If al-Qid Preferes to Starve, Let Him.

[Phoenall]

So what crime did he commit?

Ties to a known terrorist group. Enough evidence to have him arrested in most civilised nations. The UK has deported muslims for the same reasons

What "enough evidence" specifically since you seem to know this.

Ties to a known terrorist group, as in lawyers with ties to the mafia or gang bangers with ties to the local drug barons. You cant be selective with laws just because one side is Jewish and so does not deserve any legal support.

If he had ties to a terrorist organisation he would have been charged with it. He hasnt, and neither has he been on the 3 other occasions they have locked him up without charge.

He was involved with a youth movement when he was in college but there is no evidence that he is today. This is a corrupt government silencing critics.

I'm wondering if the fact that he's a journalist is a part of it.

RSF concerned about journalist held without charge since November - Reporters Without Borders

How do you stand on the arrest of muslim terrorists caged in Gitmo then ?

 

[Phoenall]

Israel does not have a good reputation for free press or journalists, according to Reporters Sans Frontiers:

It's ranked 101 out of 180 countries for press freedom in 2015:
2015 World Press Freedom Index


Israeli army deliberately targeting news professionals - Reporters Without Borders

Operation “Brother’s Keeper” and its consequences for Palestinian media [1]


On 22 June, Israeli security forces raided the offices of two printing companies in the city of Ramallah, Turbo Computers and Software Co. Ltd and Jeel Publishing Co. Ltd., which publish, respectively, the Palestinian cultural magazine This Week in Palestine and the monthly Filistin Ashabab. Seven computers were seized, dealing a serious blow to the printing of the two magazines.


“During our 28-year history, we have had no affiliation with any political faction,” Turbo Computers CEO Sani Paul Meo said in a press release. “This Week in Palestine is a 15-year-old nonpolitical cultural publication.” He added, “We reserve the right to claim reparation for damages incurred and to consider legal action, both locally and internationally.”


An Israeli military spokesman said that “propaganda and incitement materials linked to Hamas were being printed at this place.”


At dawn on 22 June, the Israeli army searched the Bethlehem home of Sahib Al-Assa and his brother, Fadi. Both are correspondents for radio Bethlehem 2000. Sahib Al-Assa was taken to a military outpost at Beit Sahour and interrogated about his journalistic activities. He was released several hours later. His ID card and mobile phone, however, were confiscated.


On the same day, Israeli troops descended on the offices of Palmedia in Ramallah. Digital files going back to the company’s founding in 2006 were confiscated, and professional equipment was destroyed. Offices rented by Russia Today were also affected. According to Russia Today, quoting an Israeli military spokesman, Palmedia was targeted “because it provides services to Al-Aqsa TV, which has propagandist and inflammatory content.”


Palmedia management said that members of its staff, including photographer Amar Abideen, were subjected to a series of pressures in covering Operation “Brother’s Keeper” in Hebron. The company’s offices in East Jerusalem had been previously searched, in early June.


On 18 June, the Israeli army searched the offices of the Transmedia company in Nablus, Ramallah and Hebron, confiscating all equipment – worth about $1 million dollars. The Israeli authorities then ordered the company shut down, on the grounds that Transmedia did TV production work for Al-Aqsa TV.


On the 16 June, Israeli forces in Ramallah arrested Aziz Kayed, the chief executive of Al-Aqsa TV. According to the Union of Palestinian Radio and Television, Kayed was placed in “administrative detention” to last for six months.


The same day, Yahia Habayeb, correspondent for Palestinian radio station Ajiyal, was violently arrested by Israeli troops in Hebron, in the southern West Bank. His mobile phones and recording equipment were deliberately destroyed. The journalist was freed five hours later.


On 17 June, Abderrahman Younes, a photographer for the Al-Quds.com site was prevented from covering a traffic jam caused by the Israeli army at what is known as the “container checkpoint” in north Bethlehem. Israeli troops confiscated his camera and threatened him with imprisonment in case of a repeat offence.
​

Of course, that insures that only one viewpoint gets heard.

How much you want to bet that this detention has little to do with links to terrorism and everything to do with journalism?

Want to bet that I can find similar actions by US government forces to silence certain media outlets. Simple things like destroying evidence at scenes of crime just to get a story to blacken the name of the police chief or commissioner.

 

[Phoenall]

Its irrelevant,

The conventions clearly state

QUote

• Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
• Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

End Quote

Which makes them illegal combatants or POWs and are subject to being held without trial for the duration of the war.

It sounds as if you are saying the state has the right to declare a person hostile for any or NO reason. Given it won't charge him, and has held him for so long that certainly makes it seem bogus.

Its not what I'm saying. Its what the Geneva Conventions say.

Lets get it straight.

The controlling power has the right to consider anyone "under definite suspicion" as having forfeit their protected person status.

Whether you like it or not those are the agreed upon conventions.

Israel is not required to try or charge POWs or illegal combatants; and mind you, illegal combatants may also be held indefinitely or until the end of hostilities.

If you believe otherwise you are welcome to locate the international laws that support your view. However I can't help but notice you have yet to really cite anything that supports your views.

Long story short not only does Israel have the right to detain legal or illegal combatants indefinitely or until the end of hostilities, but they would also be within their rights to repatriate those detained to neutral third parties, which may include a neutral country.

IE throw the bums out

Long story short: it gives them the right to imprison anyone for any reason, however bogus.

No evidence.

No charges.

and he's a journalist.

Makes one wonder.

And given all that, a hunger strike is most certainly not your "tantrum".

It doesn't matter if you agree with it or not. The facts are that Israel is within its rights under the internationally agreed upon terms of war.

POWs and illegal combatants Those aiding and those suspected of aiding or being, can be held indefinitely. Period.

Those are the rules of war.

I guess that means that Iran is within it's rights to detain and hold journalists for any reason, and North Korea too...

No charges, a country with a history of hostility to journalists, indefinate detention - most people would not consider that to be good. And you label the hunger strike a "tantrum" - is that so you can diminish what is happening?

If it were any other country detaining a journalist like this - there would be a huge outcry.

Which is why the US government tells its journalists that they are on their own if they go to those places. You might not see how many are arrested in Iran because your government tries to keep it quiet, but we do see the numbers here and ask why isn't Obama doing something about it

 

[fanger]

 

[Tommy Tainant]

I cant see what crime he committed. He has not been charged or tried either. Its an absolute disgrace.

Video: Palestinian hunger striker's wife makes urgent plea

He has made his choice, and in a utopia the door of his hospital room would be locked for the next month. Then his remains scooped into a plastic bag and burnt along with the rest of the rubbish.


What crime were the families of the girls in Rochdale guilty of when they where arrested on the orders of the Labour party ?

Time to put your own house in order before demanding other do it

So what crime did he commit?

Its irrelevant,

The conventions clearly state

QUote

• Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
• Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

End Quote

Which makes them illegal combatants or POWs and are subject to being held without trial for the duration of the war.

It sounds as if you are saying the state has the right to declare a person hostile for any or NO reason. Given it won't charge him, and has held him for so long that certainly makes it seem bogus.

No he is saying that International law is very clear on the subject, and it is international law that is saying anyone suspected of being engaged with the terrorists can be held under arrest until their trial or deportation.

Once again you stand against a fair law because it comes out in support of the Jews, care to explain why this is always the case ?

On the basis that Israel is not actually at war.
What they have is a "terrorist" threat. Whichever side of the argument that you stand that needs to be recognised as the Israeli view.
On that basis any Western government would be able to apply these sanctions.
And that is far too much power to give to any government.
So if its not right in New York,Paris or London then it cant be right in Jerusalem.

 

[Boston1]

He has made his choice, and in a utopia the door of his hospital room would be locked for the next month. Then his remains scooped into a plastic bag and burnt along with the rest of the rubbish.


What crime were the families of the girls in Rochdale guilty of when they where arrested on the orders of the Labour party ?

Time to put your own house in order before demanding other do it

So what crime did he commit?

Its irrelevant,

The conventions clearly state

QUote

• Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
• Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

End Quote

Which makes them illegal combatants or POWs and are subject to being held without trial for the duration of the war.

It sounds as if you are saying the state has the right to declare a person hostile for any or NO reason. Given it won't charge him, and has held him for so long that certainly makes it seem bogus.

No he is saying that International law is very clear on the subject, and it is international law that is saying anyone suspected of being engaged with the terrorists can be held under arrest until their trial or deportation.

Once again you stand against a fair law because it comes out in support of the Jews, care to explain why this is always the case ?

On the basis that Israel is not actually at war.
What they have is a "terrorist" threat. Whichever side of the argument that you stand that needs to be recognised as the Israeli view.
On that basis any Western government would be able to apply these sanctions.
And that is far too much power to give to any government.
So if its not right in New York,Paris or London then it cant be right in Jerusalem.

Your basis is wrong


Israel is at war. In which case it can legally detain POWs or illegal combatants indefinitely.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

So what crime did he commit?

Its irrelevant,

The conventions clearly state

QUote

• Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
• Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

End Quote

Which makes them illegal combatants or POWs and are subject to being held without trial for the duration of the war.

It sounds as if you are saying the state has the right to declare a person hostile for any or NO reason. Given it won't charge him, and has held him for so long that certainly makes it seem bogus.

No he is saying that International law is very clear on the subject, and it is international law that is saying anyone suspected of being engaged with the terrorists can be held under arrest until their trial or deportation.

Once again you stand against a fair law because it comes out in support of the Jews, care to explain why this is always the case ?

On the basis that Israel is not actually at war.
What they have is a "terrorist" threat. Whichever side of the argument that you stand that needs to be recognised as the Israeli view.
On that basis any Western government would be able to apply these sanctions.
And that is far too much power to give to any government.
So if its not right in New York,Paris or London then it cant be right in Jerusalem.

Your basis is wrong


Israel is at war. In which case it can legally detain POWs or illegal combatants indefinitely.

Is America at war ? Is Europe ?

 

[Boston1]

Lets work on staying on topic.

If Quds or whatever his name is prefers to starve should the Israeli's force feed him or not.

I'd say they should so as not to encourage these kinds of tantrums in the future. Let him go a few years with a feeding tube in him and see if he's a little more cooperative then.

And take lots of pictures so all the other terrorist collaborators can see what awaits them if they pull the same stunt.

 

[Coyote]

So what crime did he commit?

Ties to a known terrorist group. Enough evidence to have him arrested in most civilised nations. The UK has deported muslims for the same reasons

What "enough evidence" specifically since you seem to know this.

Ties to a known terrorist group, as in lawyers with ties to the mafia or gang bangers with ties to the local drug barons. You cant be selective with laws just because one side is Jewish and so does not deserve any legal support.

So you say, but where is the evidence?

Well the evidence has been presented, just that you wont accept that evidence because your Jew hatred clouds your ability to think straight.

The only thing you've presented is a stunning lack of evidence, just an attempted diversion with insults.

Where is the evidence that there are any ties? Just because they say so? That's kind of like Iran saying that jailed journalists were arrested for espionage and not offering an iota of evidence.

 

[Coyote]

Lets work on staying on topic.

If Quds or whatever his name is prefers to starve should the Israeli's force feed him or not.

I'd say they should so as not to encourage these kinds of tantrums in the future. Let him go a few years with a feeding tube in him and see if he's a little more cooperative then.

And take lots of pictures so all the other terrorist collaborators can see what awaits them if they pull the same stunt.

Where is the evidence that he is a terrorist collaborator? Oh wait...there isn't any.

The only two things we can say for a FACT are that he is a Palestinian Journalist and Israel has a history of targeting journalists.

 

[Coyote]

It sounds as if you are saying the state has the right to declare a person hostile for any or NO reason. Given it won't charge him, and has held him for so long that certainly makes it seem bogus.

Its not what I'm saying. Its what the Geneva Conventions say.

Lets get it straight.

The controlling power has the right to consider anyone "under definite suspicion" as having forfeit their protected person status.

Whether you like it or not those are the agreed upon conventions.

Israel is not required to try or charge POWs or illegal combatants; and mind you, illegal combatants may also be held indefinitely or until the end of hostilities.

If you believe otherwise you are welcome to locate the international laws that support your view. However I can't help but notice you have yet to really cite anything that supports your views.

Long story short not only does Israel have the right to detain legal or illegal combatants indefinitely or until the end of hostilities, but they would also be within their rights to repatriate those detained to neutral third parties, which may include a neutral country.

IE throw the bums out

Long story short: it gives them the right to imprison anyone for any reason, however bogus.

No evidence.

No charges.

and he's a journalist.

Makes one wonder.

And given all that, a hunger strike is most certainly not your "tantrum".

It doesn't matter if you agree with it or not. The facts are that Israel is within its rights under the internationally agreed upon terms of war.

POWs and illegal combatants Those aiding and those suspected of aiding or being, can be held indefinitely. Period.

Those are the rules of war.

I guess that means that Iran is within it's rights to detain and hold journalists for any reason, and North Korea too...

No charges, a country with a history of hostility to journalists, indefinate detention - most people would not consider that to be good. And you label the hunger strike a "tantrum" - is that so you can diminish what is happening?

If it were any other country detaining a journalist like this - there would be a huge outcry.

Which is why the US government tells its journalists that they are on their own if they go to those places. You might not see how many are arrested in Iran because your government tries to keep it quiet, but we do see the numbers here and ask why isn't Obama doing something about it

We do. It is not a secret. However, I have never before heard of a jailed journalist's hunger strike being labeled a "tantrum". That must only apply to Palestinian Journalists detained indefinately without charges.

 

[Coyote]

Ties to a known terrorist group. Enough evidence to have him arrested in most civilised nations. The UK has deported muslims for the same reasons

What "enough evidence" specifically since you seem to know this.

Ties to a known terrorist group, as in lawyers with ties to the mafia or gang bangers with ties to the local drug barons. You cant be selective with laws just because one side is Jewish and so does not deserve any legal support.

If he had ties to a terrorist organisation he would have been charged with it. He hasnt, and neither has he been on the 3 other occasions they have locked him up without charge.

He was involved with a youth movement when he was in college but there is no evidence that he is today. This is a corrupt government silencing critics.

I'm wondering if the fact that he's a journalist is a part of it.

RSF concerned about journalist held without charge since November - Reporters Without Borders

How do you stand on the arrest of muslim terrorists caged in Gitmo then ?

Not happy with Gitmo either - they should be tried and done with and whether it ends in execution or life or whatever, I don't care - they deserve a trial. That applies to anyone in captivity.

 

[Coyote]

I cant see what crime he committed. He has not been charged or tried either. Its an absolute disgrace.

Video: Palestinian hunger striker's wife makes urgent plea

He has made his choice, and in a utopia the door of his hospital room would be locked for the next month. Then his remains scooped into a plastic bag and burnt along with the rest of the rubbish.


What crime were the families of the girls in Rochdale guilty of when they where arrested on the orders of the Labour party ?

Time to put your own house in order before demanding other do it

So what crime did he commit?

Its irrelevant,

The conventions clearly state

QUote

• Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
• Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

End Quote

Which makes them illegal combatants or POWs and are subject to being held without trial for the duration of the war.

It sounds as if you are saying the state has the right to declare a person hostile for any or NO reason. Given it won't charge him, and has held him for so long that certainly makes it seem bogus.

No he is saying that International law is very clear on the subject, and it is international law that is saying anyone suspected of being engaged with the terrorists can be held under arrest until their trial or deportation.

Once again you stand against a fair law because it comes out in support of the Jews, care to explain why this is always the case ?

What's fair about any law that calls for indefinate detainment with no charges, no hearing, no trial based on information that could be bogus? What if it were YOU? You just sit there passively twiddling your thumbs and and humming your happy song? Or would you be trying every avenue to have your case heard?

 

[Coyote]

Convicted Israeli spy Pollard went on a 19 day hunger strike. Was that a "4 yr olds tantrum" too? At least HE knew the charges, was tried, convicted and sentanced.

 

[Boston1]

Lets work on staying on topic.

If Quds or whatever his name is prefers to starve should the Israeli's force feed him or not.

I'd say they should so as not to encourage these kinds of tantrums in the future. Let him go a few years with a feeding tube in him and see if he's a little more cooperative then.

And take lots of pictures so all the other terrorist collaborators can see what awaits them if they pull the same stunt.

Where is the evidence that he is a terrorist collaborator? Oh wait...there isn't any.

The only two things we can say for a FACT are that he is a Palestinian Journalist and Israel has a history of targeting journalists.

Israel isn't required by the conventions to supply any evidence. Suspected collaborators can be held indefinitely. Thats the law, like it or not. The question is should Israel force feed them.

Also we don't know he's a palestinian. Who were his parents, were they legitimate refugees, or their parents ? This is the problem with the UNWRA having refused to ever segregate combatants from protected persons. We end up with an unknown population not all or even many of which are legitimate pali's

 

[Phoenall]

He has made his choice, and in a utopia the door of his hospital room would be locked for the next month. Then his remains scooped into a plastic bag and burnt along with the rest of the rubbish.


What crime were the families of the girls in Rochdale guilty of when they where arrested on the orders of the Labour party ?

Time to put your own house in order before demanding other do it

So what crime did he commit?

Its irrelevant,

The conventions clearly state

QUote

• Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
• Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

End Quote

Which makes them illegal combatants or POWs and are subject to being held without trial for the duration of the war.

It sounds as if you are saying the state has the right to declare a person hostile for any or NO reason. Given it won't charge him, and has held him for so long that certainly makes it seem bogus.

No he is saying that International law is very clear on the subject, and it is international law that is saying anyone suspected of being engaged with the terrorists can be held under arrest until their trial or deportation.

Once again you stand against a fair law because it comes out in support of the Jews, care to explain why this is always the case ?

On the basis that Israel is not actually at war.
What they have is a "terrorist" threat. Whichever side of the argument that you stand that needs to be recognised as the Israeli view.
On that basis any Western government would be able to apply these sanctions.
And that is far too much power to give to any government.
So if its not right in New York,Paris or London then it cant be right in Jerusalem.

So when did the combined forces of the arab league rescind their declaration of war against Israel then.

Then when did the ICC/ICJ sit in judgement and alter the terms of the Geneva conventions to meet with your anti Jew ideology

Lastly when did the UN sit in session and issue a resolution declaring that no single government will be able to enforce sanctions aimed at halting attacks of a terrorist nature.


The very laws are there so that all nations can enforce sanctions and impose arrest for those seen as terrorist sympathisers. The UK government acts on these same laws all the time in putting under house arrest known terrorist sympathisers, and looking to deporting them at a later date.



Just admit that it is the Jews that you want to have these powers stripped from because you are a neo Nazi Jew hating scum.

 

[Phoenall]

Ties to a known terrorist group. Enough evidence to have him arrested in most civilised nations. The UK has deported muslims for the same reasons

What "enough evidence" specifically since you seem to know this.

Ties to a known terrorist group, as in lawyers with ties to the mafia or gang bangers with ties to the local drug barons. You cant be selective with laws just because one side is Jewish and so does not deserve any legal support.

So you say, but where is the evidence?

Well the evidence has been presented, just that you wont accept that evidence because your Jew hatred clouds your ability to think straight.

The only thing you've presented is a stunning lack of evidence, just an attempted diversion with insults.

Where is the evidence that there are any ties? Just because they say so? That's kind of like Iran saying that jailed journalists were arrested for espionage and not offering an iota of evidence.

Glad you admit that this is Irans normal methods. But once again you don't want the due legal process to work for Israel and demand the evidence before the case has gone to trial. In doing so the case against him would be prejudiced and even a junior lawyer would get the case dismissed under those circumstances.

 

[Phoenall]

Lets work on staying on topic.

If Quds or whatever his name is prefers to starve should the Israeli's force feed him or not.

I'd say they should so as not to encourage these kinds of tantrums in the future. Let him go a few years with a feeding tube in him and see if he's a little more cooperative then.

And take lots of pictures so all the other terrorist collaborators can see what awaits them if they pull the same stunt.

Where is the evidence that he is a terrorist collaborator? Oh wait...there isn't any.

The only two things we can say for a FACT are that he is a Palestinian Journalist and Israel has a history of targeting journalists.

Where is the due legal procedure that you would be demanding be put in place if it was a Jew under house arrest. You would be telling everyone to stop asking for the evidence if they wanted a case to be heard.

Look up the term sub judice and see what it means, then ask yourself if only a Jew hater would keep asking for the evidence that you are asking for.

 

[Phoenall]

Its not what I'm saying. Its what the Geneva Conventions say.

Lets get it straight.

The controlling power has the right to consider anyone "under definite suspicion" as having forfeit their protected person status.

Whether you like it or not those are the agreed upon conventions.

Israel is not required to try or charge POWs or illegal combatants; and mind you, illegal combatants may also be held indefinitely or until the end of hostilities.

If you believe otherwise you are welcome to locate the international laws that support your view. However I can't help but notice you have yet to really cite anything that supports your views.

Long story short not only does Israel have the right to detain legal or illegal combatants indefinitely or until the end of hostilities, but they would also be within their rights to repatriate those detained to neutral third parties, which may include a neutral country.

IE throw the bums out

Long story short: it gives them the right to imprison anyone for any reason, however bogus.

No evidence.

No charges.

and he's a journalist.

Makes one wonder.

And given all that, a hunger strike is most certainly not your "tantrum".

It doesn't matter if you agree with it or not. The facts are that Israel is within its rights under the internationally agreed upon terms of war.

POWs and illegal combatants Those aiding and those suspected of aiding or being, can be held indefinitely. Period.

Those are the rules of war.

I guess that means that Iran is within it's rights to detain and hold journalists for any reason, and North Korea too...

No charges, a country with a history of hostility to journalists, indefinate detention - most people would not consider that to be good. And you label the hunger strike a "tantrum" - is that so you can diminish what is happening?

If it were any other country detaining a journalist like this - there would be a huge outcry.

Which is why the US government tells its journalists that they are on their own if they go to those places. You might not see how many are arrested in Iran because your government tries to keep it quiet, but we do see the numbers here and ask why isn't Obama doing something about it

We do. It is not a secret. However, I have never before heard of a jailed journalist's hunger strike being labeled a "tantrum". That must only apply to Palestinian Journalists detained indefinately without charges.

Such is the wages of the terrorist supporter. We see them being arrested all the time in the UK, and their lawyers know better than to keep demanding evidence of their ties to terrorist organisations.



Most of what Palestinians do are just tantrums, until they realise that they wont get their own way and have gone too far to back down. The IRA soon learnt their lessons when they were allowed to die alone and in pain, even the church were banned from seeing them.

 

[Phoenall]

What "enough evidence" specifically since you seem to know this.

Ties to a known terrorist group, as in lawyers with ties to the mafia or gang bangers with ties to the local drug barons. You cant be selective with laws just because one side is Jewish and so does not deserve any legal support.

If he had ties to a terrorist organisation he would have been charged with it. He hasnt, and neither has he been on the 3 other occasions they have locked him up without charge.

He was involved with a youth movement when he was in college but there is no evidence that he is today. This is a corrupt government silencing critics.

I'm wondering if the fact that he's a journalist is a part of it.

RSF concerned about journalist held without charge since November - Reporters Without Borders

How do you stand on the arrest of muslim terrorists caged in Gitmo then ?

Not happy with Gitmo either - they should be tried and done with and whether it ends in execution or life or whatever, I don't care - they deserve a trial. That applies to anyone in captivity.

To have a fair trial the courts need all the details, if the defendant refuses to give their details them the wrong person could be found guilty. So the Geneva conventions were changed to reflect this and allowed for prisoners to be detained until the end of hostilities. This was deemed the fairest result possible under the circumstances, after the first released prisoner was arrested engaging in terrorism the doors should have been shut for good.