Iwan

Thing is though Leslie. The authorities may well have enough evidence to convict them but as you'll know they won't reveal it in open court if it's been gathered in a sneaky/illegal way or compromises an informant etc.

Doesn't necessarily mean they aren't guilty though.

I'm pretty much in the "chuck the ******* off the plane mid-atlantic" school of thought. But part of me thinks they should release them, then watch them like a hawk, seeing who they meet up with, and who they talk to. If they're involved in anything dodgy (which I'd put money on) they may be able to lead the authorities to bigger fish.

tiggers

Les,

Throughout criminal history there are many many cases of criminals never being charged with all their crimes as there was insufficient evidence to do so. With the way the legal process works today it is surely not beyond the realms of possibility that at least some of those at Guantanamo are most definitely terrorists, but sufficient evidence to convict them properly is unobtainable.

tiggers.

P.S. Remember Al Capone - only ever convicted for tax evasion, but I think he was just a little more involved in criminal activities than that.

Pavlo

I am glad that everyone is happy to be in blighty, and that they wouldn't change a thing. I find it interesting that there are people saying these guys have double standards, hiding behind the UK law they sought to fight. But now you want the same UK law to be abandoned so they can thrown off a plane (or whatever).

As for argueing with moses, good luck to you. Do not be lured into thinking he is a fool by his haphazard "silly" posts.

Paul

Leslie

If they do have illegally gathered evidence then that is not admissable.

Whatever, we would be very stupid to lose the protections afforded us by the law in case of wrongful actions against innocent people by the government for its own convenience. Its a matter of balance and I know which way I would tip it.

I wonder why the government wanted to award itself the power to declare someone insane and lock them away without medical evidence?

Les

bigJoe

These people have been implicated in terrorist activities and paid the price for it, with their liberty and will continue to pay the price. They’re probably not much threat anymore to the US, Pakistani or UK governments any more.

Personally I think they should be given a second chance, but if they slip up once lock em up for life (that’s life – not the British “life”)

They won’t get far trying to sue any governments (unless the British government leave themselves open to it).

This should be a warning to others who think it’s ok to mercenary themselves (for money or a cause), at best you’ll get caught at worst you’ll get killed (probably not much of a loss to society).

These people aren’t heroes, at best they’re idiots for running with the wrong crowd and being stupid enough to attract enough attention to get arrested and extradited – at worst they’re terrorists.

I’m sure there’s a lot more to this than the public knows.

Flatcapdriver

This is not rocket science. If you are a passport holder of any country you are accorded the protection as a citizen of that country and enjoy access to representation from that Government irrespective of which country's citizens we're talking about. I have repeatedly told you that this is not unique to British citizens - every country has the same set up which is upheld in International Law.

I made this point because you seem to believe that a British citizen does not have recourse to his/her countries representation because they were arrested in a foreign country and immediately handed over to US authorities which somehow bypasses any rights a British (or whatever country the individual is a citizen of) citizen has, which is absolute bollocks.

The security services on both sides of the Atlantic have made a catalogue of errors which have been further skewed and misrepresented by the Governments in order to justify their actions in Iraq. At which point do you stop giving them the benefit of the doubt?

It's dead simple. If you condone imprisonment without trial coupled with torture and completly ignore basic human rights, then it's a slippery and fast slope which will quickly degenerate to the levels displayed by Al Zaqawi and company. That is not a direction we should be taking. By your reckoning, the Americans authorities could simply pick you up, detain and torture you simply because they suspect you of having information about terrorist activities - are you seriously suggesting that you would be happy for this to happen to you?

Just because the detainees have brown faces and non-Anglocised names does not mean that they are not allowed basic rights enjoyed by members of our society, the cornerstone of which is the right to trial by jury. They may well be guilty of committing terrorist atrocities but they should be tried in a court of law and then if found guilty they can be sentenced according to the laws of the land, whether it be the US or the UK in this instance.

I'm just ****ing amazed by some of the bigoted, ill conceived thinking that has been contributed by some people in this thread particularly given the the remembrance services being held to remember those in the Holocaust, this week. It was this sort of thinking that help lead Germany down that dark road over sixty years ago and I am stunned at the stupidity of people who suggest they should be thrown off a plane mid-Atlantic without proof of their guilt.

If they were guilty of acts of terrorism and this had been proven then I could understand some of the comments but it seems as if we have our fair share of fanatics in Western society which does not bode well for the future - if they had their way this whole conflict will simply escalate into and eye for eye, tit for tat endless scale of violence.

OllyK

Oh he is all for the eradication of the rights of others when he feels that he is more important than them (which seems to be the case most of the time).

Aztec Performance Ltd

iTrader: (234)

comparing protecting me rights as a non-smoker to sending people of ethnic origin 'back home'

Hardly the same

OllyK

Your either for protecting people's rights or you aren't. You can't just pick and choose the ones you fancy.

Aztec Performance Ltd

iTrader: (234)

So you believe that by kicking out those UK citizens which have an ethnic origin is protecting peoples rights????

If thats not **** I dont know what is.

As for smoking (which your currently not getting much support for on the other thread).... as somebody has already put it "we live in a democracy where, whether you like it or not the majority rule is enforced in law, politics, employment and education to name but a few for the common good"

Your fighting a losing battle mate...holding a **** flag in one hand whilst trying to brand those who oppose smoking in enclosed public places as *****.

Think before you begin typing.

Bob

OllyK

Open eyes, learn to read.

I have not expressed that opinion, I chastised TheBigMan for holding that opinion, please try to engage your brain before you lie about me on a public BBS.

Aztec Performance Ltd

iTrader: (234)

I think you need to re-read your posts.

bigJoe

Flatcapdriver

The fact remains that these people were detained in another country under their laws – if you don’t like it what are you going to do? (boycott Disney???)

What does the colour of their faces have to do with anything?????

A passport will only afford you the rights that you are granted in another country and even then you may not necessarily get them. International law is nothing more than reciprocal agreements between countries, granted your passport may afford you rights and a level of service in say Germany, but what will it get you in Iran or Pakistan (for instance) – whatever they’ll let you have. Again what are you going to do???

If you want to see what rights you have when abroad, take a look at the Foreign Commonwealth Office web site.

The problem with you opinionated liberals is that they think everyone should live by your rules and if you don’t you’re automatically wrong – doesn’t sound too liberal to me – and doesn’t sound right either

OllyK

OK, step by step, just like kindergarten

Post #157, BOB'5 makes a comment about TheBigMan waving the **** flag.
Post #158, OllyK adds to that by saying TheBigMan seems to have a track record for not giving a damn about people's rights.
Post #159, BOB'5 suggests that you can "pick and choose" the human rights you want to support, i.e. some are important and others are not bu laughing at a comparison being made between 2 different human rights.
Post #160, OllyK says that rights are rights, you can't pick and choose. If you are pro the rights of a British Citizen to fair treatment (regardless of colour, religion etc) then you should equally support all other British citizens rights to their freedoms. To pick and choose is hypocritical.
Post #170 BOB'5 jumps to a wild conclusion that becuase OllyK is defending all human rights, he is a ****.

No either show me the post where I state that anybody of ethnic origin should be "kicked" out of the country or wind your neck in.

Aztec Performance Ltd

iTrader: (234)

ok here are the facts:

Post 157: Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBigMan
They're not even British.

F$ck them. Send them back to Botswana, Zimbabwe, or wherever they're from.

TheBigMan flying the **** flag

####

Your reply (post 158): Quote:
Originally Posted by BOB'5
TheBigMan flying the **** flag

Oh he is all for the eradication of the rights of others when he feels that he is more important than them (which seems to be the case most of the time).

#### you quoted me not 'TheBigMan' and referred to the smoking thread also#####

I replied (post 159):

comparing protecting me rights as a non-smoker to sending people of ethnic origin 'back home'

Hardly the same

####

You then replied (post 160):

Your either for protecting people's rights or you aren't. You can't just pick and choose the ones you fancy

####

I replied (post 161):So you believe that by kicking out those UK citizens which have an ethnic origin is protecting peoples rights????

If thats not **** I dont know what is.

As for smoking (which your currently not getting much support for on the other thread).... as somebody has already put it "we live in a democracy where, whether you like it or not the majority rule is enforced in law, politics, employment and education to name but a few for the common good"

Your fighting a losing battle mate...holding a **** flag in one hand whilst trying to brand those who oppose smoking in enclosed public places as *****.

Think before you begin typing.

####

You then failed to address the question saying 'open eyes etc'



They are all direct quotes not selected ones with my views added.

I believed post 158 was directed at me as it is me who you quote and refer to with the comparison with anti-smoking.

In post 159 I say you cannot compare protecting rights as a non-smoker with 'kicking out' those with an ethnic background

You replied in post 160 NOT condeming kicking out ethnics (even though asked) but instead state: "Your either for protecting people's rights or you aren't. You can't just pick and choose the ones you fancy"

Explain.

Bob

Flatcapdriver

Which bit don't you understand? There is no law in the US that allows detention without trial and it says nothing in their constitution about torture. This is why the US Supreme Court ruled that their detention was illegal - do you understand this, it's really quite simple to grasp.

You keep banging on about passports and I keep telling you that as British citizens they have the right of access to British officials representing HMG. They are British citizens, ergo they have British passports but this right of access was denied to them.

Just because you don't believe in the right to a fair trial and you can't understand the basic concept of human rights doesn't make me an opionated liberal although compared to your extremist viewpoint my views are liberal in comparison. It's simply a case that I have considered the whole issue in more detail than you obviously have and have arrived at the conclusion that they are innocent until proven guilty - a conclusion that is the cornerstone of our legal system and usually that of the US.

OllyK

The "he" being TheBigMan, I was emphasising your point. If I had meant you, I would have put "Oh YOU are all..." I didn't.

Key point here - I am stating all rights are equal

And you decide to turn it on it's head. I am pro human rights and you somehow think that equates to throwing people out of the country? Hell of a leap that one.

I focused on the accusation that supporting human rights is deemed as being a **** by you. You seem to think, with no evidence, that I support forced repatriation, which I do not.

Democracy - just look at all the PC rants on here about how the "minority" is always getting unfair bias in their favour. I don't have an issue with going with a majority if it doesn't trample on the rights of the minority in the process. As discussed in the other thread, introducing smoking rooms in pubs would allow smokers to drink in a pub and also for non-smokers to have a smoke free environment. The anti-smokers aren't happy with having a smoke free area in a pub, they want to impose their will on everybody when they don't need to.


Well think again, I said "he" not "you".

Because it was in Post 158 where I take the mickey out of TheBigMan by referring to him as "he" rather than refering to you as "you". You got off on the wrong foot by mis-reading the very first post.

But then if you had read my explanaition in post 165 you would have know all that before you posted this!

Aztec Performance Ltd

iTrader: (234)

Ok there is clearly a misunderstanding/misinterpretation.

I apologise for labeling you a ****.

You obviously share a similar stance to me on this topic of 'sending people back home'

Regards

Bob

bigJoe

fcd

Actually I do believe in the right to a fair trial but also the legal system in place that allows the detention of these people, in difficult times difficult decisions need to be made.

These people fall into a legal loophole, that’s why they were held. They weren’t held under the premise of being tried under the regular US legal system – they were held under a different set or rules and needs – it’s been determined that their further detention serves no further purpose so they’ve been released – that’s it, end of story

If you break the laws in another country you have justice meated out as seen by that country – so someone from the FCO may come and visit you once to confirm your identity or they may not either way they won’t help you get out of jail (or whatever) – your theoretical “rights” won’t help you much if you’re imprisoned in a small town in the middle of Zambia – you’ll be entirely at the mercy of the local administration

OllyK

Thank you - appology accepted

Flatcapdriver

They weren't held under any set of rules or needs. They were simply arrested and imprisoned by the US authorities who completely ignored any domestic or international laws. They didn't fall into a legal loophole because there wasn't one to fall into. It was merely an excuse used by the US and to suggest that their further detention is merely expedient is ridiculous as there have now been 150 prisoners released without any charges being brought against them, nor any trial. The FBI expressed concerns over the prisoner's treatment back in 2002 and the US has the nerve to suggest that they are not entitled to compensation because they "were captured in combat" - how the hell can you equate having your identity stolen whilst teaching in a school in Zambia with being "captured in combat"?

The only reason these detainees have been released along with many others is that their imprisonment was illegal as has been ruled by the US Supreme Court. It's dead simple and I can't believe you're gullible enough to simply believe they have been released because they no longer represent a security concern because I doubt they ever did.

If they were a threat, then why haven't they even been tried by a US Military Court (which in itself would have been illegal) which was the first option proposed by the US? I'd be the first to applaud the US if they had acted legally and that detainees were tried in court and if found guilty been subjected to punishment allowed within those laws - but they weren't.

bigJoe

fcd

Well if they did continue to be thought of as a threat it would be foolish to release them, maybe that’s why they’ve been released now.

As far as identity theft goes, I’m sure you don’t know all the facts. But you can believe want ever you want to, to me it looks like there’s more to it than simple identity theft though (if it was it would have been easily cleared up).

Courts held in Guantanimo were deemed illegal and that’s fine as no one was actually tried under that system – so what’s the problem there??? If they had been legal it’s still fine, because it’s legal – isn’t democracy great J

At the end of the day, I don’t have a problem with the goings on in Cuba and you have a different view and that’s fine (by me at least) – what really matters is that our security forces keep us safe, which they seem to be doing.

AsifScoob

Big Joe,

What you are saying therefore is (as I interpret it) that these men ARE innocent, but it was ok to hold them for three years because we seriously thought they were a risk at the time - thats why we detained them for so long.

Is this right? Otherwise they should still be incarcerated?

Don't get me wrong, I am all in favour of our security forces keeping us safe, as they have done for many decades now. We should just remember that there is a heavy price for that, which lots of people have paid, through proxy wars during the Cold War, and more recently against the new 'Terror'.

With the benefit of hindsight and with all due respect to those who gave their lives, was all of that killing really necessary? Eg Korea and Vietnam, would the West have fallen under the yolk of Communism if we hadn't fought those wars?

Or was that a good way to keep everyone on their toes, defence spending high etc etc?

Just an interesting discussion point as it has relevance to todays 'War'

Asif

bigJoe

asifscoob

No I’m not saying they’re innocent of involvement, I’m saying that when they were picked up they gave those involved in their detention, extradition and further detention cause to hold them (at the time). They have now been deemed not to pose a (or pose a very low) threat to those who held them. At no time was the UK involved in their capture and detention, therefore UK law cannot (and wasn’t) be applied to them.

I’m not wanting to judge their guilt or innocence (I don’t believe anyone here has all the facts either). Just saying that in my view they were legitimately held for reasons of security (probably) and I don't have a problem with that.

After all if they’d committed crimes under UK law against the UK they’d have been charged in the UK (I hope).

As far as Vietnam is concerned, well they a communist state but they’re moving towards a free market economy and away hard line communism that they embraced after the war. They really missed out when the north won the war. Without the Korean war South Korea would be ruled in the same manner as the north – that wouldn’t be good for anyone.

With China (and more importantly the Chinese people) increasing looking to the west (and it’s ways) for their future, you could say that the wars fought for freedom and liberty take on a even greater significance as they give those living under repression something to live for (ie a future rather than just an existence).

Chris L

Guys - one warning - I'm NOT going to go through and remove all the dodgy posts here. If the slanging match continues between certain people, then the thread goes. Your choice..

TheBigMan

Slanging match? More like a few home truths.

Vaping it is probably a good idea now tbh.

AsifScoob

Sorry Big Man but vaping your posts on this thread would be the best idea.

I cant identify any home truths from you.

Asif

ChavSaz

yup he is But it is a good idea though IMHO

IanW

Just want to re-itterate this...

Paulo P

iTrader: (42)

Thinking the very same Ian