sandy18 Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 You clearly are too lazy to have read the thread otherwise you will see the same questions have been answered numerous times. 1.He's not British. This is a red herring because it doesnt matter for his claim. the reason it involves britain is becayse he claims he has been tortured and illegally imprisoned with the implicit and direct assistance of the UK government. he is claiming ccompensation for the UKs involvement in this, even though the principle repsonsibility is the US. In particuar he claims MI5 tortured him. If the Britsh government does wrong against people and breaks its own laws, then anyone has a right to seek redress and o to the courts to claim the govt has broken the law against them. This is why its against the UK govt and not Saudi Arabia, becayse SA werent the ones who allegedly tortured him. 2. Proof. To make any case he has to prove his claim. There are 2 potential claims. i) a criminal prosecution and the evidence for that is being reviewed by the DPP as he was interviewed further by the police. ii) A claim against the UK govt for compensation due to the torture carried out oh him by MI5. If there is no proof then the UK govt will rightly not pay. If the govt settles, then it will be because they are persuaded by his evidence or already know they are guilty and do not wish it to go to trial. The easy way to avoid this is not to go round torturing people or not to get caught or not to sign agreements saying you are against torture. ---------- Post added 02-11-2015 at 10:59 ---------- No, but he is claiming they were complicit with his rendition, continued incarceration and torture. ---------- Post added 02-11-2015 at 11:06 ---------- UK govt still classify him as Britsih resident, byt whether he was bristish or not is irrelevant for whether the govt has broken the law by torturing him. The investigation was evidence given whilst he was a prisoner and severe reporting restrictions were imposed by the US. He's now free and the police have interviewed him again. The DPP is reviewing the evidence , just as the government lawyers will review the evidence for his compensation claim. If the case is unproven then nothing will come of it and he will get nothing. Rightly so. If the government settle then it will be on the basis that they believe/know he has a case and do not wnat the details of their role in his torture being heard in open court. I disagree, the government will probably way up the cost of a court hearing and the cost of paying him some compensation, the hearing will be more expensive so they will probably settle out of court for an undisclosed amount in order to save tax payer money, but even if it went to court and no proof was found to support his claim there are people that will still believe him and condemn the British government. Its a no win situation for the UK so it would be much better to wash out hands of him and send him back to his country of birth or the country from which he was captured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 To make any case he has to prove his claim. There are 2 potential claims. i) a criminal prosecution and the evidence for that is being reviewed by the DPP as he was interviewed further by the police. ii) A claim against the UK govt for compensation due to the torture carried out oh him by MI5. If there is no proof then the UK govt will rightly not pay. If the govt settles, then it will be because they are persuaded by his evidence or already know they are guilty and do not wish it to go to trial. Except there has been no judicial oversight in any of the cases where the UK government has paid out compensation to those returning from guantanamo bay. They were all paid hush money with non-disclosure agreements and no admittance of liability. No lessons learnt, no guilty parties punished. The public has effectively had to pay for the privilege of being kept in the dark about the conduct of our government (and the secret services) and the risk posed by former guantanamo bay detainees. I certainly would not put it past our government to make payments to people they know are Islamic extremists just to keep their own illegal behaviour under wraps. We already know that at least one of those paid compensation has gone off to join IS, which leads me to question whether our secret services are rubbish at their job or have been forced to do a deal with the enemy to hid their own wrong doings? I think it all stinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 I disagree, the government will probably way up the cost of a court hearing and the cost of paying him some compensation, the hearing will be more expensive so they will probably settle out of court for an undisclosed amount in order to save tax payer money, but even if it went to court and no proof was found to support his claim there are people that will still believe him and condemn the British government. Its a no win situation for the UK so it would be much better to wash out hands of him and send him back to his country of birth or the country from which he was captured. Its a high profile case. If there is no proof torture has taken place then its in their interest to have that in the public domain and heard in open court. Up to them whether they revoke his residency, but then they would have another claim made against them as his family is here. ---------- Post added 02-11-2015 at 12:04 ---------- Except there has been no judicial oversight in any of the cases where the UK government has paid out compensation to those returning from guantanamo bay. They were all paid hush money with non-disclosure agreements and no admittance of liability. No lessons learnt, no guilty parties punished. The public has effectively had to pay for the privilege of being kept in the dark about the conduct of our government (and the secret services) and the risk posed by former guantanamo bay detainees. I certainly would not put it past our government to make payments to people they know are Islamic extremists just to keep their own illegal behaviour under wraps. We already know that at least one of those paid compensation has gone off to join IS, which leads me to question whether our secret services are rubbish at their job or have been forced to do a deal with the enemy to hid their own wrong doings? I think it all stinks. Its a fair point about doing deals to keep the activities of the secret service out of the public domain, its then just an extra expense. They would have fewer claims if they didnt get caught or desisted from illegal activities they have to cover up and pay off. It may just be part of the way the secruity services operate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 Was the British government involved in his original incarceration? If so, then yes we should pay compensation in the same way any person who is wrongly prisoned is compensated. If not and the US government acted alone then why are we paying the compo? Surely we could be supporting him claim off the US government instead? ---------- Post added 02-11-2015 at 13:49 ---------- Except there has been no judicial oversight in any of the cases where the UK government has paid out compensation to those returning from guantanamo bay. They were all paid hush money with non-disclosure agreements and no admittance of liability. No lessons learnt, no guilty parties punished. The public has effectively had to pay for the privilege of being kept in the dark about the conduct of our government (and the secret services) and the risk posed by former guantanamo bay detainees. I certainly would not put it past our government to make payments to people they know are Islamic extremists just to keep their own illegal behaviour under wraps. We already know that at least one of those paid compensation has gone off to join IS, which leads me to question whether our secret services are rubbish at their job or have been forced to do a deal with the enemy to hid their own wrong doings? I think it all stinks. Blimey Zamo, we agree For an organisation who are supposedly charged with our security and have unheralded access to information about ours lives they do appear to be so incompetent at times you have to wonder whether it's intentional? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandy18 Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 Except there has been no judicial oversight in any of the cases where the UK government has paid out compensation to those returning from guantanamo bay. They were all paid hush money with non-disclosure agreements and no admittance of liability. No lessons learnt, no guilty parties punished. The public has effectively had to pay for the privilege of being kept in the dark about the conduct of our government (and the secret services) and the risk posed by former guantanamo bay detainees. I certainly would not put it past our government to make payments to people they know are Islamic extremists just to keep their own illegal behaviour under wraps. We already know that at least one of those paid compensation has gone off to join IS, which leads me to question whether our secret services are rubbish at their job or have been forced to do a deal with the enemy to hid their own wrong doings? I think it all stinks. Unless they do a very good job and do deals with the enemy to appease the liberal lefties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penistone999 Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 Mr Aamer isn't and wasn't a POW. ---------- Post added 02-11-2015 at 07:01 ---------- Easy. He was locked up without trial for thirteen years. ---------- Post added 02-11-2015 at 07:03 ---------- He's resident here and has a British wife and children. Thats of no relevance what so ever. He is NOT a british citizen . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Stone Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 (edited) 1.He's not British. This is a red herring because it doesnt matter for his claim. the reason it involves britain is becayse he claims he has been tortured and illegally imprisoned with the implicit and direct assistance of the UK government. he is claiming ccompensation for the UKs involvement in this, even though the principle repsonsibility is the US. In particuar he claims MI5 tortured him.? And of course you believe the word of someone travelling on a false passport claiming to be working for a fictitious charity. Sure saw you coming. ---------- Post added 02-11-2015 at 17:50 ---------- Thats of no relevance what so ever. He is NOT a british citizen . Well said he should be back in Saudi Arabia. ---------- Post added 02-11-2015 at 17:52 ---------- A: he recently was classed as the last "brit" to leave Guantamano bay Who by, it is not true. ---------- Post added 02-11-2015 at 17:53 ---------- Its the taxpayers money thats enraging people not the fact the UK govt is participating in torture. Where is the proof. ---------- Post added 02-11-2015 at 17:54 ---------- Completely immaterial as to claim he was tortured by MI5 agents. In 13 years they never charged him or provided any evidence. Let the courts decide whether theres any merit in his claim. Yes but Saudi courts not UK. ---------- Post added 02-11-2015 at 17:58 ---------- Tommy Robinson ex EDL leader got done for travelling on a false passport didn't he? = http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25862838 I don't remember too many EDL supporters making such a big deal about it on here either. Was Tommy Robinson caught in a war zone with a false passport claiming to work for a bogus charity. Difference between you and me is that I don't believe that the moon is made of green cheese. ---------- Post added 02-11-2015 at 17:59 ---------- He's resident here and has a British wife and children. My uncle Eric was a shunter does that make me an engine driver? It is still nothing to do with the UK. Edited November 2, 2015 by James Stone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 (edited) Unless they do a very good job and do deals with the enemy to appease the liberal lefties. Are you for real? The Tories don't think about us liberal lefties for a single moment... ---------- Post added 02-11-2015 at 18:01 ---------- It is still nothing to do with the UK. It does if they were complicit in holding a man prisoner with no charges brought against him for 13 years. Are you seriously fine for someone to be held with no charges brought against them indefinitely? Only for terrorists? Why? What makes a terrorist different to a murderer exactly? If there was evidence he was planning a murder, then try him for such. Evidence of plotting a bomb? Try him for that. But there clearly wasn't otherwise he would have been charged wouldn't he? Edited November 2, 2015 by sgtkate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Stone Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 Are you for real? The Tories don't think about us liberal lefties for a single moment... ---------- Post added 02-11-2015 at 18:01 ---------- It does if they were complicit in holding a man prisoner with no charges brought against him for 13 years. Are you seriously fine for someone to be held with no charges brought against them indefinitely? Only for terrorists? Why? What makes a terrorist different to a murderer exactly? It was nothing to do with the UK. The US military arrested him and held him there is no proof regarding what the UK did or did not do. The man is not British therefore it is a Saudi problem not ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 It was nothing to do with the UK. The US military arrested him and held him there is no proof regarding what the UK did or did not do. The man is not British therefore it is a Saudi problem not ours. Then the compensation claim will be thrown out. If it's not you have to wonder why don't you? Of perhaps you are so full of media fuelled hate that you won't bother to even think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts