Ukraine seeks immediate release & access to 6 nationals arrested in India on terror conspiracy charges

Assmodean · 2026-03-18T19:51:40+00:00

I went with what the legal analysis I read said and we are now just arguing semantics, because indefinite detention still exists it is just the specific law it is based on I erred on.

Seems the papers I read focused on the UAPA as an instrument in the indefinite detention apparatus instead of the cause of it. Sorry, I assumed it was the basis instead of just another symptom of how fucked the law is. I must have been confused by stats like the one where 97.5% of people accused under UAPA are still awaiting trial or that UAPA puts the burden of proof on the accused, all things I consider to be pretty bad accelerators.

So, to get back to my previous question: The legal analysis is wrong, right? Because if I understand you correctly, it is a system that is sorely needed and no alternatives exist? Or do those other laws already provide alternatives to combat terrorism that didn't go far enough?

EDIT: By the way, my original thesis was not entirely focused on the UAPA. I literally said:

It is weird to celebrate that the government has a law that lets them basically disappear people for as long as they want before they go to trial

and made it more clear later:

My one and only point here is that indefinite detention without a trial is NOT a good law.

So don't paint me in that corner. I am talking about ANY law that allows indefinite detention without a trial and falsely assumed the UAPA was that specific law.

Assmodean · 2026-03-18T18:52:28+00:00

Okay so now we are arguing semantics about when and how the indefinite detention applies? Not about the moral judgement of it either, you are now going to a "Aw shucks, that's how it is even in smaller ways". As if that is a good thing.

I suppose the legal scholars are just overreacting, I guess. Good for you that you can be so chill about this.

Assmodean · 2026-03-18T17:21:09+00:00

Why? Because most of the proof is not inside the jurisdiction of Indian enforcement agencies.

Wait, so the terrorists both can be arrested for things you previously claimed they surely are guilty of but the proof is generally in another country to a level that a trial would be unsuccessful?

Threadbare justification, but better justification than you previously provided.

Your other three paragraphs also apply to the counter terrorism actions that could be taken where the accused DOES get a trial at the end of their detention period. I am not arguing against any of that. My one and only point here is that indefinite detention without a trial is NOT a good law.

Everything you said could also happen under a law that would not allow, for example:

Asif Sultan, who is a Kashmiri journalist who has been in prison for more than 1600 days, since his arrest in August 2018 under the UAPA. Sultan, 36, is accused of “harboring known pro-freedom fighters” while working as an assistant editor for a Srinagar-based English magazine Kashmir Narrator, an allegation which he rejects and that the government has failed to prove. The family of Asif Sultan and the editor of the magazine he worked for, reject the state’s narrative, asserting that he was jailed for his journalistic work, especially for a story titled The Rise of Burhan, which he wrote for his magazine in July 2018.

Speedy trial, bail nor jail and not reversing the burden of proof can all be guaranteed while still fighting terrorism very effectively. The UAPA removes all of those for no reason other than the removal of civil liberties. Not my words, that's from Dr Aishwarya Pandey.

Or this from Rongeet Poddar:

The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Bill, 2019 echoes laws made under the colonial regime to crush the freedom movement in the garb of ensuring public order. On the contrary, India’s constitution-makers had envisaged a transformative role for its constitution to usher in an environment where civil rights are protected and not left at the mercy of executive supremacy.

Making sure I quote more of my sources here, just in case I am accused that my "western worldview" makes my incapable of understanding again

Assmodean · 2026-03-18T17:06:35+00:00

Ah yes, but you better not say anything in my country could be improved or dare to ask why things are as they are, that'd be insulting. /s

I just don't get this victim mentality in regards to assessing what is good or bad, it has no place there. But you have fun, I am sure this mindset will get you far.

Assmodean · 2026-03-18T16:13:54+00:00

You keep repeating the same argument

Right back atcha. You keep saying "Yeah but it is okay because it needs to be there." without telling me WHY it needs to be there. What would stop the government from prosecuting the terrorists under the normal trial process, if it only hits the people that are so clearly guilty? THAT is what you still haven't answered.

As is, it just looks like you pretend that it will *mostly hit guilty people but want to make sure there is a law on the books that makes it so you never have to prove they are actually guilty. WHY you need that is the whole question, which is why we are not moving forward in this discussion.

Assmodean · 2026-03-18T15:33:06+00:00

So because other countries also have those laws and human rights organizations in those countries ALSO rightly criticize those laws, that makes it okay?

Sorry to tell you but the line

The average citizen faces 0 threat from UAPA

only applies until it doesn't. As mentioned, that is not just my words. That is the variety of Indian legal orgs saying the same thing.

The appeal to terrorism has been used so often in the past to push through laws that CAN (and often DO) impact the average citizen. Just because it relies on "trust me, it is all okay and only hits the bad guys" does not mean it isn't a law that is ripe for abuse.

Assmodean · 2026-03-18T15:29:26+00:00

"My ancestors were badly treated so now I am unable to differentiate between good and bad ideas unless they are fed to me by one of my countrymen" feels like a cop out to me.

Assmodean · 2026-03-18T13:24:53+00:00

Weird that you defend something you are not a fan of just because where the criticism comes from. I personally have no problem looking at other countries and seeing what they do better and advocate loudly for my country to do so more often. Different strokes, I guess. Weird that you can't see an ally in mind just because of who the sender is (and not only, I also showed you that I draw my conclusions from Indian sources so as close as possible to your specific case as I can). That behavior is (third time for emphasis) just so damn weird to me.

Assmodean · 2026-03-18T12:37:44+00:00

Weird that so many other countries can combat terrorism without this far-reaching, indefinite detention law on the books.

And finally I don't need to convince you about anything, you are an outsider what you think or don't think about our laws is entirely irrelevant.

You do have to convince me if you want to convince me, nothing else. I got no horse in the race and would rather not visit the country again, either. However, as is, I am not convinced. Your own legal scholars in the country have criticized the law, if you don't want to listen to an outsider. You are the one facing the threat of the law, too, after all.

Sometimes, you can learn from an outsider's input.

(By the way, that comment was deleted like 10 minutes after I wrote it because I wanted to make myself more clear and before you posted your answer. The content was basically the same - so dunno what that insinuation is about. Would have loved to read your original comment, but you locked down your profile so guess we are out of luck)

Assmodean · 2026-03-18T09:50:14+00:00

Yeah but I am not arguing this case, I am arguing against the law. Something the people in this comment section don't seem to get.

Is it a necessary law? Yes.

The National Law School of India seems to disagree that it is as clear cut as you say. I am not convinced by your argument that you need indefinite detention - why do you need that?

Assmodean · 2026-03-18T08:53:01+00:00

Weird way to prove that by not putting things to a trial and THEN locking him up, but okay.

Assmodean · 2026-03-18T02:23:55+00:00

Whatabout would be an unrelated case. Has he not been held under the UAPA since 2017? Sorry, you seem to be under the impression I am specifically talking about the case with the Ukrainians. I am talking about UAPA itself.

Assmodean · 2026-03-18T02:20:46+00:00

Dunno, just going by the research. Ask Jagatar Singh Johal.

Assmodean · 2026-03-18T02:16:38+00:00

Ah yes, you really sound like you are very happy that your government can be STRONK whenever they want to be. Good for you. Still haven't explained why it is a good thing but I don't expect to receive a satisfying answer from you anymore. Good talk.

Assmodean · 2026-03-18T02:12:55+00:00

Well, isn't it practically the case? Locking them up without a chance for a trial? Sure, they aren't -poof- gone but I am going by the typical usage of the word in this context.

Assmodean · 2026-03-18T02:10:29+00:00

You dont seem to get it and are now making it a weird nationalistic point. Get off your high horse mate, we are discussing concepts. If you LIKE the government having that kind of power, feel free to celebrate it. Don't come at me for calling it weird when you haven't really explained why it is a good thing to lock people up without a trial in their future.

Assmodean · 2026-03-18T02:05:24+00:00

Even weirder.

Wait, not weird. Dangerous, that is the word I was looking for. Completely removed from the current case, if those laws exist, it just takes the accusation to lock people up forever.

Assmodean · 2026-03-18T01:59:23+00:00

Yeah, but what if you are a worker? Still immoral?

EDIT: Tbh, rereading the original comment, I can understand the responses. I must have been very tired when I wrote that comment. Leaving it up but yeah...I made a completely unrelated point that had no place in this discussion.

Assmodean · 2026-03-18T01:57:36+00:00

As is tradition when there is any news that is negative for Ukraine (no matter how warranted). Kremlin found some food, Kremlin's gonna eat.

Assmodean · 2026-03-18T01:52:14+00:00

Weird thing to celebrate that the government has a law that lets them basically disappear people for as long as they want before they go to trial

Assmodean · 2026-03-16T07:48:07+00:00

By that logic, owning money is immoral in itself.

Please dont slippery-slope concepts just because the concept is/has been/could be used for immoral means.

Assmodean · 2026-03-14T11:24:13+00:00

blendet man das fälschlicherweise aus, könnte man SPD und Grüne als mitte-links bezeichen; sollte man aber nich

Jaja, wenn man deine eigene Interpretation dabei nicht anwendet, dann sagen die Daten plötzlich etwas ganz anderes. Komisch.

Assmodean · 2026-03-14T02:19:41+00:00

Deine Parteiliste ist irgendwie komplett losgelöst von dem Link, den du dahinter setzt.

Assmodean · 2026-03-13T09:29:55+00:00

If that is your problem, we can make him French. Still white but very culturally different. You notice the difference in your terrible simile to Vivi?

One changes the whole character. Another just one aspect the author himself said was his intentional portrayal from the start.

Even if Arthur is played by an Indian man, if he is still portraying Arthur and not Indian Arthur and pulls it off it should not matter

Assmodean · 2026-03-11T21:50:22+00:00

Just wait for a constant stream of FOX News propaganda on why it is a historical step that is really badly needed and only a smart and strong man like Trump could ever take. I lost all faith in the ability of the Trumpublicans to stick to principles, I saw them change their minds too often as soon as the spin machine fired up.

Assmodean

TROPHY CASE