war crimes for 7 months straight now.
Israel has been committing war crimes for 7 months straight now.
Why only 7 months and not more? Did something change Israel's intentions to spend more time on commiting war crimes?
I could say hamas has been commiting war crimes for years now. Would that be wrong?
Why only 7 months and not more? Did something change Israel's intentions to spend more time on commiting war crimes?
Yeah I mean we can keep going back if you like, but I was just talking about the current war, obviously.
I could say hamas has been commiting war crimes for years now. Would that be wrong?
It would be totally right. Why stop there? They have not allowed a free and fair election since they were voted in. They are tyrants.
Go read the ICJ preliminary order and the express finding that Israel does prosecute war criminals. And guess what? It's true. The Qatari state/ pro-Trump/pro-Russia media diet you are gorging yourself on does not cover it at all.
Hamas are war criminals...in all pursuits.
No, that's not also true about Israel. You are looking at a small isolated thing, which I think you are portraying unfairly and incompletely, but fine we can disagree.
But Israel has a legitimate government that has stabily for decades provided essential services to tens of millions of people.
Glad you agree Hamas must go.
What's your plan to make that happen? How would you destroy the tunnels?
You'd do the best you could. That means ordinance and coordinated evacuations and warnings, knowing that the civilian population is going to follow Hamas around up above like one of those artic foxes stalking a tundra shrew below the snow, so they can win Martyrdom™ prizes, paid in rial, no doubt. Such disregard for their own side's civilians is unprecedented in warfare. International law is based on precedent.
Sorry did you just totally ignore the administrative detention thing? We can talk about this stuff afterwards. Do you see how these people are hostages?
No not at all. Hostages? Of who? No one wants to trade anyone for anything, except Hamas.
I see how there exists in Gaza a pervasive, deranged culture of support for terrorism and willing "martyrdom," a wilfull disregard for life or law, material support of which justifies administrative detention. Easily. Do you not?
I shared this link with you a couple of messages back. Do you agree that being imprisoned indefinitely, not during an explicit time of war (ie it has happened for many many years now, these are not prisoners of war) and with NO CHARGE is equivalent to being a hostage?
I've seen the link spammed again and again. You should read it so you can appreciate that you're talking about a few hundred to a few thousand people.
Boo hoo. How many millions of Gazans have to live and die under Hamas with zero hope for peace or human rights?
I've seen the link spammed again and again. You should read it so you can appreciate that you're talking about a few hundred to a few thousand people.
So more hostages than Hamas is holding?
Nobody is trading them for anything stop calling them hostages. Call them detainees. As usual the claim you've made against Israel is wildly exaggerated.
They couldn't play nice in the neighborhood without helping trying to blow anything up so they don't get to play outside with their friends.
My highschool had more students than Israel has administrative detainees. For some years, my middle school even had more. Seems about right. Hamas is (was) 20,000~ strong, obviously they enjoy massive public support and aid.
There's more important considerations than 3,600 detainees. Most of them are very temporary, based on levels of suspicion and probable cause, on emerging intelligence and progressing investigation. Do you really think most of them aren't accomplices or coconspirators? Some of them are going to be hopeless cases who will probably never see the sun again. Oh no, how will I sleep at night?! Easily and restfully. What keeps me up is the thought that so many of my compatriots in the West have been force fed these wild exaggerations, day in, day out, since day one, and that because the news got too sad for too many, the world will sit back and let Iran park a proxy state owned by terrorists right on Israel's border. Not going to happen though, so, zzzzz.
Nobody is trading them for anything stop calling them hostages. Call them detainees. As usual the claim you've made against Israel is wildly exaggerated.
We can break down the terminology issue.
We have people who are not charged with any crime (ie innocent), who are taken against their will and held in captivity until their captor either decides to let them go or somebody breaks them out.
We could call it anything we want. "Innocent people held by someone/an organisation against their will." Both the Israelis taken on October 7th and the Palestinians held without charge are "Innocent people held by someone/an organisation against their will." The same thing has happened to them.
So do we call them all hostages or all detainees?
They couldn't play nice in the neighborhood without helping trying to blow anything up so they don't get to play outside with their friends.
You're a lawyer, right? Is this a fair description of someone who is not charged with a crime?
That's an insightful, direct question. Truly appreciate it.
We're speaking of people held without charge under administrative detention. It falls short of rote internment only by the fact that it's intended to and generally is reasonably temporary. Read your own article. It's like a revolving door.
There is no fairly analogous type of criminal detention. The closest is custodial arrest, but that's way more temporary in scope; charges are either filed or not in western criminal procedure usually within hours, commonly known as "48-hour hold," with a process for a longer hold if there's a component of irreparable harm, that's commonly known as a "72-hour" hole. After charge, the accused have a right, at least where I am, to a probable cause and bail hearing, and maybe to post bond, and then the accused is released pending trial.
These folks aren't accused, they are suspects albeit still being investigated, but there's enough suspicion to justify holding them longer than what would be typical in the usual criminal setting, i.e., a 72 hour hold, given the potential for irreparable harm if the suspect gets released without charges and goes back to the suspected criminal enterprise, which in this case is international terrorism, hostage taking, rocket attacks, and mass shooting. Most of them though aren't being wrongfully detained. It really sucks. As someone who very early did a 180 on a career of prosecuting cases, and have since only ever defended the accused, I hate what this administrative detention means to well-founded, hard-won notions of fairness and justice. But it doesn't break humanity. I know there's no justice for those wrongly caught up in it. That doesn't make it unjustified.
My state pays wrongful incarcerees restitution by a statutory formula; locking up innocent people is inevitable, so we account for it. If Gaza had diplomatic status and would get out from under the utter tyranny of Hamas, nice things like that could exist, instead of just surviving on charity. I believe the good will of the western world will endeavor to indemnify the inevitable victims of such inherent unfairness. Not going to negotiate with terrorists on it, that's for sure. When a state collapses after all its institutions are coopted by violent extremists and criminals, this is roughly what reconstruction looks like, right? It's scène à faire. We both agree it's offensive to behold.
Paragraph three is what I'm citing for the proposition that Israel is redeemable. Their government has a Supreme Court and in it exists a right of habeas corpus. The detainees you are talking about are, in a significant way, having their day in court right now. Even the detainees at Gitmo, except maybe one or two stateless souls no-one will take, got their day via habeas corpus.
Prisoners of war don't get an arraignment and bail. What are you even talking about.
I'm not talking about prisoners of war anywhere there.
Prisoners taken in a warzone under suspicion. Administrative detention. Call it however. No diplomatic status. Citizens of no legitimate state. Hamas is a terrorist organization. They don't get to have a state. They are actual war criminals for all intents and purposes, and in all pursuits. War crimes are never punished in Gaza, often rewarded, always revered. Hamas is indefensible and unredeemable for what they've done to millions of people of have lived and died in Gaza without any prospects, having turned every institution into modalities of Iranian-vassal terrorism. Give me a break.
Here you go, something fun to learn: https://www.btselem.org/administrative_detention
Again, nothing to do with war, NOT prisoners of war. Hostages by another name. How did you not know about this?
Also true this way around. Israel has been committing war crimes for 7 months straight now.
Why only 7 months and not more? Did something change Israel's intentions to spend more time on commiting war crimes?
I could say hamas has been commiting war crimes for years now. Would that be wrong?
Yeah I mean we can keep going back if you like, but I was just talking about the current war, obviously.
It would be totally right. Why stop there? They have not allowed a free and fair election since they were voted in. They are tyrants.
Go read the ICJ preliminary order and the express finding that Israel does prosecute war criminals. And guess what? It's true. The Qatari state/ pro-Trump/pro-Russia media diet you are gorging yourself on does not cover it at all.
No, that's not also true about Israel. You are looking at a small isolated thing, which I think you are portraying unfairly and incompletely, but fine we can disagree.
But Israel has a legitimate government that has stabily for decades provided essential services to tens of millions of people.
Glad you agree Hamas must go.
What's your plan to make that happen? How would you destroy the tunnels?
You'd do the best you could. That means ordinance and coordinated evacuations and warnings, knowing that the civilian population is going to follow Hamas around up above like one of those artic foxes stalking a tundra shrew below the snow, so they can win Martyrdom™ prizes, paid in rial, no doubt. Such disregard for their own side's civilians is unprecedented in warfare. International law is based on precedent.
Sorry did you just totally ignore the administrative detention thing? We can talk about this stuff afterwards. Do you see how these people are hostages?
No not at all. Hostages? Of who? No one wants to trade anyone for anything, except Hamas.
I see how there exists in Gaza a pervasive, deranged culture of support for terrorism and willing "martyrdom," a wilfull disregard for life or law, material support of which justifies administrative detention. Easily. Do you not?
This is what "administrative detention" means: https://www.btselem.org/administrative_detention
I shared this link with you a couple of messages back. Do you agree that being imprisoned indefinitely, not during an explicit time of war (ie it has happened for many many years now, these are not prisoners of war) and with NO CHARGE is equivalent to being a hostage?
I've seen the link spammed again and again. You should read it so you can appreciate that you're talking about a few hundred to a few thousand people.
Boo hoo. How many millions of Gazans have to live and die under Hamas with zero hope for peace or human rights?
So more hostages than Hamas is holding?
Nobody is trading them for anything stop calling them hostages. Call them detainees. As usual the claim you've made against Israel is wildly exaggerated.
They couldn't play nice in the neighborhood without helping trying to blow anything up so they don't get to play outside with their friends.
My highschool had more students than Israel has administrative detainees. For some years, my middle school even had more. Seems about right. Hamas is (was) 20,000~ strong, obviously they enjoy massive public support and aid.
There's more important considerations than 3,600 detainees. Most of them are very temporary, based on levels of suspicion and probable cause, on emerging intelligence and progressing investigation. Do you really think most of them aren't accomplices or coconspirators? Some of them are going to be hopeless cases who will probably never see the sun again. Oh no, how will I sleep at night?! Easily and restfully. What keeps me up is the thought that so many of my compatriots in the West have been force fed these wild exaggerations, day in, day out, since day one, and that because the news got too sad for too many, the world will sit back and let Iran park a proxy state owned by terrorists right on Israel's border. Not going to happen though, so, zzzzz.
We can break down the terminology issue.
We have people who are not charged with any crime (ie innocent), who are taken against their will and held in captivity until their captor either decides to let them go or somebody breaks them out.
We could call it anything we want. "Innocent people held by someone/an organisation against their will." Both the Israelis taken on October 7th and the Palestinians held without charge are "Innocent people held by someone/an organisation against their will." The same thing has happened to them.
So do we call them all hostages or all detainees?
You're a lawyer, right? Is this a fair description of someone who is not charged with a crime?
That's an insightful, direct question. Truly appreciate it.
We're speaking of people held without charge under administrative detention. It falls short of rote internment only by the fact that it's intended to and generally is reasonably temporary. Read your own article. It's like a revolving door.
There is no fairly analogous type of criminal detention. The closest is custodial arrest, but that's way more temporary in scope; charges are either filed or not in western criminal procedure usually within hours, commonly known as "48-hour hold," with a process for a longer hold if there's a component of irreparable harm, that's commonly known as a "72-hour" hole. After charge, the accused have a right, at least where I am, to a probable cause and bail hearing, and maybe to post bond, and then the accused is released pending trial.
These folks aren't accused, they are suspects albeit still being investigated, but there's enough suspicion to justify holding them longer than what would be typical in the usual criminal setting, i.e., a 72 hour hold, given the potential for irreparable harm if the suspect gets released without charges and goes back to the suspected criminal enterprise, which in this case is international terrorism, hostage taking, rocket attacks, and mass shooting. Most of them though aren't being wrongfully detained. It really sucks. As someone who very early did a 180 on a career of prosecuting cases, and have since only ever defended the accused, I hate what this administrative detention means to well-founded, hard-won notions of fairness and justice. But it doesn't break humanity. I know there's no justice for those wrongly caught up in it. That doesn't make it unjustified.
My state pays wrongful incarcerees restitution by a statutory formula; locking up innocent people is inevitable, so we account for it. If Gaza had diplomatic status and would get out from under the utter tyranny of Hamas, nice things like that could exist, instead of just surviving on charity. I believe the good will of the western world will endeavor to indemnify the inevitable victims of such inherent unfairness. Not going to negotiate with terrorists on it, that's for sure. When a state collapses after all its institutions are coopted by violent extremists and criminals, this is roughly what reconstruction looks like, right? It's scène à faire. We both agree it's offensive to behold.
I'm rooting for democracy.
PayWall WaPo: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/05/01/israel-gaza-detainees-high-court/
Archived at https://archive.ph/txOw5
Paragraph three is what I'm citing for the proposition that Israel is redeemable. Their government has a Supreme Court and in it exists a right of habeas corpus. The detainees you are talking about are, in a significant way, having their day in court right now. Even the detainees at Gitmo, except maybe one or two stateless souls no-one will take, got their day via habeas corpus.