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.
Collateral damage. Such a simple phrase. Trips off the tongue so easily. I hope you and yours are never collateral damage.
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!
Perhaps your views are not acceptable to the authorities ? What then. Let's just lock you up shall we ? It's war after all.
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...........
Really good point. However. Stick him in front of a jury with "what the Britishish Inteligence community think of him" put up or shut up as the saying goes.
In my mind, the issue here isn't whether he is guilty of something or not. It is that he has been held without trial for 13 year which, in a civilised world, is an infringement of human rights and brings our justice system into doubt.
One of the things that makes a civilised culture different to, say, ISIS (where judgement is often instant and without fair trial) is that there is available to all people the right to open and fair justice system. A system where you can hear the accusation against you, put forward your case and judgement is found on the evidence.
That just hasn't happened here. In their rush to have vengeance for what happened at 9/11 the US (aided and abetted to some extent by the UK) have acted as if they are above the law and have made judgement without trial. In this respect they are doing exactly the same thing as those who they claim to be fighting. That just isn't right. Fair trial is a fundamental tenet of our justice system.
Some of Aamer's past activity undoubtedly throws up questions about what he was doing in Afghanistan and with whom. But this should have been challenged in a court of law. The failure to do so and detain him for 13 years is an own goal on the US and/or UK's part. The whole approach taken at Guantanamo Bay has been at best, dubious, and at worst, criminal.
It is a disgrace that they haven't charged Aamer with anything. It is an absolute infringement of his rights, and undermines the legal system. His is now a cause célèbre which makes it harder to make judgement of what may or may not have happened in the past and whether or not he did anything criminal. I don't think the 'collateral damage' argument holds up as that is a slippery slope to poor justice.
My hope is that the US and UK, in a particular, have learnt from this, but I fear they haven't.
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.
Think about what you were doing fourteen years ago, FOURTEEN YEARS AGO. 2001. Look back at Charlton if that helps. We had years ahead of us in the Premier League. 14 Years ago??
Now this bloke has been held without charge for this entire time. If the US government wanted to make life easy for themselves, they could have charged him with something, anything, but no. No charges. 14 years of "interrogation". But no charges.
Meanwhile we as a country have been complicit in letting him stay in this US "remote island" prison UNCHARGED for 14 years.
If you can genuinely say that you think that this is fair enough, "collateral damage" as you put it, then fair enough. I hope no-one from your family is never judged to be worth holding prisoner for so long without charge. Obviously you'd be happy though as it's fair enough as it's just "collateral damage" right?
By the way;.... if it was Russia that operated this "terrorist holding facility" and a British national was held there for 14 years without charge, would you be so compliant? Mmmm no, I thought not.
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.
Collateral damage. Such a simple phrase. Trips off the tongue so easily. I hope you and yours are never collateral damage.
One little phrase, soooo much confected outrage, but that's par for the course for the left side of politics. Perhaps I should have said " sadly, in war, Innocent people get killed or locked up unjustly". Oh wait a minute, that's exactly what I did say, isn't it? Perhaps you could suggest another adjective that I could use that wouldn't be so offensive to my lefty friends.
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?
Just because you and I hold polar opposite view's, doesn't mean that I am on a wind up. I am always happy to debate and argue my case, because that is what I believe in and care about. To answer your question, I believe that terrorism needs to be treated differently and I believe that is actually what is happening. Anyone currently suspected of being a terrorist in the UK is under constant observation, their phones are being monitored, they are not being assumed innocent and left alone, it is being assumed that they are guilty and that they could committ an atrocity at any time. This is exactly what needs to be done in order that you, I and our families are kept as safe as possible and not maimed or killed simply because we were unlucky enough to board the wrong train, plane or bus. Safety for the majority is far more important to me than offending the human rights of any individual suspected terrorist. There is normally very good reason why someone is suspected of being a terrorist and it would never happen to me or anyone who lives their lives normally. It happens when the intelligence agencies gather enough information and data to arouse their suspicions. Occasionally they get it wrong and an innocent gets caught up in it, but most of the time they do a fabulous job and we should be very grateful to them for keeping us safe. If you don't believe that we are under any threat, you need to view the video that I put up.
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.
Collateral damage. Such a simple phrase. Trips off the tongue so easily. I hope you and yours are never collateral damage.
One little phrase, soooo much confected outrage, but that's par for the course for the left side of politics. Perhaps I should have said " sadly, in war, Innocent people get killed or locked up unjustly". Oh wait a minute, that's exactly what I did say, isn't it? Perhaps you could suggest another adjective that I could use that wouldn't be so offensive to my lefty friends.
Perhaps you should have said that. And it's true. Collateral damage doesn't mean exactly the same... It has the added bonus of being utterly dehumanising.
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.
Collateral damage. Such a simple phrase. Trips off the tongue so easily. I hope you and yours are never collateral damage.
One little phrase, soooo much confected outrage, but that's par for the course for the left side of politics. Perhaps I should have said " sadly, in war, Innocent people get killed or locked up unjustly". Oh wait a minute, that's exactly what I did say, isn't it? Perhaps you could suggest another adjective that I could use that wouldn't be so offensive to my lefty friends.
Perhaps you should have said that. And it's true. Collateral damage doesn't mean exactly the same... It has the added bonus of being utterly dehumanising.
But I did say that, if only you took the time to read my previous post. Next time I'll say unintentional deaths, injuries, incarcerations or other damage inflicted incidentally on an unintended target in the theatre of war. Bit of a mouthful, but happy to oblige if it pleases.
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?
Just because you and I hold polar opposite view's, doesn't mean that I am on a wind up. I am always happy to debate and argue my case, because that is what I believe in and care about. To answer your question, I believe that terrorism needs to be treated differently and I believe that is actually what is happening. Anyone currently suspected of being a terrorist in the UK is under constant observation, their phones are being monitored, they are not being assumed innocent and left alone, it is being assumed that they are guilty and that they could committ an atrocity at any time. This is exactly what needs to be done in order that you, I and our families are kept as safe as possible and not maimed or killed simply because we were unlucky enough to board the wrong train, plane or bus. Safety for the majority is far more important to me than offending the human rights of any individual suspected terrorist. There is normally very good reason why someone is suspected of being a terrorist and it would never happen to me or anyone who lives their lives normally. It happens when the intelligence agencies gather enough information and data to arouse their suspicions. Occasionally they get it wrong and an innocent gets caught up in it, but most of the time they do a fabulous job and we should be very grateful to them for keeping us safe. If you don't believe that we are under any threat, you need to view the video that I put up.
I think you're conflating the monitoring and evidence-gathering of suspects with illegal extraordinary rendition, incarceration and torture.
One is perfectly legal and used in accordance with laws debated and passed by democratically-elected representatives. The other is illegal, immoral and inhumane.
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.
Hold on a minute, I made only two guesses, A, That it was on the BBC and B, That she was a Human Rights Lawyer, to which you replied " yes and probably". I make that very nearly 2 out of 2, not 1 out 3. Disagree with me by all means, but please don't misrepresent what I said.
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.
Hold on a minute, I made only two guesses, A, That it was on the BBC and B, That she was a Human Rights Lawyer, to which you replied " yes and probably". I make that very nearly 2 out of 2, not 1 out 3. Disagree with me by all means, but please don't misrepresent what I said.
I didn't misrepresent you. I did not say the three things were all your guesses, but I said of the three elements describing the interview, BBC, human rights, Texas, three elements that emerged in our exchange, you were right that as I am a person in London I heard her on the BBC. I informed you that she disclosed she was an American from Texas. Your original response was about who she might be, and where I heard her interviewed, and I added more information. You didn't respond to what I said she said regarding what he had witnesses in Camp Bastion and elsewhere. It could be the good reason the authorities held on to him so long without charge was to silence him, not to prevent terrorism. I assume you asked about the BBC and Human Rights lawyer as a way of saying something like 'see! They have an agenda because of their politics', but I prefer to engage with the reality of what happened and develop the discussion about that stuff.
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.
Hold on a minute, I made only two guesses, A, That it was on the BBC and B, That she was a Human Rights Lawyer, to which you replied " yes and probably". I make that very nearly 2 out of 2, not 1 out 3. Disagree with me by all means, but please don't misrepresent what I said.
I didn't misrepresent you. I did not say the three things were all your guesses, but I said of the three elements describing the interview, BBC, human rights, Texas, three elements that emerged in our exchange, you were right that as I am a person in London I heard her on the BBC. I informed you that she disclosed she was an American from Texas. Your original response was about who she might be, and where I heard her interviewed, and I added more information. You didn't respond to what I said she said regarding what he had witnesses in Camp Bastion and elsewhere. It could be the good reason the authorities held on to him so long without charge was to silence him, not to prevent terrorism. I assume you asked about the BBC and Human Rights lawyer as a way of saying something like 'see! They have an agenda because of their politics', but I prefer to engage with the reality of what happened and develop the discussion about that stuff.
You implied that I made three guesses and only got one correct, hence your 1 out of 3 "not all that very" dig. I only made 2 guesses. You can spin it anyway you want, you're wrong.
Meanwhile, as all this discussion about a Saudi Arabian man who has been given 'leave to stay indefinitely' in Britain because he married a Muslim woman already here, goes on.
Sgt Blackman remains incacerated for doing his duty. Working in a war zone hunting down radical Islamists who seek to destroy everything that they consider un-Islamic.
Politics imposed fourteen years on Aamer. He's now free and will soon be rolling in taxpayers money.
A political sop to Muslims imposed a life term on Sgt Blackman.
One issue has been adressed (Aamer) When will the other .................?
Held without trial for all those years, why no trial Uncle Sam? Maybe they say we know he is a bad 'un, but we can't prove it. None of us would accept that would we? 14 years held without charge.
Do try and look up the 1783 treaty of Paris. There a page of wikipedia. It will answer all your concerns on this matter.
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.
Collateral damage. Such a simple phrase. Trips off the tongue so easily. I hope you and yours are never collateral damage.
One little phrase, soooo much confected outrage, but that's par for the course for the left side of politics. Perhaps I should have said " sadly, in war, Innocent people get killed or locked up unjustly". Oh wait a minute, that's exactly what I did say, isn't it? Perhaps you could suggest another adjective that I could use that wouldn't be so offensive to my lefty friends.
I would hope that "collateral damage" would be an offensive term to everyone regardless of which way they politically lean.
'Not all that very' was because you said 'very predictable'. Read the thread back.
I always read and analyse threads and individual posts before formulating a response, unfortunately others often don't do the same when replying to my posts! Yes, your "not all that very" jibe was in response to my "very predictable" comment, and you would have been entirely correct if I had really only got 1 out of 3 correct. But that wasn't the case, and that is what I'm annoyed about, because I only ever made 2 guesses.
Meanwhile, as all this discussion about a Saudi Arabian man who has been given 'leave to stay indefinitely' in Britain because he married a Muslim woman already here, goes on.
Sgt Blackman remains incacerated for doing his duty. Working in a war zone hunting down radical Islamists who seek to destroy everything that they consider un-Islamic.
Politics imposed fourteen years on Aamer. He's now free and will soon be rolling in taxpayers money.
A political sop to Muslims imposed a life term on Sgt Blackman.
One issue has been adressed (Aamer) When will the other .................?
His leave to remain is based on the fact that he married a British woman, not because she's a Muslim. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
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
There were no WMDs. And if you think the world is a safer place today than pre 2006 you must be living in some kind of fantasy land.
If you are OK with the Illegal invasion and subsequent killing of Saddam sounds like double standards.
Meanwhile, as all this discussion about a Saudi Arabian man who has been given 'leave to stay indefinitely' in Britain because he married a Muslim woman already here, goes on.
Sgt Blackman remains incacerated for doing his duty. Working in a war zone hunting down radical Islamists who seek to destroy everything that they consider un-Islamic.
Politics imposed fourteen years on Aamer. He's now free and will soon be rolling in taxpayers money.
A political sop to Muslims imposed a life term on Sgt Blackman.
One issue has been adressed (Aamer) When will the other .................?
These two cases are entirely different, of course.
This thread is about a man who was illegally kidnapped, detained and "interrogated" over the course of more than a dozen years, but, most importantly, without recourse to a court of law, a hearing or an opportunity publicly to defend himself against charges.
The other case is a man who committed an act of murder, was found guilty in a court of law, where he was given the opportunity to defend himself, had the case reviewed at an appeal and who is starting a period of incarceration.
One man "served" 14 years; the other will have to serve 8 or more.
By all means start a thread about Sergeant Blackman. But don't conflate the two issues.
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.
You're not telling the full story, based on the evidence available so far.
After they had removed the man's gun and grenades (thereby removing the threat), Sgt Blackman ordered that the man be moved to a place out of sight of operational headquarters. He ordered that those service personnel giving the man first aid stop. When the Apache helicopter was out of sight, he said "Shuffle off this mortal coil, you ****" and shot the man.
The judge in the case said "This was not an action taken in the heat of battle or immediately after you had been engaged in a fire fight." Brigadier Bill Dunham said it was "a truly shocking and appalling aberration".
The event took place in September 2011. Sgt Blackman was found guilty in November 2013, and the sentence reviewed in May 2014. He will be appealing against the sentence, and the appeal will be heavily funded.
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.
You're not telling the full story, based on the evidence available so far.
After they had removed the man's gun and grenades (thereby removing the threat), Sgt Blackman ordered that the man be moved to a place out of sight of operational headquarters. He ordered that those service personnel giving the man first aid stop. When the Apache helicopter was out of sight, he said "Shuffle off this mortal coil, you ****" and shot the man.
The judge in the case said "This was not an action taken in the heat of battle or immediately after you had been engaged in a fire fight." Brigadier Bill Dunham said it was "a truly shocking and appalling aberration".
The event took place in September 2011. Sgt Blackman was found guilty in November 2013, and the sentence reviewed in May 2014. He will be appealing against the sentence, and the appeal will be heavily funded.
That's very interesting reading (Though it's mostly argument about identification of the Marines and whether or not to release the video of the incident)
But the point remains, what happened was in a war zone. The Taliban were the enemy. Blackman killed an enemy. He could have left him to bleed to death and no one would have cared. I'm not sure how, in a war zone, if I killed someone in an exchange of fire, that would be O/K. But if I killed him after, it becomes murder.
You can be assured that if the Taliban had found a wounded Marine they would have killed him, probably in a slower and more tortuous way. It's a war zone! Kill or be killed.
The one thing I am glad to be corrected on was his sentence is actually 'life' with a minimum of ten years. I didn't know that. I hope his next appeal is successful and he is released. IMO he's already served long enough for his 'crime'
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.
You're not telling the full story, based on the evidence available so far.
After they had removed the man's gun and grenades (thereby removing the threat), Sgt Blackman ordered that the man be moved to a place out of sight of operational headquarters. He ordered that those service personnel giving the man first aid stop. When the Apache helicopter was out of sight, he said "Shuffle off this mortal coil, you ****" and shot the man.
The judge in the case said "This was not an action taken in the heat of battle or immediately after you had been engaged in a fire fight." Brigadier Bill Dunham said it was "a truly shocking and appalling aberration".
The event took place in September 2011. Sgt Blackman was found guilty in November 2013, and the sentence reviewed in May 2014. He will be appealing against the sentence, and the appeal will be heavily funded.
And: Blackman had been under immense pressure, having led a team of 15 men for five months in an extremely hostile environment
Alexander Blackman had an unblemished career in the Royal Marines for 17 years, serving his country on numerous tours in Northern Ireland, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Beats me why some on here are so keen to knock our brave and courageous service men, women and security forces who put their lives on the line for us, yet are desperate to swing to the defense of suspected enemy terrorists.
'Not all that very' was because you said 'very predictable'. Read the thread back.
I always read and analyse threads and individual posts before formulating a response, unfortunately others often don't do the same when replying to my posts! Yes, your "not all that very" jibe was in response to my "very predictable" comment, and you would have been entirely correct if I had really only got 1 out of 3 correct. But that wasn't the case, and that is what I'm annoyed about, because I only ever made 2 guesses.
And you don't think my mentioning the interview, and your response which were questions not guesses was not a dig at me for reporting what she said? Your questions didn't respond to what she said but an attempt to undermine her content by digging out the context.
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.
You're not telling the full story, based on the evidence available so far.
After they had removed the man's gun and grenades (thereby removing the threat), Sgt Blackman ordered that the man be moved to a place out of sight of operational headquarters. He ordered that those service personnel giving the man first aid stop. When the Apache helicopter was out of sight, he said "Shuffle off this mortal coil, you ****" and shot the man.
The judge in the case said "This was not an action taken in the heat of battle or immediately after you had been engaged in a fire fight." Brigadier Bill Dunham said it was "a truly shocking and appalling aberration".
The event took place in September 2011. Sgt Blackman was found guilty in November 2013, and the sentence reviewed in May 2014. He will be appealing against the sentence, and the appeal will be heavily funded.
And: Blackman had been under immense pressure, having led a team of 15 men for five months in an extremely hostile environment
Alexander Blackman had an unblemished career in the Royal Marines for 17 years, serving his country on numerous tours in Northern Ireland, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Beats me why some on here are so keen to knock our brave and courageous service men, women and security forces who put their lives on the line for us, yet are desperate to swing to the defense of suspected enemy terrorists.
And: He had his sentence reduced from a minimum of 10 years to a minimum of eight years, having taken into consideration all mitigating circumstances.
Beats me why some people are so keen to attack the justice system which deliberates and determines an outcome based on all evidence; and why some people are keen to defend the actions of a convicted murderer whose actions fell so very short of those expected of brave and courageous service men and women; and who has unwittingly made the work of those brave and courageous service men and women so much harder and more dangerous.
Few things make me prouder than the actions of the people who serve and defend our country. I know I couldn't do their job. It's a terrible shame that sometimes they are let down by the illegal and immoral actions of one of their colleagues. Thankfully it's incredibly rare.
But, as I said earlier, perhaps that can be the topic of a different thread, rather than this one, which - to repeat - is about an innocent man, reprehensively treated over the course of half a generation.
The vast majority of soldiers would act honourably when dealing with an un armed prisoner. The rules are pretty clear for soldiers that prisoners must be treated well and kept safe. To execute this enemy was not either lawful or honourable.
I think terrible things happen in war and its hard to make judgements from my cosy chair in Shooters Hill but what Blackman did was wrong.
Comments
One of the things that makes a civilised culture different to, say, ISIS (where judgement is often instant and without fair trial) is that there is available to all people the right to open and fair justice system. A system where you can hear the accusation against you, put forward your case and judgement is found on the evidence.
That just hasn't happened here. In their rush to have vengeance for what happened at 9/11 the US (aided and abetted to some extent by the UK) have acted as if they are above the law and have made judgement without trial. In this respect they are doing exactly the same thing as those who they claim to be fighting. That just isn't right. Fair trial is a fundamental tenet of our justice system.
Some of Aamer's past activity undoubtedly throws up questions about what he was doing in Afghanistan and with whom. But this should have been challenged in a court of law. The failure to do so and detain him for 13 years is an own goal on the US and/or UK's part. The whole approach taken at Guantanamo Bay has been at best, dubious, and at worst, criminal.
It is a disgrace that they haven't charged Aamer with anything. It is an absolute infringement of his rights, and undermines the legal system. His is now a cause célèbre which makes it harder to make judgement of what may or may not have happened in the past and whether or not he did anything criminal. I don't think the 'collateral damage' argument holds up as that is a slippery slope to poor justice.
My hope is that the US and UK, in a particular, have learnt from this, but I fear they haven't.
Now this bloke has been held without charge for this entire time. If the US government wanted to make life easy for themselves, they could have charged him with something, anything, but no. No charges. 14 years of "interrogation". But no charges.
Meanwhile we as a country have been complicit in letting him stay in this US "remote island" prison UNCHARGED for 14 years.
If you can genuinely say that you think that this is fair enough, "collateral damage" as you put it, then fair enough. I hope no-one from your family is never judged to be worth holding prisoner for so long without charge. Obviously you'd be happy though as it's fair enough as it's just "collateral damage" right?
By the way;.... if it was Russia that operated this "terrorist holding facility" and a British national was held there for 14 years without charge, would you be so compliant? Mmmm no, I thought not.
Perhaps you could suggest another adjective that I could use that wouldn't be so offensive to my lefty friends.
Next time I'll say unintentional deaths, injuries, incarcerations or other damage inflicted incidentally on an unintended target in the theatre of war. Bit of a mouthful, but happy to oblige if it pleases.
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?
Just because you and I hold polar opposite view's, doesn't mean that I am on a wind up. I am always happy to debate and argue my case, because that is what I believe in and care about. To answer your question, I believe that terrorism needs to be treated differently and I believe that is actually what is happening. Anyone currently suspected of being a terrorist in the UK is under constant observation, their phones are being monitored, they are not being assumed innocent and left alone, it is being assumed that they are guilty and that they could committ an atrocity at any time. This is exactly what needs to be done in order that you, I and our families are kept as safe as possible and not maimed or killed simply because we were unlucky enough to board the wrong train, plane or bus. Safety for the majority is far more important to me than offending the human rights of any individual suspected terrorist. There is normally very good reason why someone is suspected of being a terrorist and it would never happen to me or anyone who lives their lives normally. It happens when the intelligence agencies gather enough information and data to arouse their suspicions. Occasionally they get it wrong and an innocent gets caught up in it, but most of the time they do a fabulous job and we should be very grateful to them for keeping us safe. If you don't believe that we are under any threat, you need to view the video that I put up.
I think you're conflating the monitoring and evidence-gathering of suspects with illegal extraordinary rendition, incarceration and torture.
One is perfectly legal and used in accordance with laws debated and passed by democratically-elected representatives. The other is illegal, immoral and inhumane.
If you see them as being the same, you're wrong.
I make that very nearly 2 out of 2, not 1 out 3.
Disagree with me by all means, but please don't misrepresent what I said.
Your original response was about who she might be, and where I heard her interviewed, and I added more information.
You didn't respond to what I said she said regarding what he had witnesses in Camp Bastion and elsewhere.
It could be the good reason the authorities held on to him so long without charge was to silence him, not to prevent terrorism.
I assume you asked about the BBC and Human Rights lawyer as a way of saying something like 'see! They have an agenda because of their politics', but I prefer to engage with the reality of what happened and develop the discussion about that stuff.
I only made 2 guesses. You can spin it anyway you want, you're wrong.
Sgt Blackman remains incacerated for doing his duty. Working in a war zone hunting down radical Islamists who seek to destroy everything that they consider un-Islamic.
Politics imposed fourteen years on Aamer. He's now free and will soon be rolling in taxpayers money.
A political sop to Muslims imposed a life term on Sgt Blackman.
One issue has been adressed (Aamer) When will the other .................?
Yes, your "not all that very" jibe was in response to my "very predictable" comment, and you would have been entirely correct if I had really only got 1 out of 3 correct. But that wasn't the case, and that is what I'm annoyed about, because I only ever made 2 guesses.
And if you think the world is a safer place today than pre 2006 you must be living in some kind of fantasy land.
If you are OK with the Illegal invasion and subsequent killing of Saddam sounds like double standards.
This thread is about a man who was illegally kidnapped, detained and "interrogated" over the course of more than a dozen years, but, most importantly, without recourse to a court of law, a hearing or an opportunity publicly to defend himself against charges.
The other case is a man who committed an act of murder, was found guilty in a court of law, where he was given the opportunity to defend himself, had the case reviewed at an appeal and who is starting a period of incarceration.
One man "served" 14 years; the other will have to serve 8 or more.
By all means start a thread about Sergeant Blackman. But don't conflate the two issues.
After they had removed the man's gun and grenades (thereby removing the threat), Sgt Blackman ordered that the man be moved to a place out of sight of operational headquarters. He ordered that those service personnel giving the man first aid stop. When the Apache helicopter was out of sight, he said "Shuffle off this mortal coil, you ****" and shot the man.
The judge in the case said "This was not an action taken in the heat of battle or immediately after you had been engaged in a fire fight." Brigadier Bill Dunham said it was "a truly shocking and appalling aberration".
The event took place in September 2011. Sgt Blackman was found guilty in November 2013, and the sentence reviewed in May 2014. He will be appealing against the sentence, and the appeal will be heavily funded.
But the point remains, what happened was in a war zone. The Taliban were the enemy. Blackman killed an enemy. He could have left him to bleed to death and no one would have cared.
I'm not sure how, in a war zone, if I killed someone in an exchange of fire, that would be O/K. But if I killed him after, it becomes murder.
You can be assured that if the Taliban had found a wounded Marine they would have killed him, probably in a slower and more tortuous way.
It's a war zone! Kill or be killed.
The one thing I am glad to be corrected on was his sentence is actually 'life' with a minimum of ten years. I didn't know that. I hope his next appeal is successful and he is released. IMO he's already served long enough for his 'crime'
Blackman had been under immense pressure, having led a team of 15 men for five months in an extremely hostile environment
Alexander Blackman had an unblemished career in the Royal Marines for 17 years, serving his country on numerous tours in Northern Ireland, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Beats me why some on here are so keen to knock our brave and courageous service men, women and security forces who put their lives on the line for us,
yet are desperate to swing to the defense of suspected enemy terrorists.
Your questions didn't respond to what she said but an attempt to undermine her content by digging out the context.
He had his sentence reduced from a minimum of 10 years to a minimum of eight years, having taken into consideration all mitigating circumstances.
Beats me why some people are so keen to attack the justice system which deliberates and determines an outcome based on all evidence; and why some people are keen to defend the actions of a convicted murderer whose actions fell so very short of those expected of brave and courageous service men and women; and who has unwittingly made the work of those brave and courageous service men and women so much harder and more dangerous.
Few things make me prouder than the actions of the people who serve and defend our country. I know I couldn't do their job. It's a terrible shame that sometimes they are let down by the illegal and immoral actions of one of their colleagues. Thankfully it's incredibly rare.
But, as I said earlier, perhaps that can be the topic of a different thread, rather than this one, which - to repeat - is about an innocent man, reprehensively treated over the course of half a generation.
I think terrible things happen in war and its hard to make judgements from my cosy chair in Shooters Hill but what Blackman did was wrong.