People here have confirmed that Russian law requires charges to be laid within a matter of hours.
Yes, but not to you, nor the public.
Read again.
He claimed that they are guilty without any evidence or claims by the police to that effect.
I have, lets review together shall we, you replied to this:
Quote Originally Posted by ptldM3 View Post
This is an active investigation, you are not entitled to information, just because the FSB did not call you personally and explain charges of those detained does not mean that those people are not guilty; furthermore, the act of detention is normal in almost all countries. Individuals can be detained for questioning, which means they are not under arrest but merely asked to cooperate with authorities.
Source:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/europe...00-muslims-during-prayer-5.html#ixzz2WIX1zsEQ
Where does he claims they are guilty? he does
no such thing.
Quote Originally Posted by Battle of Kursk View Post
An opinion based on little.
That's the phraseology in the original article. Read it.
Not quite, the OP states that
no reason was given yet, your terminology implies randomness and that
no reason exists, a fine difference I know.
Read the context of the question and the answer before commenting.
Oh, I have. You repeatedly demand charges to be made public, while Russian law does not. If you went to the trouble of answering how about you add some substance to the words and clarify, if indeed I misunderstood you? It seems like your reply is designed to create confusion without actually having substance.
No, it is a fact that, in a liberal democracy, police must specify charges to detain people beyond a certain limit.
Ah yes, but irrelevant, since this is
NOT what I was replying to.
You said: "Arresting 300 people in a raid is not normal behavior.
When police do such actions, there is reasonable cause given."
Source:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/europe...00-muslims-during-prayer-6.html#ixzz2WIZtw7JD
"
Do you retract this statement? As I've said when the police does such action it does not have to provide reason. It has to provide reason if they wish to detain farther. Can you comprehend the difference?
Unless there is probable cause (imminent threat) for such mass arrests, it violates people's right to peaceful congregation and religious practice.
Is it illegal? No, case closed. Every action made by the government is in violation of some rights. Policeman stops me to check papers? violation of free movement right. Takes taxes? violation of property rights, etc. A government cannot act without violating rights. It is only the balance that matters.
Not in the US; not without a charge sheet.
I see you have a habit to pretend you know about the subject and pass opinion as fact.
This is
plain wrong, source:
WASHINGTON, June 14, 2013 ― Despite the efforts of Libety Republicans in the House of Representatives, an amendment to the 2014 NDAA bill that would have prohibited the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without due process was defeated by a narrow margin today.
Effort to block indefinite detention (NDAA) fails in U.S. House | Washington Times Communities
Text of H.R. 4310 (112th): National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Passed Congress/Enrolled Bill version) - GovTrack.us
You are talking out of both sides of your face. On the one hand, you deny accusing these people of being Islamist, and on the other you try to justify this action by linking it to terrorists.
I am not justifying anything that isn't legal. I have said before that in this specific case I prefer to wait and see what's the out come before formulating an opinion whether it was the right move.
People here are focusing on the fact that those guys are Muslims rather than RF citizens YOU have asked for similar cases of mass detentions of non Muslims. I have given a possible reason for the lack of non Muslim similar cases in that non Muslims tend less to practice mass killings in Russia in recent years. This is only a possibility, no where have I claimed this is THE reason.
I was NOT the one to play the religion card, if you focus on religion than others are going to as well.
Lets be clear, I am not justifying different treatment to Muslims because they are Muslims.
Addressed above. There are specific codes of conduct, and certain places (like schools, religious places, etc.) are off-limits unless there is an imminent threat.
I don't get it, can you help me? Are you saying that the raid was illegal? The codes are determined by the country, not by your arbitrary opinion, and there are laws to enforce this.
The source is DNA-India, which attributes it to Reuters. If you don't believe it, that's not my problem.
If you can't accept or dispute specifics of the case, then take a rest instead of invoking agendas. I can also talk about your agenda, but I would rather stick to specifics of the matter.
yes, the source is a news paper, but what is their source? We can brake this down to something very simple:
Do you take as fact any claims made by unnamed official which is quoted in a news paper?
If you say yes than I'm taking this no farther, except something to keep in mind for future discussion.
The comment about agenda was indeed inappropriate, I apologize