BRITAIN’S LAST GUANTÁNAMO DETAINEE: WHO IS SHAKER AAMER? BRIEFING, 9 FEBRUARY 2015
The US government believes Shaker Aamer to be a military-trained al-Qaeda member who recruited for extremist causes and had close ties to Osama bin Laden. Aamer moved to Afghanistan, with his family, in the summer of 2001; however, the US believes he had visited the country on multiple occasions before: * On one occasion, he visited Khalden training camp, which hosted several jihadists connected to al-Qaeda. * In 2000, he accompanied the mujahideen on the front lines, carrying a gun as he did so. * In the summer of 2001, Aamer returned to Afghanistan, living under Taliban rule in Kabul. In October 2001 – the same month that the US began its bombing campaign in Afghanistan, in response to 9/11 – Aamer moved his family to Pakistan. However, rather than accompanying them, he returned to Afghanistan. The US believes that Aamer then fought at Tora Bora, Afghanistan, as the US and its allies attacked al-Qaeda and Taliban forces there towards the end of 2001. At Tora Bora, Aamer is thought to have served as a sub-commander under Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi’s command; al-Libi was the emir of the Khalden training camp. Multiple detainees at Guantánamo Bay have identified Aamer as the commander of the Juhanya Centre in Tora Bora (Abu Juhanyah was one of Shaker Aamer’s aliases). Aamer led a group at Tora Bora that included another Guantánamo detainee, Mohammed Ahmed Said. Aamer claims that he was captured, by Afghan forces, in Jalalabad in December 2001. He was in possession of a false Belgian passport at the time.
WHOM DID HE KNOW? At Guantánamo Bay, seven separate sources have described Aamer’s connections to al-Qaeda or Osama bin Laden: Abu Zubaydah, Abdul Bukhary, Muhammad Basardah, Moazzam Begg, Abdallah Yahy Yusif al-Shibli, Tariq Mahmud Ahmad al-Sawah, and Humud Dakhil Humud Said al-Jadani. In addition, another detainee, Fahd Umar Abd al-Majid al-Umari al-Sharif, has outlined Aamer’s military expertise. Aamer is thought to have known several radical Islamists and terrorists, including the following senior al-Qaeda leaders: * Abu Musab al-Suri, who has previously been described as the ideological “mastermind” behind the 7 July 2005 attacks on the London transport network. * Walid Bin Attash – a senior al-Qaeda operative currently standing trial in a US military commission, for his role in planning 9/11. * Abu Yasir al-Jazairi, an al-Qaeda facilitator. * Abu Hafs al-Mauritani, who was on the al-Qaeda shura council. Aamer was also tied to those who were well known within the British jihadist scene, including: * Babar Ahmad, who has pleaded guilty – in December 2013, in the US – to terrorism offences. Abu Hamza al-Masri, the former imam at Finsbury Park Mosque, who was convicted in the UK – primarily for hate-speech offences – in February 2006 and has since been extradited to the US (where he has been jailed for life, as a result of terrorism-related charges). Abu Qatada, the ideologue whom a Spanish judge described as “Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man in Europe”. * Richard Reid, the al-Qaeda operative who attempted to detonate a shoe bomb on a flight between Paris and Miami, in December 2001. Zacarias Moussaoui, the only person to be convicted for involvement in the attacks on 9/11
THE MOAZZAM BEGG CONNECTION Aamer and Moazzam Begg, a former Guantánamo Bay detainee from Britain, are close friends and both lived in Afghanistan in 2001 (one report even suggests that they lived in the same house). Begg now vociferously lobbies for Aamer’s release, claiming that he is wrongly detained. However, part of the evidence that the US has used against Aamer is provided by Begg himself. While being detained by the US, Begg identified Aamer as a “recruiter for al-Qaida”. He said that Aamer had fought in Bosnia and was a member of the Zubayr Group, which was run by Abu Zubayr al-Haili (a senior al-Qaeda operative from Saudi Arabia). Begg also said that Aamer “spent 30 days training on the AK-47 and rocket propelled grenades.” In the past, Begg has claimed to have provided information to the US under duress, implying that his past statements can therefore not be trusted. However, three separate Department of Defense investigations into Begg’s allegations of mistreatment have “found no evidence to substantiate his claims.” A Department of Justice review also concluded that Begg’s claims could not be supported.
WASN’T AAMER ONLY IN AFGHANISTAN TO CARRY OUT CHARITY WORK? Aamer’s supporters say that he was in Afghanistan for innocent reasons: carrying out charity work. This charity has not been named, but has been described as a “Muslim charity building schools for Afghan orphans”; a Saudi Arabian charity; and a “children’s charity”. Yet, the charities for which Aamer claims to have worked in the past are, in reality, groups providing support to al-Qaeda. Aamer claims to have worked for a “humanitarian” organisation in Bosnia in 1994, known as the Revival of Islamic Heritage Society (RIHS) – an outfit based in Kuwait. In January 2002, RIHS was placed on the United Nations Security Council Committee’s ‘Al-Qaida Sanctions List’. Its work in Pakistan and Afghanistan was affiliated with the Afghan Support Committee (which had funded both al- Qaeda and Osama bin Laden), and its Pakistan branch had funded al-Qaeda, using money “ostensibly earmarked for supporting orphans”. In June 2008, RIHS was designated by the US Treasury, for providing “financial and material support” to al-Qaeda and its affiliates.Aamer has also said that, in 1995, he worked for a Kuwaiti NGO called al-Ahya al-Turath, which is an alias used by RIHS.
WHY CAN’T WE JUST CHARGE HIM? There are multiple reasons why Aamer cannot be charged in court. The US has assessed Aamer to have been active in a combat zone in Afghanistan. As part of the international law of war, armies can remove unlawful combatants from the battlefield; yet, intelligence and military operatives’ primary focus is preventing the enemy combatant from continuing to fight – not conducting criminal investigations or finding evidence suitable for court. Evidence would have to have been collected from the potential crime scene (for example, a cave in Afghanistan), and, as former CIA Director Michael Hayden has said, it is not practical to “turn the American armed forces or the C.I.A. into C.S.I. Miami or C.S.I. Kandahar, or C.S.I. Jalalabad or C.S.I. Peshawar in order to build up that kind of evidence”. William Lietzau, former US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Policy, has explained this in the following way: [I]f you could graduate from a Taliban boot camp of course you can’t be prosecuted for anything, you haven’t done anything, you’re only a graduate. But if you were captured in war, of course you wouldn’t release that person, they’re still the enemy, they still want to fight you, they still want to kill you […] So, you wouldn’t release them but on the other hand you can’t criminally prosecute them. As Lietzau has outlined in reference to Afghanistan, detention is not “because [combatants] have committed some criminal offence that we want to punish them for, but because they are the enemy.”
--------------------------------- "Carrying a false Belgian passport" now that alone is enough to lock him up for 14 years! Let me know if anyone wants to read the rest of this briefing. Personally it makes me sick in the stomach that you not only offer someone like this your support, but you will pay them millions in compensation. As I said "no smoke without fire", Awaiting all the lol's.
Carrying a gun with you is something Americans know a lot about. They can't be fighters and also use the resources to act like the CIA and gather evidence to prosecute they say, but can utilise years of resources to establish and run Guantanamo instead, without the inconvenience of having to establish the evidence in a court. All the stuff above could have been presented in one form or other in a court, but it wasn't, the guy was locked away anyway because he was suspected of being a wrong 'un, but not because he was proved to be one. It was mentioned above that the rule of law is a British value (admittedly not one utilised very well in History as we British slaughtered many of the Aboriginal folk in Australia) the rule of law we're supposed to be fighting for, but it is hypocritical to then not utilise the rule of law when dealing with the 'enemy'.
How is this anything other than a 14-year-long miscarriage of justice? Proper process simply has not been observed.
queensland_addick - how about the Birmingham Six? Shabaka Shakur? How about a list of exonerated death row inmates? They can and WOULD do this. Moreover, why has there been debate for over a century over institutional racism in the US criminal proceedings? Link for some info.
I'm a young good for nothing student type bleeding heart left wing radical anarcho-feminist environmentalist type though to you, aren't I? So please do what you seem to have been doing for the last 120 posts and discredit me based on the fact I voted Green (there, I said it).
Yes, and there is absolutely no point in trying to reason or argue a case with people of the left. I should have known from experience that it is always a complete waste of time and effort. The confected outrage at a couple of poorly chosen words, the spinning of facts and putting words into my mouth that I never even said such as it's "normal" for soldiers to act in the way that Sgt Blackman did. The marking me 1 out of 3 when I asked two questions and got 1 correct and the other one probably correct. No apology and even a refusal to admit that he was wrong, despite it clearly being in black and white on page two of this thread. I admire your honesty in admitting that you are a Green, but it simply adds even more weight to my claim that one's thoughts on this are very likely to be driven by their political leaning. I'm pretty sure I know which way Goonheater leans politically as well and I would have done well to follow his lead, say my piece, then leave, and don't take the bait or bother engaging. On that note, I'm off to the post match thread to cheer myself up, I'll leave you all to high five each other, well done comrades.
Probably correct? As in probably guilty, got to admire consistency.
Without wanting to move the goalposts (I have no actual idea of what shaker aamer did or didn't do, what with the lack of evidence and court case etc. Maybe he was a wrongun - all possibilities exists) there was also Murat Kurnaz held for 5 years when cleared of any wrong doing. My point? Miscarriages of justice happen and incarceration in Guantanamo is not prima facie evidence of guilt
"what happened was in a war zone. The Taliban were the enemy. Blackman killed an enemy."
This is language used to normalise what Mr Blackman did.
"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"
This suggests that any other service men or women would have done what Mr Blackman did
Well opposing armies in a war zone do generally try to kill each other, so in that respect I suppose it's normal. But if he shot someone who wasn't a threat and injured, in cold blood, that's not normal (these days) and I don't see anyone here suggesting that it is.
Daggs suggested it was normal after I presented the facts as provided in the case. He didn't counter any of those facts, but argued that it was normal. Your comments are stuck in circles and you seem unclear on whether you think Blackman should have been convicted or not.
I am not in any way criticising all service personnel, and never would. I am criticising this one person based on the evidence provided.
I wonder how you think I lean politically, having never voted Green, Labour, or any hard-left party, and having voted Conservative more often than any other party. It all seems a bit Maslow's Hammer.
My concern in the Aamer case is mostly about the failure of the rule of the law and what this "the Taliban would do it too" attitude means for Western legal values. I have some concern for the long-term damage to the man and his family, but it's mostly about the process (and lack thereof)
Bigstemarra, I was careful to talk about the "evidence provided so far". The full text of the quote mentioned in the case did not suggest euthanasia to me. It seemed more like vindictiveness. However, Blackman is of course entitled to his appeal. That appeal may provide new evidence that exonerates him and the conviction may be overturned. We will see how it goes.
IA. "Daggs suggested it was normal after I presented the facts as provided in the case. He didn't counter any of those facts, but argued that it was normal"
At no time did i use the word 'normal' If you are going to attribute words to me, may I suggest you use the word understandable.
Even with the 'facts' you put forward, I do not see that in a war zone Blackman was guilty of murder. He found a badly injured enemy combatant and killed him. And you know what i couldn't care less. The Taliban insurgents misery was ended and he will never kill anyone else again.
Blackman appears to have strayed from the laughingly titled 'rules of war' He should have recieved no more than a token sentence.
I would really like to see how some of you would behave if you walked in Blackmans shoes just for a day or two, as opposed to five months.
How is this anything other than a 14-year-long miscarriage of justice? Proper process simply has not been observed.
queensland_addick - how about the Birmingham Six? Shabaka Shakur? How about a list of exonerated death row inmates? They can and WOULD do this. Moreover, why has there been debate for over a century over institutional racism in the US criminal proceedings? Link for some info.
I'm a young good for nothing student type bleeding heart left wing radical anarcho-feminist environmentalist type though to you, aren't I? So please do what you seem to have been doing for the last 120 posts and discredit me based on the fact I voted Green (there, I said it).
Yes, and there is absolutely no point in trying to reason or argue a case with people of the left. I should have known from experience that it is always a complete waste of time and effort. The confected outrage at a couple of poorly chosen words, the spinning of facts and putting words into my mouth that I never even said such as it's "normal" for soldiers to act in the way that Sgt Blackman did. The marking me 1 out of 3 when I asked two questions and got 1 correct and the other one probably correct. No apology and even a refusal to admit that he was wrong, despite it clearly being in black and white on page two of this thread. I admire your honesty in admitting that you are a Green, but it simply adds even more weight to my claim that one's thoughts on this are very likely to be driven by their political leaning. I'm pretty sure I know which way Goonheater leans politically as well and I would have done well to follow his lead, say my piece, then leave, and don't take the bait or bother engaging. On that note, I'm off to the post match thread to cheer myself up, I'll leave you all to high five each other, well done comrades.
Come back out of the rabbit hole and engage with my question, which is something you have not provided an answer to (or at least a very clear answer to) this entire thread. I will rephrase it now, just to make it even clearer.
In what ways has this followed due judicial process? A man has been held without charge, cleared of wrongdoing SIX times by the courts, and likely been physically and mentally abused throughout these fourteen years.
Basically - regardless of his potential innocence or guilt - how is this fair?
That is what we are concerned about - not whether he's a good'un or a baddie, which appears to be your concern.
I don't feel the need to review at this point what I've said about the Alexander Blackman case and the reactions to it. We can discuss again after the conclusion of the appeal as further evidence will be available then.
You clearly misrepresented my opinion by stating I considered it 'normal' That is untrue and you should be man enough to acknowledge that.
'Normal' is the last word that could be used about a Middle East conflict where Muslims slaughter other Muslims along with any Non-Muslims and the British and American forces (and others) are flown in and told to sort the whole rotten mess out.
Not quoting queenslands post but just because the Americans believe something or at least say they do means feck all. The Americans believed or lied about WMD.
That is why the process of law and order is so important.
Daggs, I believe you used specific language to normalise Blackman's actions within the context of the Afghan conflict. You believe you didn't. We disagree but I don't want to fall out with you about it.
I think I've said everything I needed to say about Blackman and Aamer at this point. Can we move on? Obviously we can return to the Blackman case after the conclusion of the appeal.
In the meantime, I offer to buy you a pint at either Sheffield Wednesday home or Birmingham away. No politics though.
Daggs, I believe you used specific language to normalise Blackman's actions within the context of the Afghan conflict. You believe you didn't. We disagree but I don't want to fall out with you about it.
I think I've said everything I needed to say about Blackman and Aamer at this point. Can we move on? Obviously we can return to the Blackman case after the conclusion of the appeal.
In the meantime, I offer to buy you a pint at either Sheffield Wednesday home or Birmingham away. No politics though.
Daggs, I believe you used specific language to normalise Blackman's actions within the context of the Afghan conflict. You believe you didn't. We disagree but I don't want to fall out with you about it.
I think I've said everything I needed to say about Blackman and Aamer at this point. Can we move on? Obviously we can return to the Blackman case after the conclusion of the appeal.
In the meantime, I offer to buy you a pint at either Sheffield Wednesday home or Birmingham away. No politics though.
How is this anything other than a 14-year-long miscarriage of justice? Proper process simply has not been observed.
queensland_addick - how about the Birmingham Six? Shabaka Shakur? How about a list of exonerated death row inmates? They can and WOULD do this. Moreover, why has there been debate for over a century over institutional racism in the US criminal proceedings? Link for some info.
I'm a young good for nothing student type bleeding heart left wing radical anarcho-feminist environmentalist type though to you, aren't I? So please do what you seem to have been doing for the last 120 posts and discredit me based on the fact I voted Green (there, I said it).
Yes, and there is absolutely no point in trying to reason or argue a case with people of the left. I should have known from experience that it is always a complete waste of time and effort. The confected outrage at a couple of poorly chosen words, the spinning of facts and putting words into my mouth that I never even said such as it's "normal" for soldiers to act in the way that Sgt Blackman did. The marking me 1 out of 3 when I asked two questions and got 1 correct and the other one probably correct. No apology and even a refusal to admit that he was wrong, despite it clearly being in black and white on page two of this thread. I admire your honesty in admitting that you are a Green, but it simply adds even more weight to my claim that one's thoughts on this are very likely to be driven by their political leaning. I'm pretty sure I know which way Goonheater leans politically as well and I would have done well to follow his lead, say my piece, then leave, and don't take the bait or bother engaging. On that note, I'm off to the post match thread to cheer myself up, I'll leave you all to high five each other, well done comrades.
Come back out of the rabbit hole and engage with my question, which is something you have not provided an answer to (or at least a very clear answer to) this entire thread. I will rephrase it now, just to make it even clearer.
In what ways has this followed due judicial process? A man has been held without charge, cleared of wrongdoing SIX times by the courts, and likely been physically and mentally abused throughout these fourteen years.
Basically - regardless of his potential innocence or guilt - how is this fair?
That is what we are concerned about - not whether he's a good'un or a baddie, which appears to be your concern.
Errr, because he's the enemy and he wants to kill you! And yes I have answered your question, it's just that you haven't been arsed to read the thread in it's entirety. It's even contained in the last paragraph of the long post above. As I said in my very first post "the world changed on 9/11". The intelligence forces had some information on those 9/11 hijackers (not nearly as much as they have on Aamer) but they didn't act, they allowed them to remain amongst us. The result was that 3500 innocent people had the spine chilling choice of jumping to their deaths or being cooked alive. Would 9/11 have happened if those hijackers had been safely behind bars? No, certainly not on 9/11. Who's human rights are more important to you? Those 3500 innocents, or the hijackers who were plotting covertly to inflict such an atrocity and then carried it out? Now read again the intelligence they had on Aamer and familiarise yourself with the meaning of the word "Islamist". It's contained in the video that I posted on the first page, which explains what it is about the religion of Islam that causes it to produce radicals who want to kill us and to set up a caliphate, ie take over our lands and introduce sharia law, you know the law that believes in throwing gays off high buildings, female mutilation and many other things that someone like yourself should find appalling. I'm now completely over all the PC crap appearing in this thread and the sheer rudeness of being told "come out of your rabbit hole", so I may read, but I will not respond to anymore posts.
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck it's often a duck.
There is a lot of sense that @queensland_addick has posted regarding some black and white facts about Shaker Aamer.
Whilst this might be a touch away from relevant who, purely based on stuff we know, thinks he was detained unfairly and unreasonably at Guantanamo Bay in the first instance (I'm not talking about the duration he was held for)?
And who is comfortable about the company he keeps?
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck it's often a duck.
There is a lot of sense that @queensland_addick has posted regarding some black and white facts about Shaker Aamer.
Whilst this might be a touch away from relevant who, purely based on stuff we know, thinks he was detained unfairly and unreasonably at Guantanamo Bay in the first instance (I'm not talking about the duration he was held for)?
And who is comfortable about the company he keeps?
"Often" a duck; but not always.
He was detained unfairly and unreasonably at Guantanamo Bay.
Leaving aside his kidnapping, his extraordinary rendition and his torture, he should not be detained without being charged and without having the opportunity to defend himself. He simply shouldn't have been held, unless it was with the intention to charge him. It should be very simple: charge him or let him go.
You're perfectly entitled to hold a different position. But, of course, if you do accept that anyone can be held without charge, you have to be prepared for it to happen to you or the people you love. I'm not.
I'm "comfortable with the company he keeps".
Assuming we're talking about the company he kept before he was incarcerated, I don't care who he knew or who he spent time with.
I care deeply if in any of those meetings he had broken the law. So, if he's conspired to commit illegal acts - from fraud, to theft, to acts of terror - then he should be prosecuted.
I think you're in danger of going down the twisted route that @queensland_addick was trying - failing - to navigate. Because it's legally and morally wrong to determine, arbitrarily, that some people can be placed outside the rule of law, that they can be treated differently - far, far worse - than everyone else, and that people can have their freedom and liberty removed because they might be a bit dodgy.
It's a shame that @queensland_addick has flounced off - again - because, however distasteful his views, it's better that he has an opportunity to defend them. Ironic, really.
How is this anything other than a 14-year-long miscarriage of justice? Proper process simply has not been observed.
queensland_addick - how about the Birmingham Six? Shabaka Shakur? How about a list of exonerated death row inmates? They can and WOULD do this. Moreover, why has there been debate for over a century over institutional racism in the US criminal proceedings? Link for some info.
I'm a young good for nothing student type bleeding heart left wing radical anarcho-feminist environmentalist type though to you, aren't I? So please do what you seem to have been doing for the last 120 posts and discredit me based on the fact I voted Green (there, I said it).
Yes, and there is absolutely no point in trying to reason or argue a case with people of the left. I should have known from experience that it is always a complete waste of time and effort. The confected outrage at a couple of poorly chosen words, the spinning of facts and putting words into my mouth that I never even said such as it's "normal" for soldiers to act in the way that Sgt Blackman did. The marking me 1 out of 3 when I asked two questions and got 1 correct and the other one probably correct. No apology and even a refusal to admit that he was wrong, despite it clearly being in black and white on page two of this thread. I admire your honesty in admitting that you are a Green, but it simply adds even more weight to my claim that one's thoughts on this are very likely to be driven by their political leaning. I'm pretty sure I know which way Goonheater leans politically as well and I would have done well to follow his lead, say my piece, then leave, and don't take the bait or bother engaging. On that note, I'm off to the post match thread to cheer myself up, I'll leave you all to high five each other, well done comrades.
Come back out of the rabbit hole and engage with my question, which is something you have not provided an answer to (or at least a very clear answer to) this entire thread. I will rephrase it now, just to make it even clearer.
In what ways has this followed due judicial process? A man has been held without charge, cleared of wrongdoing SIX times by the courts, and likely been physically and mentally abused throughout these fourteen years.
Basically - regardless of his potential innocence or guilt - how is this fair?
That is what we are concerned about - not whether he's a good'un or a baddie, which appears to be your concern.
Errr, because he's the enemy and he wants to kill you! And yes I have answered your question, it's just that you haven't been arsed to read the thread in it's entirety. It's even contained in the last paragraph of the long post above. As I said in my very first post "the world changed on 9/11". The intelligence forces had some information on those 9/11 hijackers (not nearly as much as they have on Aamer) but they didn't act, they allowed them to remain amongst us. The result was that 3500 innocent people had the spine chilling choice of jumping to their deaths or being cooked alive. Would 9/11 have happened if those hijackers had been safely behind bars? No, certainly not on 9/11. Who's human rights are more important to you? Those 3500 innocents, or the hijackers who were plotting covertly to inflict such an atrocity and then carried it out? Now read again the intelligence they had on Aamer and familiarise yourself with the meaning of the word "Islamist". It's contained in the video that I posted on the first page, which explains what it is about the religion of Islam that causes it to produce radicals who want to kill us and to set up a caliphate, ie take over our lands and introduce sharia law, you know the law that believes in throwing gays off high buildings, female mutilation and many other things that someone like yourself should find appalling. I'm now completely over all the PC crap appearing in this thread and the sheer rudeness of being told "come out of your rabbit hole", so I may read, but I will not respond to anymore posts.
"Because he's the enemy and he wants to kill you!"
And that's the highly rotten acorn from which you are trying to grow your diseased oak tree of an argument.
It is fair, because he is an enemy. That's what you're saying. That is actually what you're saying, right? That he is demonstrably, PROVABLY, according to the US or UK or whatever justice system whose process near all of us have so much faith in, guilty and bad and the enemy?
In which case, okay, that's your belief.
One small problem.
He's been cleared of wrongdoing by the justice system six times and not been charged with anything.
Osama Bin Ladin was executed without trial. If I have absolutely no problem with that then I find it difficult to feel concern about this guy. Looking at the evidence there is no question in my mind that he is a terrorist. We are at war. We are killing thousands of genuinely innocent people every year.
How is this anything other than a 14-year-long miscarriage of justice? Proper process simply has not been observed.
queensland_addick - how about the Birmingham Six? Shabaka Shakur? How about a list of exonerated death row inmates? They can and WOULD do this. Moreover, why has there been debate for over a century over institutional racism in the US criminal proceedings? Link for some info.
I'm a young good for nothing student type bleeding heart left wing radical anarcho-feminist environmentalist type though to you, aren't I? So please do what you seem to have been doing for the last 120 posts and discredit me based on the fact I voted Green (there, I said it).
Yes, and there is absolutely no point in trying to reason or argue a case with people of the left. I should have known from experience that it is always a complete waste of time and effort. The confected outrage at a couple of poorly chosen words, the spinning of facts and putting words into my mouth that I never even said such as it's "normal" for soldiers to act in the way that Sgt Blackman did. The marking me 1 out of 3 when I asked two questions and got 1 correct and the other one probably correct. No apology and even a refusal to admit that he was wrong, despite it clearly being in black and white on page two of this thread. I admire your honesty in admitting that you are a Green, but it simply adds even more weight to my claim that one's thoughts on this are very likely to be driven by their political leaning. I'm pretty sure I know which way Goonheater leans politically as well and I would have done well to follow his lead, say my piece, then leave, and don't take the bait or bother engaging. On that note, I'm off to the post match thread to cheer myself up, I'll leave you all to high five each other, well done comrades.
Come back out of the rabbit hole and engage with my question, which is something you have not provided an answer to (or at least a very clear answer to) this entire thread. I will rephrase it now, just to make it even clearer.
In what ways has this followed due judicial process? A man has been held without charge, cleared of wrongdoing SIX times by the courts, and likely been physically and mentally abused throughout these fourteen years.
Basically - regardless of his potential innocence or guilt - how is this fair?
That is what we are concerned about - not whether he's a good'un or a baddie, which appears to be your concern.
Errr, because he's the enemy and he wants to kill you! And yes I have answered your question, it's just that you haven't been arsed to read the thread in it's entirety. It's even contained in the last paragraph of the long post above. As I said in my very first post "the world changed on 9/11". The intelligence forces had some information on those 9/11 hijackers (not nearly as much as they have on Aamer) but they didn't act, they allowed them to remain amongst us. The result was that 3500 innocent people had the spine chilling choice of jumping to their deaths or being cooked alive. Would 9/11 have happened if those hijackers had been safely behind bars? No, certainly not on 9/11. Who's human rights are more important to you? Those 3500 innocents, or the hijackers who were plotting covertly to inflict such an atrocity and then carried it out? Now read again the intelligence they had on Aamer and familiarise yourself with the meaning of the word "Islamist". It's contained in the video that I posted on the first page, which explains what it is about the religion of Islam that causes it to produce radicals who want to kill us and to set up a caliphate, ie take over our lands and introduce sharia law, you know the law that believes in throwing gays off high buildings, female mutilation and many other things that someone like yourself should find appalling. I'm now completely over all the PC crap appearing in this thread and the sheer rudeness of being told "come out of your rabbit hole", so I may read, but I will not respond to anymore posts.
"Because he's the enemy and he wants to kill you!"
And that's the highly rotten acorn from which you are trying to grow your diseased oak tree of an argument.
It is fair, because he is an enemy. That's what you're saying. That is actually what you're saying, right? That he is demonstrably, PROVABLY, according to the US or UK or whatever justice system whose process near all of us have so much faith in, guilty and bad and the enemy?
In which case, okay, that's your belief.
One small problem.
He's been cleared of wrongdoing by the justice system six times and not been charged with anything.
Sadly it looks like my acorn grew into a diseased Oak in record time! I'm sure the citizens of England are sleeping very soundly in the knowledge that the justice system were unable to lay anything on him despite the pages of circumstantial evidence laid out above. Islamists don't suddenly relinquish their beliefs just because they have been locked up. I hope the security forces don't now take their eyes off him for one second.
Comments
GUANTÁNAMO DETAINEE:
WHO IS SHAKER AAMER?
BRIEFING, 9 FEBRUARY 2015
The US government believes Shaker Aamer to be a military-trained al-Qaeda member who recruited for extremist causes and had close ties to Osama bin Laden.
Aamer moved to Afghanistan, with his family, in the summer of 2001; however, the US believes he had visited the country on multiple occasions before:
* On one occasion, he visited Khalden training camp, which hosted several jihadists connected to al-Qaeda.
* In 2000, he accompanied the mujahideen on the front lines, carrying a gun as he did so.
* In the summer of 2001, Aamer returned to Afghanistan, living under Taliban rule in Kabul.
In October 2001 – the same month that the US began its bombing campaign in Afghanistan, in response to 9/11 – Aamer moved his family to Pakistan. However, rather than accompanying them, he returned to Afghanistan.
The US believes that Aamer then fought at Tora Bora, Afghanistan, as the US and its allies attacked al-Qaeda and Taliban forces there towards the end of 2001. At Tora Bora, Aamer is thought to have served as a sub-commander under Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi’s command; al-Libi was the emir of the Khalden training camp. Multiple detainees at Guantánamo Bay have identified Aamer as the commander of the Juhanya Centre in Tora Bora (Abu Juhanyah was one of Shaker Aamer’s aliases).
Aamer led a group at Tora Bora that included another Guantánamo detainee, Mohammed Ahmed Said.
Aamer claims that he was captured, by Afghan forces, in Jalalabad in December 2001. He was in possession of a false Belgian passport at the time.
WHOM DID HE KNOW?
At Guantánamo Bay, seven separate sources have described Aamer’s connections to al-Qaeda or Osama bin Laden: Abu Zubaydah, Abdul Bukhary, Muhammad Basardah, Moazzam Begg, Abdallah Yahy Yusif al-Shibli, Tariq Mahmud Ahmad al-Sawah, and Humud Dakhil Humud Said al-Jadani. In addition, another detainee, Fahd Umar Abd al-Majid al-Umari al-Sharif, has outlined Aamer’s military
expertise.
Aamer is thought to have known several radical Islamists and terrorists, including the following senior al-Qaeda leaders:
* Abu Musab al-Suri, who has previously been described as the ideological “mastermind” behind the 7 July 2005 attacks on the London transport network.
* Walid Bin Attash – a senior al-Qaeda operative currently standing trial in a US military commission, for his role in planning 9/11.
* Abu Yasir al-Jazairi, an al-Qaeda facilitator.
* Abu Hafs al-Mauritani, who was on the al-Qaeda shura council.
Aamer was also tied to those who were well known within the British jihadist scene, including:
* Babar Ahmad, who has pleaded guilty – in December 2013, in the US – to terrorism offences.
Abu Hamza al-Masri, the former imam at Finsbury Park Mosque, who was convicted in the UK – primarily for hate-speech offences – in February 2006 and has since been extradited to the US (where he has been jailed for life, as a result of terrorism-related charges).
Abu Qatada, the ideologue whom a Spanish judge described as “Osama bin
Laden’s right-hand man in Europe”.
* Richard Reid, the al-Qaeda operative who attempted to detonate a shoe bomb on a flight between Paris and Miami, in December 2001.
Zacarias Moussaoui, the only person to be convicted for involvement in the attacks on 9/11
THE MOAZZAM BEGG CONNECTION
Aamer and Moazzam Begg, a former Guantánamo Bay detainee from Britain, are close friends and both lived in Afghanistan in 2001 (one report even suggests that they lived in the same house). Begg now vociferously lobbies for Aamer’s release, claiming that he is wrongly detained.
However, part of the evidence that the US has used against Aamer is provided by Begg himself. While being detained by the US, Begg identified Aamer as a “recruiter for al-Qaida”. He said that Aamer had fought in Bosnia and was a member of the Zubayr Group, which was run by Abu Zubayr al-Haili (a senior al-Qaeda operative from Saudi Arabia). Begg also said that Aamer “spent 30 days training on the AK-47 and rocket propelled grenades.”
In the past, Begg has claimed to have provided information to the US under duress, implying that his past statements can therefore not be trusted. However, three separate Department of Defense investigations into Begg’s allegations of mistreatment have “found no evidence to substantiate his
claims.” A Department of Justice review also concluded that Begg’s claims could not be supported.
WASN’T AAMER ONLY IN AFGHANISTAN
TO CARRY OUT CHARITY WORK?
Aamer’s supporters say that he was in Afghanistan for innocent reasons: carrying out charity work. This charity has not been named, but has been described as a “Muslim charity building schools for Afghan orphans”; a Saudi Arabian charity; and a “children’s charity”. Yet, the charities for which Aamer claims to have worked in the past are, in reality, groups providing support to al-Qaeda.
Aamer claims to have worked for a “humanitarian” organisation in Bosnia in 1994, known as the Revival of Islamic Heritage Society (RIHS) – an outfit based in Kuwait. In January 2002, RIHS was placed on the United Nations Security Council Committee’s ‘Al-Qaida Sanctions List’. Its work in Pakistan and Afghanistan was affiliated with the Afghan Support Committee (which had funded both al-
Qaeda and Osama bin Laden), and its Pakistan branch had funded al-Qaeda, using money “ostensibly earmarked for supporting orphans”. In June 2008, RIHS was designated by the US Treasury, for providing “financial and material support” to al-Qaeda and its affiliates.Aamer has also said that, in 1995, he worked for a Kuwaiti NGO called al-Ahya al-Turath, which is an alias used by RIHS.
WHY CAN’T WE JUST CHARGE HIM?
There are multiple reasons why Aamer cannot be charged in court.
The US has assessed Aamer to have been active in a combat zone in Afghanistan. As part of the international law of war, armies can remove unlawful combatants from the battlefield; yet, intelligence and military operatives’ primary focus is preventing the enemy combatant from continuing to fight – not
conducting criminal investigations or finding evidence suitable for court. Evidence would have to have been collected from the potential crime scene (for example, a cave in Afghanistan), and, as former CIA Director Michael Hayden has said, it is not practical to “turn the American armed forces or the C.I.A.
into C.S.I. Miami or C.S.I. Kandahar, or C.S.I. Jalalabad or C.S.I. Peshawar in order to build up that kind of evidence”.
William Lietzau, former US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Policy, has explained this in the following way:
[I]f you could graduate from a Taliban boot camp of course you can’t be prosecuted for anything, you haven’t done anything, you’re only a graduate. But if you were captured in war, of course you wouldn’t release that person, they’re still the enemy, they still want to fight you, they still want to kill you […] So, you wouldn’t release them but on the other hand you can’t criminally prosecute them.
As Lietzau has outlined in reference to Afghanistan, detention is not “because [combatants] have committed some criminal offence that we want to punish them for, but because they are the enemy.”
---------------------------------
"Carrying a false Belgian passport" now that alone is enough to lock him up for 14 years!
Let me know if anyone wants to read the rest of this briefing. Personally it makes me sick in the stomach that you not only offer someone like this your support, but you will pay them millions in compensation. As I said "no smoke without fire", Awaiting all the lol's.
They can't be fighters and also use the resources to act like the CIA and gather evidence to prosecute they say, but can utilise years of resources to establish and run Guantanamo instead, without the inconvenience of having to establish the evidence in a court.
All the stuff above could have been presented in one form or other in a court, but it wasn't, the guy was locked away anyway because he was suspected of being a wrong 'un, but not because he was proved to be one.
It was mentioned above that the rule of law is a British value (admittedly not one utilised very well in History as we British slaughtered many of the Aboriginal folk in Australia) the rule of law we're supposed to be fighting for, but it is hypocritical to then not utilise the rule of law when dealing with the 'enemy'.
As in probably guilty, got to admire consistency.
I am not in any way criticising all service personnel, and never would. I am criticising this one person based on the evidence provided.
I wonder how you think I lean politically, having never voted Green, Labour, or any hard-left party, and having voted Conservative more often than any other party. It all seems a bit Maslow's Hammer.
My concern in the Aamer case is mostly about the failure of the rule of the law and what this "the Taliban would do it too" attitude means for Western legal values. I have some concern for the long-term damage to the man and his family, but it's mostly about the process (and lack thereof)
Bigstemarra, I was careful to talk about the "evidence provided so far". The full text of the quote mentioned in the case did not suggest euthanasia to me. It seemed more like vindictiveness. However, Blackman is of course entitled to his appeal. That appeal may provide new evidence that exonerates him and the conviction may be overturned. We will see how it goes.
"Daggs suggested it was normal after I presented the facts as provided in the case. He didn't counter any of those facts, but argued that it was normal"
At no time did i use the word 'normal' If you are going to attribute words to me, may I suggest you use the word understandable.
Even with the 'facts' you put forward, I do not see that in a war zone Blackman was guilty of murder. He found a badly injured enemy combatant and killed him. And you know what i couldn't care less. The Taliban insurgents misery was ended and he will never kill anyone else again.
Blackman appears to have strayed from the laughingly titled 'rules of war' He should have recieved no more than a token sentence.
I would really like to see how some of you would behave if you walked in Blackmans shoes just for a day or two, as opposed to five months.
In what ways has this followed due judicial process? A man has been held without charge, cleared of wrongdoing SIX times by the courts, and likely been physically and mentally abused throughout these fourteen years.
Basically - regardless of his potential innocence or guilt - how is this fair?
That is what we are concerned about - not whether he's a good'un or a baddie, which appears to be your concern.
Let's return to this topic after the conclusion of the appeal.
'Normal' is the last word that could be used about a Middle East conflict where Muslims slaughter other Muslims along with any Non-Muslims and the British and American forces (and others) are flown in and told to sort the whole rotten mess out.
That is why the process of law and order is so important.
I think I've said everything I needed to say about Blackman and Aamer at this point. Can we move on? Obviously we can return to the Blackman case after the conclusion of the appeal.
In the meantime, I offer to buy you a pint at either Sheffield Wednesday home or Birmingham away. No politics though.
Apparently not according to the US.
As I said in my very first post "the world changed on 9/11". The intelligence forces had some information on those 9/11 hijackers (not nearly as much as they have on Aamer) but they didn't act, they allowed them to remain amongst us. The result was that 3500 innocent people had the spine chilling choice of jumping to their deaths or being cooked alive.
Would 9/11 have happened if those hijackers had been safely behind bars? No, certainly not on 9/11.
Who's human rights are more important to you? Those 3500 innocents, or the hijackers who were plotting covertly to inflict such an atrocity and then carried it out?
Now read again the intelligence they had on Aamer and familiarise yourself with the meaning of the word "Islamist". It's contained in the video that I posted on the first page, which explains what it is about the religion of Islam that causes it to produce radicals who want to kill us and to set up a caliphate, ie take over our lands and introduce sharia law, you know the law that believes in throwing gays off high buildings, female mutilation and many other things that someone like yourself should find appalling.
I'm now completely over all the PC crap appearing in this thread and the sheer rudeness of being told "come out of your rabbit hole", so I may read, but I will not respond to anymore posts.
There is a lot of sense that @queensland_addick has posted regarding some black and white facts about Shaker Aamer.
Whilst this might be a touch away from relevant who, purely based on stuff we know, thinks he was detained unfairly and unreasonably at Guantanamo Bay in the first instance (I'm not talking about the duration he was held for)?
And who is comfortable about the company he keeps?
He was detained unfairly and unreasonably at Guantanamo Bay.
Leaving aside his kidnapping, his extraordinary rendition and his torture, he should not be detained without being charged and without having the opportunity to defend himself. He simply shouldn't have been held, unless it was with the intention to charge him. It should be very simple: charge him or let him go.
You're perfectly entitled to hold a different position. But, of course, if you do accept that anyone can be held without charge, you have to be prepared for it to happen to you or the people you love. I'm not.
I'm "comfortable with the company he keeps".
Assuming we're talking about the company he kept before he was incarcerated, I don't care who he knew or who he spent time with.
I care deeply if in any of those meetings he had broken the law. So, if he's conspired to commit illegal acts - from fraud, to theft, to acts of terror - then he should be prosecuted.
I think you're in danger of going down the twisted route that @queensland_addick was trying - failing - to navigate. Because it's legally and morally wrong to determine, arbitrarily, that some people can be placed outside the rule of law, that they can be treated differently - far, far worse - than everyone else, and that people can have their freedom and liberty removed because they might be a bit dodgy.
It's a shame that @queensland_addick has flounced off - again - because, however distasteful his views, it's better that he has an opportunity to defend them. Ironic, really.
And that's the highly rotten acorn from which you are trying to grow your diseased oak tree of an argument.
It is fair, because he is an enemy. That's what you're saying. That is actually what you're saying, right? That he is demonstrably, PROVABLY, according to the US or UK or whatever justice system whose process near all of us have so much faith in, guilty and bad and the enemy?
In which case, okay, that's your belief.
One small problem.
He's been cleared of wrongdoing by the justice system six times and not been charged with anything.
I'm sure the citizens of England are sleeping very soundly in the knowledge that the justice system were unable to lay anything on him despite the pages of circumstantial evidence laid out above.
Islamists don't suddenly relinquish their beliefs just because they have been locked up. I hope the security forces don't now take their eyes off him for one second.