sandy18 Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 Where is your evidence that he was tortured by MI5 or anyone from Britain ? He doesn't have any and despite there being a three year investigation which found no proof of torture, he keeps saying there was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamston Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 Its not legal to charge enemy POW's, you simply lock them away until hostilities stop, then you free them, he is lucky to be freed early. I agree he's very lucky to be free because hostilities are still on going . German's who were interned in Britain during World War 2 were only freed after the war was over . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shanes teeth Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 I hope you can prove what you aleged here otherwise you may find yourself in court defending a libel writ. A writ served by who? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scania Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 Thirteen years. No - one's been able to come up with a single charge. What does that suggest to you? Probably that he wasn't going to stand up and admit to any involvement with recruiting for al Qaeda. Funnily enough Shaker Aamer is an old pal of Moazzam Begg who is overjoyed at his mates release. Did he ever get his passport back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slordy71 Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 I hope you can prove what you aleged here otherwise you may find yourself in court defending a libel writ. another keyboard warrior banging the rite on drum:roll::roll: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Margarita Ma Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 A writ served by who? Read the quote and you will see who. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shanes teeth Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 Read the quote and you will see who. I have and I don't see Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 He isn't British, he wasn't captured or detained by the British, there is no evidence he was tortured by the British, and British law applies to people in Britain not foreigners using false passports in Afghanistan. He isnt British we all agree he's a British resident with a British family. It doesnt matter too much consdiering the nature of his case. His allegations are that he was tortured by agents from MI5 on several occasions, something the UK has signed up specifically not to do and is illegal. The DPP is currently looking at that evidence and the courts will look at his claim for compensation. If none of these things happened and no laws were broken then he wont get anything and he will lose. British law applies to the government and where it breaks its own laws through the commission of torture against citizens of any nation then it remains open for the govt to be held to account. At least Lordy is honest and he doesnt mind a bit of rule bending and torture here and there. Its quite easy if the UK wants to torture people then it should abandon the international agreements its signed up to which cover torture, then it wont have broken any laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Margarita Ma Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 I have and I don't see It was alleged that the person this thread is all about was supporting the terrorists in Afghanistan. Some people might think that was a libellous statement if it was made about them. To sue for libel in the case of a defamation would be quite reasonable would it not. I am sure Ron Jeremy would think about suing if someone accused him of something that affected his good name. I don't have an opinion one way or the other about what Shakir Aamer was doing in Afghanistan. I like to see evidence before making up my mind about anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shanes teeth Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 It was alleged that the person this thread is all about was supporting the terrorists in Afghanistan. Some people might think that was a libellous statement if it was made about them. To sue for libel in the case of a defamation would be quite reasonable would it not. I am sure Ron Jeremy would think about suing if someone accused him of something that affected his good name. I don't have an opinion one way or the other about what Shakir Aamer was doing in Afghanistan. I like to see evidence before making up my mind about anything. As do l,but I couldn'see anything in Ron Jeremy's post that you quoted about anyone who would have grounds to sue him. All I saw was someone admiting committing atrocities . As an apparent innocent I do believe that Aamer should at least have the right to put forward his case for compensation just as you or I would. Wether he will be paid compensation before being allowed to put that case remains to be seen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts