yes and the last "Brit" released was paid £1million of our tax money and then promptly fecked off to join ISIS.
and i defo dont give a rats shit about this guy
If he's guilty why not stick him in front of a jury. It's how civilised countries behave. The right to a fair trial is a principle we should treasure. Throw it away at your peril.
Civilised countries? Do you think members of the Taliban or ISIS give a sh*t about our judicial system. This is war we're talking about, not shoplifting. Perhaps we could put a member of ISIS in the dock then sew the victims heads back on and get them to come to court to testify against the alleged offender!
Surely the entire point is that we shouldn't behave like ISIS/the Taliban ?
yes and the last "Brit" released was paid £1million of our tax money and then promptly fecked off to join ISIS.
and i defo dont give a rats shit about this guy
If he's guilty why not stick him in front of a jury. It's how civilised countries behave. The right to a fair trial is a principle we should treasure. Throw it away at your peril.
Civilised countries? Do you think members of the Taliban or ISIS give a sh*t about our judicial system. This is war we're talking about, not shoplifting. Perhaps we could put a member of ISIS in the dock then sew the victims heads back on and get them to come to court to testify against the alleged offender!
Surely the entire point is that we shouldn't behave like ISIS/the Taliban ?
No, but we didn't did we. But rather than provide them with the best human rights lawyers available, pander to their every whim, protest in the streets at their inhumane detention and end up giving them huge compensation payments, rather than do all those things that surely would have happened had we put them on trial in London, we instead locked them up on a remote island, and I say, good on us.
Funny old world innit? This bloke got interred without trial. A pretty bad way for the Americans to behave it's true. But he's now back 'home' and working out his compo. Marine A”. Sergeant Blackman went through the court procedure and is now serving life. His crime? In a war zone he shot a badly injured Taliban who he considered could still be a threat to him and his soldiers.
Funny old world innit? This bloke got interred without trial. A pretty bad way for the Americans to behave it's true. But he's now back 'home' and working out his compo. Marine A”. Sergeant Blackman went through the court procedure and is now serving life. His crime? In a war zone he shot a badly injured Taliban who he considered could still be a threat to him and his soldiers.
I know which one i care most about.
I guess the difference is that one of them was given the opportunity to defend himself in court against a charge of murder and failed. The other wasn't, but was incarcerated anyway.
As he isn't a British national, was picked up in Afghanistan and incarcerated in an American facility I'm assuming you don't mean that he should be recompensed by the British state, it would be a joke if he was.
The British Government was complicit with his incarceration and in his interrogations and I doubt they asked him just to make a statement.
I realise that some bad things sometimes need to be done but it doesn't make them right and where a person is locked away, tortured and deprived of what you and I consider to be a right then something should be done to recompense yes.
Surely if there's a case For compensation he's free to pursue through the American courts?
You'd hope so. But I bet they pull out the well-he-wasn't-incarcerated-on-US-soil card...
Indeed. US Federal law does not extend to Guantanamo in Cuba.
As for those who do not care that an innocent man has been locked up without charge then I feel sorry for you.
Well the world changed on 9/11 and if it's the case that occasionally an innocent person (if that's the case) happens to get locked up in order to prevent another 4000 innocent souls losing their lives, then so be it. One way to avoid this happening is to lead an honest life, stay clear of war zones, (or work only though a legitimate agency) and don't associate with people like Osama Bin Laden. I'm not saying he was guilty of these things, but normal people such as me, would never find myself in such a situation. We live in dangerous times and need to focus on protecting the majority. As an aside, there was a great interview on TV here last night. I thought Maajid Nawaz (a reformed Muslim extremist from Southend) was excellent. For anyone interested :
So, just to get the record straight, are you saying that, unless you live in the way that *you* decide is appropriate (ie what you decide "normal people" do), then it's ok to be kidnapped, interrogated, tortured and incarcerated for 14 years? And when that happens to someone who is innocent (and yes, that *is* the case) then, well, "so be it"?
No, I'm saying that in war, collateral damage happens, many innocents lose their lives, sometimes someone gets unjustly imprisoned. Simple solution, either keep out of it, or work through a reputable organisation such as the Red Cross and leave the family behind or send them home if the situation becomes dangerous where you are working. BTW how can you assert that he *is* innocent? Unless you followed his every move in Afghanistan, you cannot know for certain. But I do agree that you cannot keep someone locked up without sufficient evidence.
I can assert that he is innocent because - like everyone else - he is innocent until he's proven guilty.
As he isn't a British national, was picked up in Afghanistan and incarcerated in an American facility I'm assuming you don't mean that he should be recompensed by the British state, it would be a joke if he was.
The British Government was complicit with his incarceration and in his interrogations and I doubt they asked him just to make a statement.
I realise that some bad things sometimes need to be done but it doesn't make them right and where a person is locked away, tortured and deprived of what you and I consider to be a right then something should be done to recompense yes.
Surely if there's a case For compensation he's free to pursue through the American courts?
You'd hope so. But I bet they pull out the well-he-wasn't-incarcerated-on-US-soil card...
Indeed. US Federal law does not extend to Guantanamo in Cuba.
As for those who do not care that an innocent man has been locked up without charge then I feel sorry for you.
Well the world changed on 9/11 and if it's the case that occasionally an innocent person (if that's the case) happens to get locked up in order to prevent another 4000 innocent souls losing their lives, then so be it. One way to avoid this happening is to lead an honest life, stay clear of war zones, (or work only though a legitimate agency) and don't associate with people like Osama Bin Laden. I'm not saying he was guilty of these things, but normal people such as me, would never find myself in such a situation. We live in dangerous times and need to focus on protecting the majority. As an aside, there was a great interview on TV here last night. I thought Maajid Nawaz (a reformed Muslim extremist from Southend) was excellent. For anyone interested :
So, just to get the record straight, are you saying that, unless you live in the way that *you* decide is appropriate (ie what you decide "normal people" do), then it's ok to be kidnapped, interrogated, tortured and incarcerated for 14 years? And when that happens to someone who is innocent (and yes, that *is* the case) then, well, "so be it"?
No, I'm saying that in war, collateral damage happens, many innocents lose their lives, sometimes someone gets unjustly imprisoned. Simple solution, either keep out of it, or work through a reputable organisation such as the Red Cross and leave the family behind or send them home if the situation becomes dangerous where you are working. BTW how can you assert that he *is* innocent? Unless you followed his every move in Afghanistan, you cannot know for certain. But I do agree that you cannot keep someone locked up without sufficient evidence.
I can assert that he is innocent because - like everyone else - he is innocent until he's proven guilty.
Can you assert he is guilty? And if so, of what?
I can assert his guilt with the same certainty that you can assert his innocence. But in my favour, he confessed (he say's he was tortured into doing so) and also someone testified against him. Here's an interesting question for you. If I murder someone, but never get caught, am I guilty or innocent of murder?
As he isn't a British national, was picked up in Afghanistan and incarcerated in an American facility I'm assuming you don't mean that he should be recompensed by the British state, it would be a joke if he was.
The British Government was complicit with his incarceration and in his interrogations and I doubt they asked him just to make a statement.
I realise that some bad things sometimes need to be done but it doesn't make them right and where a person is locked away, tortured and deprived of what you and I consider to be a right then something should be done to recompense yes.
Surely if there's a case For compensation he's free to pursue through the American courts?
You'd hope so. But I bet they pull out the well-he-wasn't-incarcerated-on-US-soil card...
Indeed. US Federal law does not extend to Guantanamo in Cuba.
As for those who do not care that an innocent man has been locked up without charge then I feel sorry for you.
Well the world changed on 9/11 and if it's the case that occasionally an innocent person (if that's the case) happens to get locked up in order to prevent another 4000 innocent souls losing their lives, then so be it. One way to avoid this happening is to lead an honest life, stay clear of war zones, (or work only though a legitimate agency) and don't associate with people like Osama Bin Laden. I'm not saying he was guilty of these things, but normal people such as me, would never find myself in such a situation. We live in dangerous times and need to focus on protecting the majority. As an aside, there was a great interview on TV here last night. I thought Maajid Nawaz (a reformed Muslim extremist from Southend) was excellent. For anyone interested :
So, just to get the record straight, are you saying that, unless you live in the way that *you* decide is appropriate (ie what you decide "normal people" do), then it's ok to be kidnapped, interrogated, tortured and incarcerated for 14 years? And when that happens to someone who is innocent (and yes, that *is* the case) then, well, "so be it"?
No, I'm saying that in war, collateral damage happens, many innocents lose their lives, sometimes someone gets unjustly imprisoned. Simple solution, either keep out of it, or work through a reputable organisation such as the Red Cross and leave the family behind or send them home if the situation becomes dangerous where you are working. BTW how can you assert that he *is* innocent? Unless you followed his every move in Afghanistan, you cannot know for certain. But I do agree that you cannot keep someone locked up without sufficient evidence.
I can assert that he is innocent because - like everyone else - he is innocent until he's proven guilty.
Can you assert he is guilty? And if so, of what?
I can assert his guilt with the same certainty that you can assert his innocence. But in my favour, he confessed (he say's he was tortured into doing so) and also someone testified against him. Here's an interesting question for you. If I murder someone, but never get caught, am I guilty or innocent of murder?
Here's a question for you. Despite the fact he's spent 14 years in prison, been interrogated and the might of the US Federal Government has failed to find anything to charge him with - let alone actually go through the process of a court case - you're calling him guilty. Of what?
Funny old world innit? This bloke got interred without trial. A pretty bad way for the Americans to behave it's true. But he's now back 'home' and working out his compo. Marine A”. Sergeant Blackman went through the court procedure and is now serving life. His crime? In a war zone he shot a badly injured Taliban who he considered could still be a threat to him and his soldiers.
I know which one i care most about.
I guess the difference is that one of them was given the opportunity to defend himself in court against a charge of murder and failed. The other wasn't, but was incarcerated anyway.
Funny old world innit? This bloke got interred without trial. A pretty bad way for the Americans to behave it's true. But he's now back 'home' and working out his compo. Marine A”. Sergeant Blackman went through the court procedure and is now serving life. His crime? In a war zone he shot a badly injured Taliban who he considered could still be a threat to him and his soldiers.
I know which one i care most about.
I guess the difference is that one of them was given the opportunity to defend himself in court against a charge of murder and failed. The other wasn't, but was incarcerated anyway.
I know which I care about - both.
Really?
Yet you started a thread about Shaker Aamer.
But didn't start a thread about Sgt Blackman.
I said I care about them. That is in respect of their opportunity to defend themselves in open court. I didn't say I sympathised with them both.
Funny old world innit? This bloke got interred without trial. A pretty bad way for the Americans to behave it's true. But he's now back 'home' and working out his compo. Marine A”. Sergeant Blackman went through the court procedure and is now serving life. His crime? In a war zone he shot a badly injured Taliban who he considered could still be a threat to him and his soldiers.
I know which one i care most about.
I guess the difference is that one of them was given the opportunity to defend himself in court against a charge of murder and failed. The other wasn't, but was incarcerated anyway.
I know which I care about - both.
Really?
Yet you started a thread about Shaker Aamer.
But didn't start a thread about Sgt Blackman.
I said I care about them. That is in respect of their opportunity to defend themselves in open court. I didn't say I sympathised with them both.
No, but I think we can tell who you sympathise with.
As he isn't a British national, was picked up in Afghanistan and incarcerated in an American facility I'm assuming you don't mean that he should be recompensed by the British state, it would be a joke if he was.
The British Government was complicit with his incarceration and in his interrogations and I doubt they asked him just to make a statement.
I realise that some bad things sometimes need to be done but it doesn't make them right and where a person is locked away, tortured and deprived of what you and I consider to be a right then something should be done to recompense yes.
Surely if there's a case For compensation he's free to pursue through the American courts?
You'd hope so. But I bet they pull out the well-he-wasn't-incarcerated-on-US-soil card...
Indeed. US Federal law does not extend to Guantanamo in Cuba.
As for those who do not care that an innocent man has been locked up without charge then I feel sorry for you.
Well the world changed on 9/11 and if it's the case that occasionally an innocent person (if that's the case) happens to get locked up in order to prevent another 4000 innocent souls losing their lives, then so be it. One way to avoid this happening is to lead an honest life, stay clear of war zones, (or work only though a legitimate agency) and don't associate with people like Osama Bin Laden. I'm not saying he was guilty of these things, but normal people such as me, would never find myself in such a situation. We live in dangerous times and need to focus on protecting the majority. As an aside, there was a great interview on TV here last night. I thought Maajid Nawaz (a reformed Muslim extremist from Southend) was excellent. For anyone interested :
So, just to get the record straight, are you saying that, unless you live in the way that *you* decide is appropriate (ie what you decide "normal people" do), then it's ok to be kidnapped, interrogated, tortured and incarcerated for 14 years? And when that happens to someone who is innocent (and yes, that *is* the case) then, well, "so be it"?
No, I'm saying that in war, collateral damage happens, many innocents lose their lives, sometimes someone gets unjustly imprisoned. Simple solution, either keep out of it, or work through a reputable organisation such as the Red Cross and leave the family behind or send them home if the situation becomes dangerous where you are working. BTW how can you assert that he *is* innocent? Unless you followed his every move in Afghanistan, you cannot know for certain. But I do agree that you cannot keep someone locked up without sufficient evidence.
I can assert that he is innocent because - like everyone else - he is innocent until he's proven guilty.
Can you assert he is guilty? And if so, of what?
I can assert his guilt with the same certainty that you can assert his innocence. But in my favour, he confessed (he say's he was tortured into doing so) and also someone testified against him. Here's an interesting question for you. If I murder someone, but never get caught, am I guilty or innocent of murder?
Here's a question for you. Despite the fact he's spent 14 years in prison, been interrogated and the might of the US Federal Government has failed to find anything to charge him with - let alone actually go through the process of a court case - you're calling him guilty. Of what?
No I'm not saying he's guilty, I was following through with your question and saying that I could assert his guilt as much as you could assert his innocence ie I couldn't! As I said previously, he could be collateral damage and may have been unjustly imprisoned. But I questioned your assertion that he's definitely innocent. As I tried to demonstrate with my question, just because someone can't be caught or charged, doesn't mean they never did anything wrong and are entirely innocent. There are plenty of criminals walking the streets because there was insufficient evidence to get a prosecution. The old saying "no smoke without fire" often applies in such situations, but I fully accept that is no basis on which to hold someone without charge for so long.
As he isn't a British national, was picked up in Afghanistan and incarcerated in an American facility I'm assuming you don't mean that he should be recompensed by the British state, it would be a joke if he was.
The British Government was complicit with his incarceration and in his interrogations and I doubt they asked him just to make a statement.
I realise that some bad things sometimes need to be done but it doesn't make them right and where a person is locked away, tortured and deprived of what you and I consider to be a right then something should be done to recompense yes.
Surely if there's a case For compensation he's free to pursue through the American courts?
You'd hope so. But I bet they pull out the well-he-wasn't-incarcerated-on-US-soil card...
Indeed. US Federal law does not extend to Guantanamo in Cuba.
As for those who do not care that an innocent man has been locked up without charge then I feel sorry for you.
Well the world changed on 9/11 and if it's the case that occasionally an innocent person (if that's the case) happens to get locked up in order to prevent another 4000 innocent souls losing their lives, then so be it. One way to avoid this happening is to lead an honest life, stay clear of war zones, (or work only though a legitimate agency) and don't associate with people like Osama Bin Laden. I'm not saying he was guilty of these things, but normal people such as me, would never find myself in such a situation. We live in dangerous times and need to focus on protecting the majority. As an aside, there was a great interview on TV here last night. I thought Maajid Nawaz (a reformed Muslim extremist from Southend) was excellent. For anyone interested :
So, just to get the record straight, are you saying that, unless you live in the way that *you* decide is appropriate (ie what you decide "normal people" do), then it's ok to be kidnapped, interrogated, tortured and incarcerated for 14 years? And when that happens to someone who is innocent (and yes, that *is* the case) then, well, "so be it"?
No, I'm saying that in war, collateral damage happens, many innocents lose their lives, sometimes someone gets unjustly imprisoned. Simple solution, either keep out of it, or work through a reputable organisation such as the Red Cross and leave the family behind or send them home if the situation becomes dangerous where you are working. BTW how can you assert that he *is* innocent? Unless you followed his every move in Afghanistan, you cannot know for certain. But I do agree that you cannot keep someone locked up without sufficient evidence.
I can assert that he is innocent because - like everyone else - he is innocent until he's proven guilty.
Can you assert he is guilty? And if so, of what?
I can assert his guilt with the same certainty that you can assert his innocence. But in my favour, he confessed (he say's he was tortured into doing so) and also someone testified against him. Here's an interesting question for you. If I murder someone, but never get caught, am I guilty or innocent of murder?
Here's a question for you. Despite the fact he's spent 14 years in prison, been interrogated and the might of the US Federal Government has failed to find anything to charge him with - let alone actually go through the process of a court case - you're calling him guilty. Of what?
No I'm not saying he's guilty, I was following through with your question and saying that I could assert his guilt as much as you could assert his innocence ie I couldn't! As I said previously, he could be collateral damage and may have been unjustly imprisoned. But I questioned your assertion that he's definitely innocent. As I tried to demonstrate with my question, just because someone can't be caught or charged, doesn't mean they never did anything wrong and are entirely innocent. There are plenty of criminals walking the streets because there was insufficient evidence to get a prosecution. The old saying "no smoke without fire" often applies in such situations, but I fully accept that is no basis on which to hold someone without charge for so long.
"Innocent until proven guilty". In law, there is a presumption of innocence. It really is that simple.
A woman on the wireless today said that he had been cleared of any wrongdoing six times by federal courts in America, This was happening years ago too. Sounds plenty of reason to put right the 'collateral' damage doesn't it?
The woman said his release has been delayed for so long not because of anything he has said, not because of anything he has done, not because of who he is, not because of what he knows, but because of what he has seen.
The woman says that he has been witness to appalling stuff since his arrest and the authorities have been concerned about what he tells us he has seen.
As he isn't a British national, was picked up in Afghanistan and incarcerated in an American facility I'm assuming you don't mean that he should be recompensed by the British state, it would be a joke if he was.
The British Government was complicit with his incarceration and in his interrogations and I doubt they asked him just to make a statement.
I realise that some bad things sometimes need to be done but it doesn't make them right and where a person is locked away, tortured and deprived of what you and I consider to be a right then something should be done to recompense yes.
Surely if there's a case For compensation he's free to pursue through the American courts?
You'd hope so. But I bet they pull out the well-he-wasn't-incarcerated-on-US-soil card...
Indeed. US Federal law does not extend to Guantanamo in Cuba.
As for those who do not care that an innocent man has been locked up without charge then I feel sorry for you.
Well the world changed on 9/11 and if it's the case that occasionally an innocent person (if that's the case) happens to get locked up in order to prevent another 4000 innocent souls losing their lives, then so be it. One way to avoid this happening is to lead an honest life, stay clear of war zones, (or work only though a legitimate agency) and don't associate with people like Osama Bin Laden. I'm not saying he was guilty of these things, but normal people such as me, would never find myself in such a situation. We live in dangerous times and need to focus on protecting the majority. As an aside, there was a great interview on TV here last night. I thought Maajid Nawaz (a reformed Muslim extremist from Southend) was excellent. For anyone interested :
So, just to get the record straight, are you saying that, unless you live in the way that *you* decide is appropriate (ie what you decide "normal people" do), then it's ok to be kidnapped, interrogated, tortured and incarcerated for 14 years? And when that happens to someone who is innocent (and yes, that *is* the case) then, well, "so be it"?
No, I'm saying that in war, collateral damage happens, many innocents lose their lives, sometimes someone gets unjustly imprisoned. Simple solution, either keep out of it, or work through a reputable organisation such as the Red Cross and leave the family behind or send them home if the situation becomes dangerous where you are working. BTW how can you assert that he *is* innocent? Unless you followed his every move in Afghanistan, you cannot know for certain. But I do agree that you cannot keep someone locked up without sufficient evidence.
I can assert that he is innocent because - like everyone else - he is innocent until he's proven guilty.
Can you assert he is guilty? And if so, of what?
I can assert his guilt with the same certainty that you can assert his innocence. But in my favour, he confessed (he say's he was tortured into doing so) and also someone testified against him. Here's an interesting question for you. If I murder someone, but never get caught, am I guilty or innocent of murder?
Here's a question for you. Despite the fact he's spent 14 years in prison, been interrogated and the might of the US Federal Government has failed to find anything to charge him with - let alone actually go through the process of a court case - you're calling him guilty. Of what?
No I'm not saying he's guilty, I was following through with your question and saying that I could assert his guilt as much as you could assert his innocence ie I couldn't! As I said previously, he could be collateral damage and may have been unjustly imprisoned. But I questioned your assertion that he's definitely innocent. As I tried to demonstrate with my question, just because someone can't be caught or charged, doesn't mean they never did anything wrong and are entirely innocent. There are plenty of criminals walking the streets because there was insufficient evidence to get a prosecution. The old saying "no smoke without fire" often applies in such situations, but I fully accept that is no basis on which to hold someone without charge for so long.
"Innocent until proven guilty". In law, there is a presumption of innocence. It really is that simple.
Well, when it comes to terrorism, that little presumption needs to be reversed if we want to remain safe. I suspect the security forces realise this, hence the treatment this guy and many others received. Also the reason why they were never put on trial in the US or UK. For the safety of innocent citizens everywhere I would much rather suspected terrorists were not afforded the presumption of innocence. There is normally a very good reason why they are "suspected" in the first place.
As he isn't a British national, was picked up in Afghanistan and incarcerated in an American facility I'm assuming you don't mean that he should be recompensed by the British state, it would be a joke if he was.
The British Government was complicit with his incarceration and in his interrogations and I doubt they asked him just to make a statement.
I realise that some bad things sometimes need to be done but it doesn't make them right and where a person is locked away, tortured and deprived of what you and I consider to be a right then something should be done to recompense yes.
Surely if there's a case For compensation he's free to pursue through the American courts?
You'd hope so. But I bet they pull out the well-he-wasn't-incarcerated-on-US-soil card...
Indeed. US Federal law does not extend to Guantanamo in Cuba.
As for those who do not care that an innocent man has been locked up without charge then I feel sorry for you.
Well the world changed on 9/11 and if it's the case that occasionally an innocent person (if that's the case) happens to get locked up in order to prevent another 4000 innocent souls losing their lives, then so be it. One way to avoid this happening is to lead an honest life, stay clear of war zones, (or work only though a legitimate agency) and don't associate with people like Osama Bin Laden. I'm not saying he was guilty of these things, but normal people such as me, would never find myself in such a situation. We live in dangerous times and need to focus on protecting the majority. As an aside, there was a great interview on TV here last night. I thought Maajid Nawaz (a reformed Muslim extremist from Southend) was excellent. For anyone interested :
So, just to get the record straight, are you saying that, unless you live in the way that *you* decide is appropriate (ie what you decide "normal people" do), then it's ok to be kidnapped, interrogated, tortured and incarcerated for 14 years? And when that happens to someone who is innocent (and yes, that *is* the case) then, well, "so be it"?
No, I'm saying that in war, collateral damage happens, many innocents lose their lives, sometimes someone gets unjustly imprisoned. Simple solution, either keep out of it, or work through a reputable organisation such as the Red Cross and leave the family behind or send them home if the situation becomes dangerous where you are working. BTW how can you assert that he *is* innocent? Unless you followed his every move in Afghanistan, you cannot know for certain. But I do agree that you cannot keep someone locked up without sufficient evidence.
I can assert that he is innocent because - like everyone else - he is innocent until he's proven guilty.
Can you assert he is guilty? And if so, of what?
I can assert his guilt with the same certainty that you can assert his innocence. But in my favour, he confessed (he say's he was tortured into doing so) and also someone testified against him. Here's an interesting question for you. If I murder someone, but never get caught, am I guilty or innocent of murder?
Here's a question for you. Despite the fact he's spent 14 years in prison, been interrogated and the might of the US Federal Government has failed to find anything to charge him with - let alone actually go through the process of a court case - you're calling him guilty. Of what?
No I'm not saying he's guilty, I was following through with your question and saying that I could assert his guilt as much as you could assert his innocence ie I couldn't! As I said previously, he could be collateral damage and may have been unjustly imprisoned. But I questioned your assertion that he's definitely innocent. As I tried to demonstrate with my question, just because someone can't be caught or charged, doesn't mean they never did anything wrong and are entirely innocent. There are plenty of criminals walking the streets because there was insufficient evidence to get a prosecution. The old saying "no smoke without fire" often applies in such situations, but I fully accept that is no basis on which to hold someone without charge for so long.
"Innocent until proven guilty". In law, there is a presumption of innocence. It really is that simple.
Well, when it comes to terrorism, that little presumption needs to be reversed if we want to remain safe. I suspect the security forces realise this, hence the treatment this guy and many others received. Also the reason why they were never put on trial in the US or UK. For the safety of innocent citizens everywhere I would much rather suspected terrorists were not afforded the presumption of innocence. There is normally a very good reason why they are "suspected" in the first place.
On the off-chance that you're not actually deliberately on the wind up, let me ask you to clarify. Are you saying that, instead of everyone being under the assumption they are innocent until proven guilty, that everyone is assumed to be guilty until they can prove themselves innocent?
And, as far as there being "a good reason", you would think that, after 14 years, that good reason would be made public in a court, no?
A woman on the wireless today said that he had been cleared of any wrongdoing six times by federal courts in America, This was happening years ago too. Sounds plenty of reason to put right the 'collateral' damage doesn't it?
The woman said his release has been delayed for so long not because of anything he has said, not because of anything he has done, not because of who he is, not because of what he knows, but because of what he has seen.
The woman says that he has been witness to appalling stuff since his arrest and the authorities have been concerned about what he tells us he has seen.
A Was she on the BBC? B Was she a Human Rights Lawyer?
A woman on the wireless today said that he had been cleared of any wrongdoing six times by federal courts in America, This was happening years ago too. Sounds plenty of reason to put right the 'collateral' damage doesn't it?
The woman said his release has been delayed for so long not because of anything he has said, not because of anything he has done, not because of who he is, not because of what he knows, but because of what he has seen.
The woman says that he has been witness to appalling stuff since his arrest and the authorities have been concerned about what he tells us he has seen.
A Was she on the BBC? B Was she a Human Rights Lawyer?
Yes and probably, I didn't catch her introduction, but she was an American from Texas.
A woman on the wireless today said that he had been cleared of any wrongdoing six times by federal courts in America, This was happening years ago too. Sounds plenty of reason to put right the 'collateral' damage doesn't it?
The woman said his release has been delayed for so long not because of anything he has said, not because of anything he has done, not because of who he is, not because of what he knows, but because of what he has seen.
The woman says that he has been witness to appalling stuff since his arrest and the authorities have been concerned about what he tells us he has seen.
A Was she on the BBC? B Was she a Human Rights Lawyer?
Yes and probably, I didn't catch her introduction, but she was an American from Texas.
What a spiritual wasteland we live in. Endless wars with innocent people killed. Over reaction by government so guys like Aamer get banged up without trial and, just to rub salt in the wound, Millwall start winning whilst we continue our losing streak.
A woman on the wireless today said that he had been cleared of any wrongdoing six times by federal courts in America, This was happening years ago too. Sounds plenty of reason to put right the 'collateral' damage doesn't it?
The woman said his release has been delayed for so long not because of anything he has said, not because of anything he has done, not because of who he is, not because of what he knows, but because of what he has seen.
The woman says that he has been witness to appalling stuff since his arrest and the authorities have been concerned about what he tells us he has seen.
A Was she on the BBC? B Was she a Human Rights Lawyer?
Yes and probably, I didn't catch her introduction, but she was an American from Texas.
Very predictable!
Of the three things, was it on the BBC, was she a Human Rights Lawyer, and was she an American from Texas, you only predicted one. Not all that 'very', seeing as how I listened to the wireless in London.
Detaining this guy and not charging him was a disgrace and only gives the West's enemies a greater sense of grievance against us....so, ultimately, it's a massive own goal let alone anything else.
However, if you believe that he was hanging around in the Afghan just to do some charidee work like some kind of saint - just listen to what the British intelligence community think about him and the threat that he may still pose...........
As he isn't a British national, was picked up in Afghanistan and incarcerated in an American facility I'm assuming you don't mean that he should be recompensed by the British state, it would be a joke if he was.
The British Government was complicit with his incarceration and in his interrogations and I doubt they asked him just to make a statement.
I realise that some bad things sometimes need to be done but it doesn't make them right and where a person is locked away, tortured and deprived of what you and I consider to be a right then something should be done to recompense yes.
Surely if there's a case For compensation he's free to pursue through the American courts?
You'd hope so. But I bet they pull out the well-he-wasn't-incarcerated-on-US-soil card...
Indeed. US Federal law does not extend to Guantanamo in Cuba.
As for those who do not care that an innocent man has been locked up without charge then I feel sorry for you.
Well the world changed on 9/11 and if it's the case that occasionally an innocent person (if that's the case) happens to get locked up in order to prevent another 4000 innocent souls losing their lives, then so be it. One way to avoid this happening is to lead an honest life, stay clear of war zones, (or work only though a legitimate agency) and don't associate with people like Osama Bin Laden. I'm not saying he was guilty of these things, but normal people such as me, would never find myself in such a situation. We live in dangerous times and need to focus on protecting the majority. As an aside, there was a great interview on TV here last night. I thought Maajid Nawaz (a reformed Muslim extremist from Southend) was excellent. For anyone interested :
So, just to get the record straight, are you saying that, unless you live in the way that *you* decide is appropriate (ie what you decide "normal people" do), then it's ok to be kidnapped, interrogated, tortured and incarcerated for 14 years? And when that happens to someone who is innocent (and yes, that *is* the case) then, well, "so be it"?
No, I'm saying that in war, collateral damage happens, many innocents lose their lives, sometimes someone gets unjustly imprisoned. Simple solution, either keep out of it, or work through a reputable organisation such as the Red Cross and leave the family behind or send them home if the situation becomes dangerous where you are working. BTW how can you assert that he *is* innocent? Unless you followed his every move in Afghanistan, you cannot know for certain. But I do agree that you cannot keep someone locked up without sufficient evidence.
I can assert that he is innocent because - like everyone else - he is innocent until he's proven guilty.
Can you assert he is guilty? And if so, of what?
I can assert his guilt with the same certainty that you can assert his innocence. But in my favour, he confessed (he say's he was tortured into doing so) and also someone testified against him. Here's an interesting question for you. If I murder someone, but never get caught, am I guilty or innocent of murder?
Here's a question for you. Despite the fact he's spent 14 years in prison, been interrogated and the might of the US Federal Government has failed to find anything to charge him with - let alone actually go through the process of a court case - you're calling him guilty. Of what?
No I'm not saying he's guilty, I was following through with your question and saying that I could assert his guilt as much as you could assert his innocence ie I couldn't! As I said previously, he could be collateral damage and may have been unjustly imprisoned. But I questioned your assertion that he's definitely innocent. As I tried to demonstrate with my question, just because someone can't be caught or charged, doesn't mean they never did anything wrong and are entirely innocent. There are plenty of criminals walking the streets because there was insufficient evidence to get a prosecution. The old saying "no smoke without fire" often applies in such situations, but I fully accept that is no basis on which to hold someone without charge for so long.
"Innocent until proven guilty". In law, there is a presumption of innocence. It really is that simple.
Well, when it comes to terrorism, that little presumption needs to be reversed if we want to remain safe. I suspect the security forces realise this, hence the treatment this guy and many others received. Also the reason why they were never put on trial in the US or UK. For the safety of innocent citizens everywhere I would much rather suspected terrorists were not afforded the presumption of innocence. There is normally a very good reason why they are "suspected" in the first place.
@queensland_addick I am not sure if you have ever lived in the UK or how old you are but you would do well to check your view on the presumption of guilt of terrorists against what happened to the Birmingham 6 and the Guildford 4. The "security forces" were wrong in both cases. In case you think that I am some apologist for Irish Republican terrorism I can assure you that a member of my extended family suffered terrible injuries from the IRA in Northern Ireland.
Detaining this guy and not charging him was a disgrace and only gives the West's enemies a greater sense of grievance against us....so, ultimately, it's a massive own goal let alone anything else.
However, if you believe that he was hanging around in the Afghan just to do some charidee work like some kind of saint - just listen to what the British intelligence community think about him and the threat that he may still pose...........
So, during the decade and a half of his incarceration, why didn't the "British intelligence community" present even enough evidence to charge this guy ?
As he isn't a British national, was picked up in Afghanistan and incarcerated in an American facility I'm assuming you don't mean that he should be recompensed by the British state, it would be a joke if he was.
The British Government was complicit with his incarceration and in his interrogations and I doubt they asked him just to make a statement.
I realise that some bad things sometimes need to be done but it doesn't make them right and where a person is locked away, tortured and deprived of what you and I consider to be a right then something should be done to recompense yes.
Surely if there's a case For compensation he's free to pursue through the American courts?
You'd hope so. But I bet they pull out the well-he-wasn't-incarcerated-on-US-soil card...
Indeed. US Federal law does not extend to Guantanamo in Cuba.
As for those who do not care that an innocent man has been locked up without charge then I feel sorry for you.
Well the world changed on 9/11 and if it's the case that occasionally an innocent person (if that's the case) happens to get locked up in order to prevent another 4000 innocent souls losing their lives, then so be it. One way to avoid this happening is to lead an honest life, stay clear of war zones, (or work only though a legitimate agency) and don't associate with people like Osama Bin Laden. I'm not saying he was guilty of these things, but normal people such as me, would never find myself in such a situation. We live in dangerous times and need to focus on protecting the majority. As an aside, there was a great interview on TV here last night. I thought Maajid Nawaz (a reformed Muslim extremist from Southend) was excellent. For anyone interested :
So, just to get the record straight, are you saying that, unless you live in the way that *you* decide is appropriate (ie what you decide "normal people" do), then it's ok to be kidnapped, interrogated, tortured and incarcerated for 14 years? And when that happens to someone who is innocent (and yes, that *is* the case) then, well, "so be it"?
No, I'm saying that in war, collateral damage happens, many innocents lose their lives, sometimes someone gets unjustly imprisoned. Simple solution, either keep out of it, or work through a reputable organisation such as the Red Cross and leave the family behind or send them home if the situation becomes dangerous where you are working. BTW how can you assert that he *is* innocent? Unless you followed his every move in Afghanistan, you cannot know for certain. But I do agree that you cannot keep someone locked up without sufficient evidence.
I can assert that he is innocent because - like everyone else - he is innocent until he's proven guilty.
Can you assert he is guilty? And if so, of what?
I can assert his guilt with the same certainty that you can assert his innocence. But in my favour, he confessed (he say's he was tortured into doing so) and also someone testified against him. Here's an interesting question for you. If I murder someone, but never get caught, am I guilty or innocent of murder?
Here's a question for you. Despite the fact he's spent 14 years in prison, been interrogated and the might of the US Federal Government has failed to find anything to charge him with - let alone actually go through the process of a court case - you're calling him guilty. Of what?
No I'm not saying he's guilty, I was following through with your question and saying that I could assert his guilt as much as you could assert his innocence ie I couldn't! As I said previously, he could be collateral damage and may have been unjustly imprisoned. But I questioned your assertion that he's definitely innocent. As I tried to demonstrate with my question, just because someone can't be caught or charged, doesn't mean they never did anything wrong and are entirely innocent. There are plenty of criminals walking the streets because there was insufficient evidence to get a prosecution. The old saying "no smoke without fire" often applies in such situations, but I fully accept that is no basis on which to hold someone without charge for so long.
"Innocent until proven guilty". In law, there is a presumption of innocence. It really is that simple.
Well, when it comes to terrorism, that little presumption needs to be reversed if we want to remain safe. I suspect the security forces realise this, hence the treatment this guy and many others received. Also the reason why they were never put on trial in the US or UK. For the safety of innocent citizens everywhere I would much rather suspected terrorists were not afforded the presumption of innocence. There is normally a very good reason why they are "suspected" in the first place.
@queensland_addick I am not sure if you have ever lived in the UK or how old you are but you would do well to check your view on the presumption of guilt of terrorists against what happened to the Birmingham 6 and the Guildford 4. The "security forces" were wrong in both cases. In case you think that I am some apologist for Irish Republican terrorism I can assure you that a member of my extended family suffered terrible injuries from the IRA in Northern Ireland.
the birmingham six and guilford 4 were released for political reasons not for their inocense the government surrounded to the IRA not the british public this is dogey ground that is best left in the past
Iraq was innocent of possessing WMD's, but that didn't stop Blair invading and smashing open a hornets nest we will be paying for for generations.
Iraq evaded the world finding WMD for serval years but Saddam was killed not before time and the world is a little better for it so for that I thank the US and British Governments
Comments
Marine A”. Sergeant Blackman went through the court procedure and is now serving life. His crime? In a war zone he shot a badly injured Taliban who he considered could still be a threat to him and his soldiers.
I know which one i care most about.
I know which I care about - both.
Can you assert he is guilty? And if so, of what?
Here's an interesting question for you. If I murder someone, but never get caught, am I guilty or innocent of murder?
Yet you started a thread about Shaker Aamer.
But didn't start a thread about Sgt Blackman.
Sounds plenty of reason to put right the 'collateral' damage doesn't it?
The woman said his release has been delayed for so long not because of anything he has said, not because of anything he has done, not because of who he is, not because of what he knows, but because of what he has seen.
The woman says that he has been witness to appalling stuff since his arrest and the authorities have been concerned about what he tells us he has seen.
And, as far as there being "a good reason", you would think that, after 14 years, that good reason would be made public in a court, no?
B Was she a Human Rights Lawyer?
Not all that 'very', seeing as how I listened to the wireless in London.
However, if you believe that he was hanging around in the Afghan just to do some charidee work like some kind of saint - just listen to what the British intelligence community think about him and the threat that he may still pose...........