22BUK

I think the RAF should have dropped them out of the plane over the Atlantic. Problem solved.

Dracoro

Why?

Aztec Performance Ltd

iTrader: (234)

agreed. Frightening to think that people like this sit as our Juries

Aztec Performance Ltd

iTrader: (234)

another stupid idiot

Flatcapdriver

It was definitely worth the expense of repatriating British citizens, guilty or not, back to the UK but it's not just a question of sending a C-17 just for four prisoners given that there were an awful lot more people involved in their return who couldn't have fitted on a smaller aircraft. However, I do agree that since the US interned them in the first place then it should bear the cost of their repatriation.

unclebuck

They sound like well dodgey characters to me:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4163911.stm

Hardly the 'heroes' they are being painted as.

Dracoro

I'm certainly not painting them as heroes or as criminals either as I AND you DON'T KNOW. No-ones does unless a) they are charged and are found guilty under a fair trial or b) are released without charge.

Just 'looking' at that page you posted, and using your logic, it 'would appear' that the Zambian guy didn't do much wrong at all apart from having someone steal his identity. Anyway, I'm not going to say one way or another purely on the basis as I don't know whether they're guilty or not. However a human right is trial by a fair jury and this HASN'T happened. This is what is so wrong about all this. And holding them for 3 years is a ridiculous amount of time to not prove their guilt. We are not talking a few weeks while the authorities gather evidence like normal democracies. If they are guily, prove it and jail them. If you can't, realease them.

I could say that you, unclebuck sound 'well dodgy' and maybe you should take these chaps places in guantanamo bay. Don't worry about the truth or a trial as like you say, sounding like 'well dodgy' characters is enough in this kangaroo court.

22BUK

Originally Posted by 22BUK
I think the RAF should have dropped them out of the plane over the Atlantic. Problem solved.

I think you'll find, Bob'5, that most of the country would agree with me, however irrational it might seem to you...

Aztec Performance Ltd

iTrader: (234)

Irrational? You're a joke.

I strongly doubt that most of the country think like you.

unclebuck

Quite. What I *would* say though is that what is presented on that page are details that can be regarded as *fact*. The things we don't know are presumably the reasons that they were picked up in the first place. If you think my pointing that out is reason enough for me to "take these chaps places in guantanamo bay." than surely you are no better than those you are criticising.

Flatcapdriver

By the same token, if the Americans are willing to release them then these detainees are presumably innocent and therefore able to reclaim their place in society. Or do you believe they should now be brought to trial?

unclebuck

Do you believe they should be released into the community as Islamic martyrs and showered with riches??

Flatcapdriver

If you'd read any of my posts in this thread you'd know the answer to that.

khany

If you are a martyr you dont return

unclebuck

Possibly, but I don't have time to indulge you by wading through 6 pages of posts, so I'll just have to live without the benefit of your opinion on the subject. I was simply offering up some *facts* regarding these people's backgrounds.

bigJoe

These people have been released because they are not seen as a threat anymore (that’s the important bit) by the USA. This does not prove or disprove what they were up to when they were apprehended.

I’m sure these people wouldn’t have been picked up and detained without good reason (after all why would the CIA or whoever waste it’s time). These people went though the local police/security forces system in the countries where they were picked up and really that makes it a matter between those countries and the USA – oh hang on, I forgot the subjects of the UK have the right to tell other countries what to do with their detainees – wow that sounds like something sanctimonious guardian readers would accuse a fascist dictatorship of – you bunch of hypocrites – you want security, law and order but don’t want to pay the price of enforcing it.

They are actually lucky, if any of them had decided to visit, say Chechnya or Zimbabwe (take your pick there’s many more places like these) they wouldn’t be in the UK now (with all their digits, fingernails etc).

Flatcapdriver

Perhaps they were never a threat in the first place and that's the problem - we simply don't know and until they are brought to trial we can't prejudge the situation.

It wouldn't be the first time that security services on either side of the Atlantic have made mistakes, would it? These are British citizens who hold British passports and as such they enjoy all the rights and priviledges that accords holders of the passport. They have been detained without trial and are innocent until proven guilty. There is nothing hypocritical or sanctimonious about that and it's not unique to the British, it's the same for any nationality whether they be American, Australian or Iraqi.

If the price of defending security, law and order is descending to the level of Al Qaeda where you can be detained, tortured and imprisoned for any length of time without question, then that is a price that is not worth paying. Anyone looking at this objectively and without emotion can see that this is not the route we should be taking and as their detention has been declared illegal in both America and Britain it is only right that they are sent to the UK to receive a fair trial.

bigJoe

Flatcapdriver


A passport doesn’t give you any rights, it’s a document issued and owned by the issuing country. It does not give you any rights you are normally afforded in your home country while you are abroad. So what if these people have British passports, why should they be entitled to different treatment than others – oh hang on they weren’t so that’s fine then.

You are right any security service can make mistakes, personally I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt this time though.

There’s a huge difference between terrorists taking prisoners and executing them (like Margaret Hussein) and democracies detaining people who they suspect may have information about terrorist activities. The US administration is held accountable to US citizens and they had their say in November. How many people abducted in Iraq have been freed (a few) and where are the rest – well quite a few are dead.

Personally I’d say removing people from society who are a threat (at that time) is a good thing, a price I’m willing to pay – no problem

AsifScoob

Big Joe,

Is it not possible that after all the **** ups made previously, (like not doing enough to stop 9/11 in the first place) that they were just desperate to get their hands on as many people as possible?

This looks to me that they knew they had nothing on these guys in the first place, just taken them 3 years to admit it.

Also, its not a waste of time if the American voters believe that the Administration IS doing something to protect them, the fact they may well be innocent is a mere technicality.

Asif

AsifScoob

Assume that you have all or most of the terroroists in custody, if that means a few innocents get locked up too is that ok?

Its just an opinion, but is crucial to this thread, what do other people think?

Asif

MJW

The previous British people released from Camp X-Ray were run out of their home town and have to live virtually in hiding. Hardly rock star treatment.

mj

I think that's an ideal situation.

Tiggs

Gary Glitter?

moses

welcome back the 4 heroes of guatanamo

may they rejoice with their families.

its their country their allowed back and as u all know not proven guilty and they were their long time before the americans and british.

it was the americans and british who invaded afghanistan not these guys.

lets say they were freedomfighters for talking sake, if an american soldier was point a gun at them or a british soldier, they have every right to defend themselves

the usa and british armies were out to hunt so these guys had every right to defend themselves.

its like having a white mercenary, the taliban pays him 1000 a week and says u fight for us but he lands in a situation and the british and american soldiers are about to kill him, should he just stand their and get killed or defend himself, if he has a brain he will defend himself

and these 4 hero's werent even mercenaries and nobody knows if they were terrorists or freedomfighters or fighting with the northern alliance for the taliban before the americans invaded.


but welcome home

bigJoe

Possible, maybe - probable, if you want to believe it (I happen not to)

No one wants innocent people detained, however in the eyes of the governments involved in the extradition and detention of these people it was needed at the time.

Which brings me back to the reason these people were released, because they are no longer seen as a threat - it doesn't mean they're innocent or guilty when judged under UK law, it means they were released under US as they no longer appear to pose a threat.

There are "innocent" in their family’s/friends/media eyes in prison all over the world, many in the UK - what does this prove??? nothing except you can believe what you want, however it may or may not be anywhere near reality.

GCollier

Moses, assuming your suggestion is correct and they were "freedom fighters" with a right to defend themselves against US and British soldiers, why should they be welcomed home as "heroes"? Anyone British citizen who takes up arms against soldiers of this country is a criminal, arguably guilty of treason. Whose side are you actually on?

Anyway the basic problem here is that our laws are designed to convict and punish after a crime has been committed. So those who argue innocent until proven guilty and demand their release under UK law are completely justified. Unfortunately however, we can't read these peoples minds, and although we cannot know for sure that an individual found in (for instance) an Al Qaeda safe house is planning or aiding a terrorist attack, we can acknowledge this as a distinct possibility even though no "crime" has yet taken place. In a world where massive destruction and loss of life can now be caused by a handful of well prepared individuals, circumstances where suspicion is high but available proof is low still need to be taken seriously. So I have a fair amount of sympathy for those who feel that their continued detainment without trial can in fact be justifed.

Gary.

unclebuck

Here we go...

I knew this would happen.

Jerome

Everyone can relax now because they've been released by the UK police without charge. See here.

Jap2Scrap

From the evidence it would seem that the well-prepared individuals in question were the Bush administration. No amount of planning by terrorists in an Afghan cave could have guaranteed the number of "coincidental" failures in procedure that were needed for 9/11 to succeed.

Just a few:

Important intelligence from the UK and Russia specifically detailing the type of attack in question ignored.

Military planes not scrambled, as per regulations, in situation where a civilian plane goes off course and loses radio contact. Not once but at least 3 times that day.

Pentagon missile defence system not operating.

White House missile defence system not operating (Flight 77 would have been within it's envelope - if it was indeed Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon)

Those are just some of the things which it's been admitted have failed on that day, and that day only.

I took it slightly off topic maybe, but I for one can easily believe that an American administration whose culpability in the attack is in question could justify holding the men without feeling the need to prove or disprove their innocence. In fact I'm surprised they even bothered to try and justify themselves.

GCollier

Jap2Scrap - I can believe that the US administration and intelligence services were sloppy and negligent, but I have a hard time believing they were complicit in the 9/11 attack. In any case, what about Madrid? What about Bali?

Gary.