Gamston Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 Its not illegal to be the enemy so he can't be charged with the crime of being the enemy, but it is legal to imprison the enemy until the end of hostilities, and hostilities haven't ended. People seem to forget that hostilities are on going which is one of the reasons this person will have been held for such a long time . As long ago as 2006 the Saudi Arabia Government requested Saudi citizens held at Guantanamo to be handed over to their own custody which resulted in over 100 being moved to Saudi Arabia . Why wasn't Shaker Aamer handed over to the Saudi's in 2007 or now ? Britain should never have got involved in his case because Saudi Arabia were already talking to the Americans about their own citizens held in Guantanamo . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 People seem to forget that hostilities are on going which is one of the reasons this person will have been held for such a long time . As long ago as 2006 the Saudi Arabia Government requested Saudi citizens held at Guantanamo to be handed over to their own custody which resulted in over 100 being moved to Saudi Arabia . Why wasn't Shaker Aamer handed over to the Saudi's in 2007 or now ? Britain should never have got involved in his case because Saudi Arabia were already talking to the Americans about their own citizens held in Guantanamo . If hostilities are still going on, why is he being let out? If anything things are getting worse again with the Taliban retaking kunduz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 If hostilities are still going on, why is he being let out? If anything things are getting worse again with the Taliban retaking kunduz. He was never held as a POW as he a) didn't meet the criteria for being a POW and b) that would mean Geneva Convention would apply which for some reason the US didn't seem to keen on working to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandy18 Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 He was never held as a POW as he a) didn't meet the criteria for being a POW and b) that would mean Geneva Convention would apply which for some reason the US didn't seem to keen on working to. It was a war, international armed conflict. He was detained because of the war. He was described as an enemy combatant. The only US soldier captured and imprisoned by the Taliban was described as a POW and was released when they did an exchange of POW's. He definitely falls within the definition of POW or detainee and both are protected under international humanitarian law. The third Geneva Convention provides a wide range of protection for prisoners of war. It defines their rights and sets down detailed rules for their treatment and eventual release. International humanitarian law (IHL) also protects other persons deprived of liberty as a result of armed conflict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 It was a war, international armed conflict. He was detained because of the war. He was described as an enemy combatant. The only US soldier captured and imprisoned by the Taliban was described as a POW and was released when they did an exchange of POW's. He definitely falls within the definition of POW or detainee and both are protected under international humanitarian law. The third Geneva Convention provides a wide range of protection for prisoners of war. It defines their rights and sets down detailed rules for their treatment and eventual release. International humanitarian law (IHL) also protects other persons deprived of liberty as a result of armed conflict. Your last sentence is correct. He was never held under GC though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandy18 Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 Your last sentence is correct. He was never held under GC though. Still doesn't change the fact that he was a prisoner of war. It was a war, he was classified as the enemy and he was captured and imprisoned because of the war. It isn't a crime to be the enemy so he can't be charged as a criminal, but the enemy can be detained indefinitely without charge whilst hostilities continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 Still doesn't change the fact that he was a prisoner of war. It was a war, he was classified as the enemy and he was captured and imprisoned because of the war. It isn't a crime to be the enemy so he can't be charged as a criminal, but the enemy can be detained indefinitely without charge whilst hostilities continue. So the US were committing war crimes by not holding him in compliance with the Geneva convention then. In the United States the phrase "enemy combatant" was used after the September 11 attacks by the George W. Bush administration to include an alleged member of al Qaeda or the Taliban being held in detention by the U.S. government as part of the war on terror. In this sense, "enemy combatant" actually refers to persons the United States regards as unlawful combatants, a category of persons who do not qualify for prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Conventions. However, unlike unlawful combatants who qualify for some protections under the Fourth Geneva Convention, enemy combatants, under the Bush administration, were not covered by the Geneva Convention. Thus, the term "enemy combatant" has to be read in context to determine whether it means any combatant belonging to an enemy state or non-state actor, whether lawful or unlawful, or if it means an alleged member of al Qaeda or of the Taliban being detained as an unlawful combatant by the United States. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamston Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 If hostilities are still going on, why is he being let out? If anything things are getting worse again with the Taliban retaking kunduz. I agree things are getting much worse , it's a worry to me that these people have been released early from Guantanamo while this war is still going on . We only have to look at the Charlie Hebdo massacre early this year in France to know that it is dangerous to release individuals connected with Muslim terrorism from captivity . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 I agree things are getting much worse , it's a worry to me that these people have been released early from Guantanamo while this war is still going on . We only have to look at the Charlie Hebdo massacre early this year in France to know that it is dangerous to release individuals connected with Muslim terrorism from captivity . If there is EVIDENCE that they are muslim terrorists then try them in a court and convict and lock them away for the rest of their lives. No sympathy here for anyone who willing massacres civilians. But we must have evidence otherwise we can just hold anyone who looks a bit dodgy and that isn't acceptable. If there is no evidence why isn't there? Perhaps they aren't guilty? It's funny how some of the people trying to defend Lord Britten (not you gamston) because there's no evidence are the same ones on here supporting locking people up with no charge because there's no evidence to charge them. Ironic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Stone Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 If there is EVIDENCE that they are muslim terrorists then try them in a court and convict and lock them away for the rest of their lives. No sympathy here for anyone who willing massacres civilians. But we must have evidence otherwise we can just hold anyone who looks a bit dodgy and that isn't acceptable. If there is no evidence why isn't there? Perhaps they aren't guilty? It's funny how some of the people trying to defend Lord Britten (not you gamston) because there's no evidence are the same ones on here supporting locking people up with no charge because there's no evidence to charge them. Ironic. So He was in Afghanistan travelling on a false passport. He claimed to be working for a none existent charity. When detained he claimed that the Taleban leader he was with was giving him directions to Primark. VC material surely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts